EDITORIAL PLANNING FOR GROWTH.

ALTHOUGH most of California's public officials have long sought to ignore the issues of growth and development, some Democratic legislators have put forth proposals that raise important questions - even if they're not providing very good answers.

But it's a start on a much-needed debate. After decades of neglect, any discussion of coherent planning for growth is a positive step.

The lawmakers, led by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, propose a package of bills that advances the concept of urban infill - densifying existing areas around established transit lines. The premise is that grouping people closely together in urban centers will reduce the need for commutes and spur greater reliance on mass transit.

It's a great idea, in theory, and it even could be a good idea in application. But efforts we've seen at urban infill in Los Angeles don't leave much reason for optimism.

More often than not, urban infill seems to mean blighting older residential neighborhoods with tenements. And because local leaders tend to approve densification projects without providing adequate infrastructure upgrades, the result is usually not greater use of mass transit, but even more road congestion.

Before Sacramento imposes its vision of urban infill on the state, key safeguards would need to be put in place. Infill areas would need to be chosen wisely, on sound criteria - and not simply at the behest of well-connected developers - while impact must be properly mitigated. Affordable-housing projects must be geared toward encouraging ownership and giving people a stake in their community, not slummification.

And, of course, neighbors must have a voice in planning new developments that will directly affect their quality of life.

But even to the extent that urban infill can be part of the state's long-term growth plan, it must not be all of it. Many Democrats' reflexive hatred for ``sprawl'' denies the fact that, for the vast majority of Californians, the single-family home remains the most preferred housing option.

The mass exodus of millions of Californians to far-removed exurban communities - just so they can afford a single-family home - is a powerful testament to that desire. Rather than quashing these families' dreams, the state should accommodate them by making sure that new housing developments have adequate infrastructure. The state also should encourage job growth in and around these areas, so as to minimize the need for freeway-clogging commutes.

``Urban infill'' is too often the quick, easy and cheap growth solution for politicians who don't want to make tough decisions or costly investments in infrastructure. But unless it's done well and it's part of a comprehensive long-term development plan, it's a far cry from the solution California needs.

Still, credit legislative Democrats for raising an issue that the rest of the political class has lacked the will or the foresight to address. Their emphasis on long-term planning is welcome and long overdue. They have started a crucial debate; we can only hope it continues.