CommentsERODING LOCAL AUTONOMY-As the California State Legislature continues to concoct new bills that remove local control over land use it is probably a good time to remember that cities have police powers that cannot be completely ignored.
In Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas[1974; 416 U.S. 1] the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the scope of such powers, stating: “The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.” [Id at 9.]
The history of Los Angeles shows that when people first flocked to the region they purposely rejected the density they had fled on the East Coast and in the Midwest. It was said that people came to Los Angeles with the concept of a “good community” which embodied single-family houses, located on large lots, surrounded by landscaped lawns, and isolated from business activities. This ideal has not changed for many people.
Virtually every reference guide on municipal law begins with the premise that a city has the police power to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. This right is set forth in the California Constitution, which states:“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” [Cal. Constitution at. XI, section 7.]
The ability to enact ordinances to protect health, safety and welfare is important in the land use context because it confers very broad rights to adopt regulations that implement local land use visions and values, so long as the laws enacted by a city are not in conflict with state general laws.
So long as laws enacted by a city are not in conflict with state general lawsis, in a nutshell, the problem we face and maybe that is the reason the Legislature is trying to create one-size-fits-all laws like Senate Bill 827. In doing so, it puts the police powers of cities in conflict with a state general law. SB 827 stated: “The bill would declare that its provisions address a matter of statewide concern and apply equally to all cities and counties in this state, including a charter city. By adding to the duties of local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
So, I think it is clear that the Legislature intended to remove the police powers of cities at least within one half mile of a transit stop – which in most cities encompasses almost the entire area within its boundaries. But SB 827 was little more than a scam to end single-family neighborhoods in the state.
The state declares that the production of housing is a matter of statewide concern but has no way to actually guarantee that any housing will be produced. It certainly cannot force anyone to build housing. The state cannot demand that developers build affordable housing and, in reality, it cannot even guarantee the production of market-rate housing if it is not in the best interest of the developer – especially during the next financial downturn which will surely come.
What the state desires is to remove zoning so that speculators can have their pick of neighborhoods to pillage. Ultimately, the state cannot guarantee that new population will be evenly disbursed throughout the state. Cities and neighborhoods in high demand will get destroyed while other cities and neighborhoods far enough from the newest tech centers will get no new development.
This and many other bills coming out of Sacramento are nothing more than gifts to the privileged class that supports the politicians and it is a scandal that academia and the press have become pimps for what can only be called class warfare. How far we have fallen since universities were the epicenter against corporate greed and abuse. Newspapers were once the guardians of our freedoms and held politicians’ feet to the fire. Now they are their biggest excusers.
We must also watch for piecemeal bills coming out of Sacramento that, when combined with other bills (or added to later), override a city’s police powers. We are beginning to see how a bill here and a proposition there can change the landscape drastically. One wonders if voters in LA County would have approved Measure M if SB 827 had been introduced first? Many doubt it.
We must also watch our local elected officials closely to make sure they fight Sacramento’s efforts to usurp the city’s police powers.
The battle over SB 827 is not over by a long shot. SB 827 has spawned an array of shape-shifting replicants. Sacramento has placed a target on local control of planning and zoning. They will keep taking pot shots until they hit the target – if we let them.
(James O’Sullivan is President of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and co-founder of Fix the City … a non-profit, citizen association whose stated goal is its name … to Fix the City. He is an occasional contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
