No Growth or All Growth?

Is that Tom Bradley we hear being openly critical of development projects? Yes, indeed--and the seeming new direction is most welcome.

In the case of the giant Porter Ranch development, the mayor tried to impose changes that would ease the plan’s traffic impact on the northwest San Fernando Valley. Next, Bradley urged prosecution of a lawsuit against a giant commercial project at the Santa Monica Airport because of its effect on West Los Angeles.

The idea of Los Angeles’ normally pro-development mayor attacking growth was unusual enough to fuel speculation about his motives. The easy conclusion is that Bradley wants to divert attention from his own political troubles. The doubting leader of one homeowners’ group said that Bradley was trying to project a good-guy image, but still was not really dealing with growth. Indeed, Bradley ultimately compromised on Porter Ranch without any major effect on its impact. And he has remained silent about other huge projects a whole lot closer to the central city than Santa Monica: the Farmers Market, for example, or sprawling new office projects just across the Harbor Freeway from downtown.

And his appearance at a press conference with New York developer Donald Trump suggested to skeptics that the mayor remains too comfortable with grandiose construction programs. Still, Trump’s project at the Ambassador Hotel site--whatever it may turn out to be--deserves to be judged on its merits, not prejudged on the basis of the developer’s rather overblown personality. And the fact that a successful developer is attracted to building in this area is scarcely the worst thing that has ever happened to Los Angeles. So Bradley was right to welcome Trump now; there’ll be plenty of time later to ask the hard questions.

Whatever the mayor’s motive in fashioning his new skepticism, however, it is refreshing to have his leadership in the direction of better growth management. For his actions on the two recent projects are not totally isolated. The mayor has promoted downtown traffic management plans, including a controversial proposal to keep big trucks off the city streets during rush hours. He is working to redirect the mandate of the Community Redevelopment Agency from just building more skyscrapers to providing low-cost housing, child care and other services. And Bradley’s recent appointments to key positions indicate sensitivity to the environment.

Still, after decades of talk about the need for better planning, Los Angeles lacks development guidelines that would provide a sense of where the city is going over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Ad hoc decisions as projects come along will not do. Los Angeles needs a framework for growth that provides investors with some assurance of the function and scale of projects that will be approved, or found unacceptable. The city needs a plan that is consistent and fair, but flexible enough to encourage innovation and imagination. Los Angeles needs development that emphasizes livability and social needs as much as anything else.

Still, as the Santa Monica project illustrates, Los Angeles is not fully in control of its destiny. Nor, for that matter, are the other 85 cities in Los Angeles County, or our neighboring counties. The mayor’s own LA 2000 project report of a year ago made the point once again--quite effectively--that many of the city’s problems are regional and can only be solved through regionwide cooperation. Bradley may be politically wounded, but he still can be an effective leader and conciliator. The critical issues of citywide and regional growth management need just that sort of leadership.