Give Davidson credit for putting money behind its commitment to resist rampant sprawl and try to retain some of its rural nature and quality of life. The small college town in north Mecklenburg County is prepared to open its wallet to preserve open space.

Davidson officials’ weekend pledge to spend $10 million to buy land, conservation easements and development rights on rural areas outside the town limits isn’t unprecedented in the state. In 1999, Gastonia bought 400 acres on Mountain Island Lake for $9.4 million, to protect its water supply and to provide an environmental buffer against development. Last year, Cary agreed to spend $12.5 million for an environmental buffer for its water supply, Jordan Lake.

But Davidson’s initiative is different for two reasons. It isn’t directly connected to a practical environmental problem such as preserving the water supply, or buying up land in a troublesome floodplain. It’s a substantial commitment to that somewhat hazy, hard-to-define concept we call quality of life — something we too often can identify only after it is lost.

Secondly, considering the town’s population of only 6,000, that $10 million represents a quantum leap in community commitment to preserving the environment. And that, of course, raises the obvious question: How will they pay for it? Davidson officials believe they can finance the plan through a combination of state and federal grants, loans and probably a modest tax increase. Mayor Randall Kincaid also believes some property owners and developers may donate land that isn’t suitable for building but has natural beauty or value as a buffer.

It’s no coincidence that this initiative parallels a lawsuit that landowners and developers have filed, seeking to overturn Davidson’s moratorium on development as it hurries to complete an Open Space Plan to manage growth in the area, which is affected by the popularity of nearby Lake Norman as well as the sprawl washing up from Charlotte.

The $10 million pledge shows that town officials are aware of the significant financial interests at stake for property owners — that they’re willing to write checks as well as zoning regulations. It meets one of landowners’ frequent objections to growth controls — that such restrictions deprive them of their right to profit from their property.

Davidson officials have taken a bold — perhaps politically risky — approach to reining in rampant growth while recognizing private property rights. Some developers — and taxpayers — may argue that municipalities shouldn’t meddle in the real estate market at all. But it seems a lot smarter to spend money on land than on lawsuits.