I don't think it's slimy. Saying "a grocery store opened in the low-income neighborhood and demand was induced for fresh vegetables", if the people there actual

I don't think it's slimy. Saying "a grocery store opened in the low-income neighborhood and demand was induced for fresh vegetables", if the people there actually are now purchasing fresh vegetables at an increased rate, is accurate and probably correct. If you view that as a "slimy" thing to say, then that exists as a negative connotation on the word "induced" for you, an experience which may not be what others experience. The basic idea of "if you build it, they will come" is the same as "induced demand", but with different words. "Induced demand" though has been used lately though when you need to say: No, you can't just 'more infrastructure' your way out of a problem of high utilization, since utilization will probably rise to meet new availability. You may reply with "well then we'll build more when we get there", but specifically related to roads, that leads to it's own set of problems like "we will run out of space to realistically build more" and "building more has massive adverse effects" and "building more will cost more than it's worth". Those downsides around building roads can be ignored in the name of increased convenience or because in specific cases the downsides may not apply as much. But it doesn't make the downsides go away. And ultimately, the downsides will exist because induced demand is real; if you build it they will come (even if you'd prefer they not).