Sprawl has long been a buzzword in Maine. It has been used to defeat a forestry referendum and to stop development projects. But, for all the talk about sprawl, little was done to stop it. That’s why it is encouraging that Gov. John Baldacci is investigating ways to stop development from spreading into formerly rural areas, and he’s using the most persuasive argument possible -economics.

Though the cost of sprawl has been known for a long time, not enough people have understood how expensive it has become. But, as Gov. Baldacci pointed out while speaking to GrowSmart Maine earlier this week, the state spends about $50 million a year to expand public infrastructure because of sprawl. New roads, schools and sewer lines are being built while city centers decay.

Baldacci could also add public health to the list of reasons why sprawl needs to be reined in.

A recent survey by the American Planning Association found that elected officials are slowly coming to see the relationship between community planning and the physical activity levels of local residents. It is no surprise that communities built to accommodate Americans’ love of their cars has resulted in towns and developments with no sidewalks, no place to ride a bike and little usable open space. Hence, an increase in obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and other problems that could be eased by regular exercise. As a result of its study, the APA is now touting the connection between community design and public health.

After acknowledging that sprawl is a reality in Maine (for those who doubt it is happening in this part of the state, look at the increased traffic on Route 15 north of Bangor or the road building occurring in towns south of the city), comes the hard work of changing behavior. Gov. Baldacci rightly notes that people have the right to live wherever they chose. But, he adds, they should pay for that choice. In other words, public dollars should not be spent to support schools, power lines and roads for people who choose to live away from existing population centers. It is a concept that makes sense but it is hard to implement.

In a concrete example of how this might work, residents of the town of Scarborough recently rejected a proposal for a “smart growth development” that sought to combine residential and commercial buildings in a neighborhood that encouraged walking. Because of that decision, state agencies, including the Department of Transportation, may withdraw funds for projects in the southern Maine town. Rather than penalizing bad behavior, the state is also looking for ways to reward good behavior by encouraging regional cooperation and consolidation of services. School districts, emergency services and other municipal and county agencies for example, could receive more state funding for projects if they share staffs and services, ultimately saving local and state taxpayer money.

Slowing sprawl makes sense for many reasons, but in an age of taxpayer ire at high municipal and state taxes, emphasizing – and ultimately charging – the costs of living far out of town may be the best tool yet.