No Way to Build a Community

We invite you to read arguments for and against the development of Ahmanson Ranch, a parcel of rolling grasslands and oaks where Ventura County meets Los Angeles County, on today’s Valley Perspective page opposite. But whether you come away believing that the project should go forward or be stopped, we ask you to contemplate a larger question: Is there a better way to do this? Can such time-consuming, divisive battles be avoided?

Environmentalists, homeowner groups and leaders of the surrounding communities continue to attack the planned development with a fury undiminished by the seven years since Ventura County approved the project. The developer, Ahmanson Land Co., and its parent company, Washington Mutual Inc., continue to defend the project with a weary patience. Other groups continue to choose sides, with the Los Angeles City Council last week joining the chorus demanding a new environmental impact report and the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. supporting the development as a balance between accommodating growth and preserving open space.

One of the project’s problems is its location in the southeastern corner of Ventura County. The development’s property tax revenues would flow into Ventura County; its traffic--and just how much traffic that would be is in dispute--into Los Angeles County.

Shoving development up against a county line invites a fight that could have been avoided by cooperation--now that’s a concept--and a planning system that allows for regional input. That’s one solution for future projects. For this project, assuming it goes forward, the city of Los Angeles would be wise to follow VICA’s advice and establish a restricted fund to guarantee that specified fees from the development would be devoted to the designated traffic improvements and not disappear into the general fund.

It’s harder to imagine even a future solution to the argument over open space. In the case of Ahmanson Ranch, it’s not just a matter of one side seeing the glass as half empty and the other as half full. Half the time they don’t even seem to be looking at the same glass.

The environmentalists and homeowner groups would have you believe that this is the worst development ever proposed for the Southland and that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. We disagree. The development’s clustered housing, attention to pedestrians and generous parklands are an innovative design for Southern California, one that has garnered awards from the Building Industry Assn. and the American Planning Assn.

The developer would have you believe that this city in the rolling hills would actually be good for the environment. Although the planned development includes an impressive acquisition of open space--one that its opponents, again, seem unwilling to acknowledge--it would be built on treasured oak and grassland habitat. The developer has set up an institute to study native grasses but, however well-intentioned, that wouldn’t take the place of the actual grasslands that would be destroyed for golf courses. That’s a little like taking all the trees and putting them in a tree museum.

Open space is vital to a region as built up as this one, yet we must also realistically balance this with the need to accommodate growth. One way to help preserve what open space remains is to encourage in-fill in urban areas. It is, after all, ironic that village-like developments like Ahmanson mimic the design of city centers, not bedroom suburbs; why not build in the city itself?

At least that would give home buyers more options. But there would still be those who wanted the same wide-open spaces and green places that the Ahmanson Ranch opponents are fighting to defend--and that would be a big attraction to future Ahmanson Ranch home buyers. You’ll also find not-in-my-backyard opponents to development in urban centers, the same as you do in the suburbs. No one guarantees an easy answer--just tough questions. And tougher choices.