After decades of poorly planned, poorly executed sardine-can style housing developments in Southern California, residents are rightly alarmed by out-of-control growth. Recognizing the importance of managed growth, local leaders have placed prudent restrictions on housing developments throughout the state. A recent state Department of Housing and Community Development study, “Raising the Roof,” details how California’s strict building permit process has exacerbated the state’s housing shortage. According to the Southern California Association of Governments, our region needs more than 250,000 new housing units by 2006, over 50,000 per year. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Times recently reported, fewer than 10,000 new home permits were issued last year. Has the pendulum swung too far? The state’s study suggests that our inability to provide sufficient housing threatens our region’s long-term economic health. Clearly, the availability and cost of housing for employees is a top criterion for companies looking to build or expand in our area. For every six jobs created in California, estimates are we are providing only one additional housing unit. Scarcely more than a third of area residents qualify for a loan on a median price house. This is a recipe for long-term economic trouble. The “Raising the Roof” report concluded that much of the housing problem is the “result of political pressure, particularly at the local level.” Indeed, under the banner of protecting metropolitan areas from further urban sprawl, a raft of politicians and environmental extremists have joined the no-growth bandwagon, filing dozens of lawsuits, but offering few ideas on how to address our urgent housing needs. William Fulton, a regional planning expert, described the phenomenon in a recent Daily News article as “NIMD Not In My District.” One of the most obvious examples in our area is the Ahmanson Ranch, which has become a favorite whipping boy of both NIMBYs and NIMDs. Despite the fact it has a substantial affordable housing component (22 percent of the units) and has won national recognition for design and resource preservation plans, Ahmanson Ranch has been delayed for nearly a decade by deleterious lawsuits and political maneuvering. Although 10 years ago Ahmanson Ranch worked to preserve more than 10,000 acres of project-related land as open space and is working closely with state and federal agencies to protect natural resources and water quality, opponents now claim the development threatens the environment. After winning an award from the Association of Environmental Professionals for its species protection plans, Ahmanson Ranch supporters wonder whether they can ever do enough for the hard-core no-growth crowd. Indeed, with former U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt on the Ahmanson Ranch environmental team, you can be sure environmental protection receives close attention. This cynical, alarmist rhetoric helps raise money for protests and legal fees, but it does nothing to resolve our housing crisis or the real environmental issues. Ahmanson Ranch officials are committed to building an environmentally sensitive project and extremists cannot forever say build it “somewhere else.” As Babbitt says, “We’ve got two choices: one is no more housing and the other is to do it right.” My guess is that sooner or later the no-growth political gravy train will grind to a halt. Common sense will prevail. We are far better off with well-conceived, environmentally sensitive master-planned communities than the alternative: a patchwork of small housing projects that may escape public attention, but continue to feed sprawl without delivering quality housing that would improve our quality of life. I just hope that quality builders will have the patience to keep doing it right. Keith Richman is a Republican California state assemblyman representing the 38th District, which includes the Northwest San Fernando Valley and southern Ventura County.