A Collision of Philosophies

As expected, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors last week gave final approval to Newhall Ranch--the massive housing project sandwiched between Santa Clarita and the Ventura County line. Although trimmed from 26,000 homes to just under 22,000, the project drew scorn from environmentalists and some Ventura County politicians who argued that it will destroy the Santa Clara River. Within hours of the supervisors’ vote, opponents announced plans to block the project in court.

Oddly enough, as two Ventura County supervisors were pleading their case in downtown Los Angeles, three of their colleagues were in Ventura approving plans to move ahead with the development of Ahmanson Ranch--a project fiercely opposed by many in Los Angeles County. So what gives?

Like Newhall Ranch, Ahmanson Ranch sits tucked against the county line and at once represents the best and worst of land-use planning as it is practiced in Southern California. How one feels about either project depends in large part on which side of that line one lives. In isolation, each project embodies the best ideas in modern planning. Homes are clustered in communities, with retail shops, affordable housing and parkland sprinkled throughout. To potential buyers, Newhall and Ahmanson promise to be pleasant places to live and perhaps work.

But the problem, as the adage goes, is location, location, location. Cities and counties across Southern California routinely shove development to their borders in an effort to maximize goodies such as sales and property tax revenues and minimize negative side effects such as traffic. For instance, all of the traffic from Ahmanson Ranch will dump into Los Angeles County--even though all the property and sales taxes from the project will flow to Ventura County. Likewise, Los Angeles County schools and parks agencies will reap enormous benefits from Newhall Ranch--but if the project causes flooding or drought along the Santa Clara River, most of that will be felt in Ventura County.

So neither Los Angeles nor Ventura county can truly claim the high road in this fight. Although Tuesday’s showdown was cast as a collision of two planning philosophies, it was little more than business as usual. True, Los Angeles has a long history of accommodating growth. True, too, that Ventura County prefers to manage it more closely, as demonstrated last month by the approval of the restrictive Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources (SOAR) initiatives. In each case, though, county officials sought to capture the maximum amount of revenue while pushing the problems across the county line.

Because no formal mechanism encourages--or even allows--cooperation between counties, the courts ultimately decide big projects. They did it with Ahmanson and they will most likely do it with Newhall.

Growth happens. Accommodating it and wisely managing it is the trick. Decisions made in Los Angeles affect residents in Ventura County--and vice versa. But until elected officials across Southern California understand and respond to that simple equation, civic boundaries will forever be legal battle zones.