Controlling Development

Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach) wasn’t happy with the rejection of Measure A by Newport Beach voters. He thought the compromise plan worked out by the city and the Irvine Co. for the development of Newport Center should have been approved. So did we.

But we part company with Ferguson in his official reaction to that election. He said he plans to introduce legislation that would limit the control that a community’s residents and local government can exert on growth and land development.

Ferguson contends that anti-growth forces seeking to block development along the Orange County coast are depriving potential new residents of a standard of living to which they are entitled.

Communities must accept their fair share of new housing. And growth. There is little dispute about that. It is Ferguson’s approach to reaching that goal, however, that is troubling.

This would be Ferguson’s second attempt to restrict local control. Earlier this year he introduced a bill that would have blocked any local growth-control ordinance unless it could be proven in court that government would be unable to provide public services to the area being developed. The measure failed.

There’s a fine line to be drawn between residents accepting regional growth and housing within their communities and suspending the right of residents through local government to determine how--and how much--those communities will grow.

It’s a dilemma that seems to cause as many problems for conservatives like Ferguson as it does for environmentalists who lobby for more growth control.

For instance, the California Coastal Commission Act, approved by voters through state Proposition 20 in 1972, shifted control of shoreline development from local agencies to the state. Ferguson has steadfastly opposed the law. Environmentalists endorse it. Now Ferguson wants the state, not local agencies, to have the final word on the extent that growth is regulated.

We once heard a developer say that given his choice he would much prefer state or federal control rather than having to deal with a city council or the county Board of Supervisors. His reasoning was clear. Local residents can exert the most influence on decision-making bodies that are closest to home. It’s easier for residents to fight the battle in Newport Beach or Santa Ana than in Sacramento or Washington.

In some cases involving issues of regional impact, the courts have limited the power of local government to restrict growth. That’s better than transferring home rule to Sacramento and making the state Legislature everyone’s city council.