In the 60s and the 70s this was referred to as "growth." The babyboomers who raced away from the cities of America to create suburbs were considered part of the "new America."

This was seen as a good thing.

Now that those same people are grandparents, and their grandchildren are moving the same distance away from them (to the outer suburbs, exurbs or semirural America)
this is bad thing.

The term "urban sprawl" is negative, almost by definition. It implies unecessary waste and pollution. It is associated with urban decay, although I am not sure which came first. (If the decay came first doesn't that explain the sprawl leaving to get away from the decay?).

If you live in a very clean, safe (see expensive) part of a city or an exclusive suburb you would think: "Why move?"

So, if you live in Hoffman Estates, IL or Reston, VA. etc. I can understand why you do not think that moving out to the country makes much sense.

For the rest of us who want to have a place to live that matches their income and also want the freedom to pick where we want to live maybe we would like the same freedom the previous generations have had.

If urban sprawl was renamed:

"forcing young people to live in older, decaying, lower income suburbs because it's near my nice neighborhood"

I imagine it would be a less popular political topic.