Do you mean like "Sprawl is demonstrably a bad thing"?

Is it extreme to call you out on your construct of somehow implementing "policies no longer subsidizing sprawl" when your construct is based on your vision that all money spent on services to all locations that in your opinion are "sprawl" (or "nowhere") is subsidizing sprawl and also that through some mysterious (but allegedly democratic) policy/fiat this so-called sprawl subsidization can be made to "no longer happen"?