EDITORIAL GROWTH HYPOCRISY NEWHALL AND AHMANSON ARE SYMPTOMS OF A GREATER PROBLEM.

REMEMBER those sage advocates of prudent planning who serve on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors? You know, the politicians who tirelessly worry about the impact of new developments on traffic, the environment and local quality of life?

That's right, the folks who have gone to court to block the 3,500-home Ahmanson Ranch development in Ventura County.

They're also the folks who just approved Newhall Ranch, a development nearly six times the size of Ahmanson in the Santa Clarita Valley.

So much for all that prudent planning and tireless worrying.

Like Ahmanson, Newhall would impose a massive burden on local traffic. Developers insist no more than 10 percent of the community's 60,000 residents would commute to Los Angeles for work - an estimate nobody takes very seriously.

But even if that were accurate, the added traffic would present too great a strain for the already gridlocked freeways linking the Santa Clarita Valley, San Fernando Valley and the rest of Los Angeles.

Like Ahmanson, Newhall is beset with questions regarding environmental impact. There's even doubt the regional water supply is sufficient to meet the needs of 20,885 new homes.

And like Ahmanson, Newhall is regarded as further ``sprawl'' that has raised plenty of concern among residents of neighboring communities.

As Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, the lone dissenter in the board's 4-1 vote remarked, ``This is not smart growth. It is dumb with a capital D.''

But unlike Ahmanson, Newhall falls within Los Angeles County, meaning it will generate tax revenues for L.A.'s ravenous supervisors to spend. That's why the supes can sign on to Newhall while getting on their moral high horses in opposition to Ahmanson.

It's a win-win kind of politicking.

Approving developments in your own jurisdiction ensures a hearty supply of campaign contributions from the developers. Opposing them elsewhere guarantees the support of the anti-growth zealots and their celebrity spokesmen.

The hypocrisy isn't limited to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The board's counterpart in Ventura has backed Ahmanson while suing to block Newhall.

The city of Los Angeles, which stands to profit from neither development, has opposed both. But when it comes to approving problematic developments within city limits, all standards of right reason and commonsense go out the window.

The result is the worst possible outcome: Southern California still gets ill-considered and insufficiently planned developments but at an added cost caused by all the litigating and palm-greasing.

In light of a booming population, there's an undeniable need for new housing in Southern California, as well as new business sites, roads and freeways. But superseding all these is the need for a coherent regional plan for long-term growth, one that balances competing interests and ensures that infrastructure can keep up with development.

What Southern California desperately needs is a regional summit of elected officials of cities and counties on long-term growth, one that sets mutual priorities for local governments and ultimately codifies those priorities into law. Nothing less will solve the region's impending crisis.

It's time for local governments to stop suing and betraying each other and to start working together for the good of the people and the future of Southern California.