EDITORIAL THE NIMBY SYNDROME 101 FREEWAY REFORM NEEDS COMMUNITY INPUT, NOT STONEWALLING.

THERE'S a syndrome that's taken hold among many San Fernando Valley residents, a conditioned response caused by years of contempt from public officials.

The reaction to every proposed public-works project in their area is always the same: Not in my back yard!

For many Valley residents, NIMBYism has become an uncontrollable reflex, like pulling your hand from a hot stove. It's only natural, seeing that the Valley has been burned so many times before.

The reflex reaction often has served the community well, as when it forced the Department of Water and Power to scuttle its revolting toilet-to-tap program. But it's also been a liability, as evidenced by the lack of a Valley subway or light rail.

And it now threatens to cost the community some badly needed improvements along the Ventura Freeway.

In May, state and local leaders scuttled a $3.4 billion plan for widening the freeway - one that took years and $4.5 million to put together - at the first sign of NIMBYism.

The surrender seemed rash, yet reasonable. It was unlikely that local governments would have ever been able to muster up the money or the community support to pull off the mammoth project, and so a more realistic approach was in order.

To that end, they outlined a far less ambitious strategy, but one that would still do a world of good to reduce commute times for Southland residents from Ventura to downtown Los Angeles. The plan consisted of widening the freeway in parts and improving interchanges, side streets and off-ramps.

It was, in theory, a sensible approach, one that would have to be monitored carefully so as to minimize the impact of those most directly affected, but which offered a nice return for a modest investment.

Yet already, the Valley NIMBY syndrome appears to be kicking in, and resistance is forming.

Anti-freeway activist Gerald Silver has expressed concern, and says his Encino homeowners group might challenge parts of the plan.

Then there's would-be populist Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, always willing to flatter NIMBY reactions. Zine objects to a part of the plan that would extend Agoura Road, thus providing access for residents of the proposed Ahmanson Ranch development into the Valley.

``We're opposing Ahmanson,'' he says, ``so anything to help relieve traffic for the (projected) 45,000 cars we will vehemently oppose.''

But what if Ahmanson proceeds despite Zine's objection? Wouldn't it be good to mitigate the resulting traffic in some way? Or is it somehow nobler to sit in gridlocked traffic all day in an irrelevant act of protest?

And what if it doesn't? Wouldn't it still be better to have traffic flow better in the West Valley/Agoura region?

Those who have raised concerns about the latest plan for relieving traffic on the Ventura Freeway should have their concerns taken seriously. An active and engaged community is the only way to ensure that whatever remedies are adopted are ones that truly serve the public.

Public input is also crucial to mitigate the improvements so as not to pose any undue burdens on anyone.

But it does little good to reflexively oppose projects before their details have even been revealed.

This is no time for Valley residents to go to the trenches. They're needed at the bargaining table so everyone can be well served.