Historical Perspective on Local Control
Local control over land use and development has been a foundational principle in many communities, particularly in California. Historically, cities and counties have had the authority to decide where, how, and what kind of housing is built within their jurisdictions. This system allowed municipalities to tailor development to meet the unique needs of their residents, reflecting the values, culture, and priorities of the community. Local control ensures that the voices of those who live in the area—people who understand the history, geography, and character of their neighborhoods—are central to decision-making.
The Evolution of State Housing Mandates
In recent years, the State of California has enacted a series of laws to address the state's housing crisis. These mandates often aim to streamline housing approvals and encourage higher density development, particularly near transit. While the intention is to meet pressing housing shortages and reduce barriers that may have been preventing affordable and high-density housing, they have also brought tension to the concept of local governance.
Cities like San Mateo have faced pressure to meet statewide housing goals through mandates like the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which assigns each community a specific number of housing units to plan for. State bills such as SB 35, which facilitates by-right approval of certain developments, have further eroded the traditional power local governments held over housing decisions. However, until the past few years, California has not always held cities accountable for their RHNA allocations.
With the passing of even more State bills designed to support enforcement and accountability, cities are beginning to see towards partial or material local control revokation implemented.
Why Retaining Local Control Matters
The issue is not about opposing growth or ignoring the housing crisis—it’s about ensuring that growth happens in a way that is both not haphazard to create additional challenges, and in a way that respects the community’s unique characteristics. Here are some reasons why retaining local control over housing and development decisions is vital:
1. Community Values and Priorities: Each city has its own vision for growth and development. Local governments, through extensive community input, are best positioned to understand what works for their specific context—whether it’s preserving historic architecture, protecting green spaces, or maintaining the scale and feel of neighborhoods.
2. Balancing Development and Infrastructure: Cities need to ensure that infrastructure (like roads, schools, and public services) grows alongside new housing. Local authorities can better assess whether existing infrastructure can accommodate more residents or whether significant upgrades are needed, and plan development accordingly.
3. Flexibility and Responsiveness: Local control provides the flexibility to adjust policies based on real-time community feedback. State mandates tend to lack the flexibility often required to drive community consensus and can overlook specific challenges or nuances that a particular community faces. When cities are given more autonomy, they can innovate in ways that suit their unique challenges and opportunities.
4. Accountability to Residents: Local decision-makers are accountable to the people they represent. Residents can attend council meetings, participate in planning sessions, and have a direct influence on their community’s future. This level of accountability is diminished when decisions are dictated by the state, often far removed from the community’s day-to-day realities.
The Current Debate
The current debate is essentially about finding a balance between meeting the urgent need for more housing across the state while still respecting local decision-making processes. Proponents of state mandates argue that local regulations have historically contributed to housing shortages by making it difficult to build, especially affordable housing. Critics, on the other hand, argue that state interventions often disregard local contexts and community needs, leading to unintended consequences like strained infrastructure, community pushback, and environmental issues. Measure T is a balanced approach that allows San Mateo to elegantly do both.
Measure T and Local Control in This Context
Measure T aims to navigate this complex landscape by ensuring that San Mateo retains a meaningful role in shaping how development occurs. It seeks to respect statewide housing goals while making sure that decisions are adapted to fit the needs of local neighborhoods and are made in collaboration with the people most affected by those decisions. By retaining local control, Measure T ensures that the community has a voice in determining how it grows—prioritizing thoughtful, sustainable development that enhances rather than disrupts the quality of life in San Mateo.
Comments