Posted on 04/30/2024 8:05:25 AM PDT by truthkeeper
A California court ruled state laws cannot broadly override local control over development and zoning, finding one of the state’s most significant new zoning laws is unconstitutional.
“This is not a case about whether or not our State Legislature may enact legislation to ensure access to affordable housing or whether it may act to address the different concern of a statewide housing shortage more generally,” wrote California Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin in his ruling. “However, because the provisions of SB 9 are not reasonably related and sufficiently narrowly tailored to the explicit stated purpose of that legislation — namely, to ensure access to affordable housing — SB 9 cannot stand.”
SB 9 required ministerial approval of both splitting of lots in areas zoned for single-family homes, and duplexes in areas zoned for single-family homes, thereby creating the ability to effectively buy a single-family home and split it into four units. Ministerial approval means the government must approve a project if it complies with applicable building requirements and fees have been paid.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecentersquare.com ...
So, a city can legalize murder?
There many good reaons to deride and seek changes in local zoning regulations, which local voters, not some state agency, can attend to, if they have a mind to.
So preemption doesnt exist in CA? That means any community can set its own gun laws, concealed carry rules, etc. This would be bad precedent, in that case.
Roger that .... then again, there’s that word “broadly” which neutralizes much of the ruling.
In other words a private can overrule his sergeant ... Riiiiiiiight ... I’d like to see that happen
Was very very glad to see this - but lefties like Newsom and Scott Weiner never give up, they’ll be back to fight this, of that you can be sure. Hated that the state usurped over local zoning laws and imposed destructive housing policies on single-family neighborhoods, in effect destroying them.
Cities are also mandated to create tens of thousands of new apartment buildings, including set-asides for low income housing. These huge monstrosities are going up on the edges of my town. My son looked into one that was recently finished and one-bedroom apartments were going for around $2,000/month and up.
The ADUs that are going up, from talking to my neighbors, seem to be for elderly relatives, not to use as rentals or for AirBNB - people are afraid of squatters or non-paying renters - who have all the laws on their side in this sorry sate.
Love my state. Hate its government.
A home two doors down recently sold on my block (So Cal) - my next door neighbor was almost hysterical - he was sure at least four units were going to be built next to his home, which is legal - since the state usurped local zoning laws - all of them. Our city council has tried to fight these massive developments and has lost every single court case.
A historic area was torn down due to new state regulations - the city could’t get the historic designation and lost in court, neighbors were furious. 93 condos are going up in its place.
We ended up getting nice new neighbors from Texas - very odd for them to move here, it’s almost always the other way around - they are putting in an ADU for their elderly parents.
"A Los Angeles County judge found that charter cities aren’t subject to Senate Bill 9, the 2021 “duplex” law that allows up to four homes to be built on a lot in single-family neighborhoods.
The law fails to accomplish its stated purpose of creating more affordable housing, and therefore, doesn’t meet the high bar of overriding local control over zoning, Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin said in a ruling released Wednesday, April 24.
SB 9 “is neither reasonably related to its stated concern of ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid interference with local government,” Kin wrote.
The ruling applies only to the state’s 121 charter cities, not to more than 400 “general law” cities and counties operating without their own charters.
I live in one of the plaintiff Charter Cities. As long as my property taxes remain under Proposition 13 (19), I may stay put. I haven't found anywhere else with the benefit of $1300 annual property taxes. Not even close.
That isn't the scope of the ruling.
A California court ruled state laws cannot broadly override local control over development and zoning...
Thank you. If its scope limited to zoning, I agree.
The ruling applies only to the state’s 121 charter cities, not to more than 400 “general law” cities and counties operating without their own charters.
Wiki notes: As of Jan 26, 2022, there were 482 incorporated municipalities in the state
Side Note: There are less cities and towns in California than in the State of Maine which has 528 cities and towns.
I live in one of the plaintiff Charter Cities. As long as my property taxes remain under Proposition 13 (19), I may stay put. I haven’t found anywhere else with the benefit of $1300 annual property taxes. Not even close.
You are benefiting from Prop 13 as without it, your taxes would be significantly higher and I dare say higher than Texas. Your local government is not spending much less than it would without Prop 13, it is just passing on those costs to property owners not covered by Prop 13.
Foundational Aspects of Charter Cities
What is the Constitutional Framework for Charter Cities?
Article XI, section 3(a) of the California Constitution authorizes the adoption of a city charter and provides such a charter has the force and effect of state law. Article XI,
section 5(a), the “home rule” provision, affirmatively grants to charter cities supremacy over “municipal affairs.”
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Albuquerque3_-_Foundational_Aspects_of_Charter_Cities.pdf
California is a home rule state which grants sovereignty to specific local forms of governments. The state is forbidden by the California constitution to usurp local sovereignty.
It’s another tool patriots can use to take control of their local communities.
No. Reread the article. This pertains to zoning laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.