SJ City Councilmembers abdicate historic responsibility for land use decisions within city limits
In a surprising abandonment of civic responsibility, the Rules Committee of San Jose on August 11 refused to contest the State of California’s usurpation of local control over zoning policy across all California cities.
Specifically, the Rules Committee refused to let the full council consider Councilmember Dev Davis’ memo which would have opposed Sacramento’s power grab in the form of Senate Bill 9. SB9 asserts State legislative power to override local zoning authority by mandating residential density upzoning without any local community input.
Five Councilmembers comprise the Rules Committee: CM’s Davis, Peralez, Arenas, Jones, and Cohen (who was absent from the August 11 meeting).
Peralez, Arenas, and Jones refused to second Davis’ motion to even discuss her memo, which means they refused to give the mayor and five other council members (who are not part of the Rules Committee) the opportunity to weigh in on radical diminishment of local government authority. With this shutting down of democratic debate, Peralez, Arenas, and Jones effectively are hiding from residents how their elected representatives stand on the question of abandoning city control of residential zoning. Perhaps more importantly, they are suppressing citizen input and oversight of what have been historic rights and responsibilities of local government and citizenry.
All public comment at the Rules Committee in support of local control came from concerned residents. Nearly all comments against Davis’ memo came from paid representatives of housing activist organizations
Councilmembers Raul Peralez and Sylvia Arenas spoke at length about their support for the city’s abdication of responsibility for land use decision making, and for the undemocratic disempowerment of city residents implicit in SB 9.
Councilmember Arenas continued her pattern of falsely smearing residents who disagree with her hard-left positions (see here, here, here, and here.) by saying “{Opposition to SB 9 and to Opportunity Housing} is a thinly veiled effort to exclude lower income families from exclusive neighborhoods. A lot of speakers at this meeting are from districts that have a lot of exclusivity and want to continue that exclusivity.
The statement in misleading and baseless. Opponents to SB9 and Opportunity Housing had spoken at the Rules Committee prior to Arenas’ comments, providing the rationale to their opposition, which was focused exclusively on the importance of local control and the ability to increase affordable housing in the city. Arenas' charge of exclusivity is thinly-veiled and offensive race-baiting.
Arenas’ charge is further routed by the fact that organized neighborhood opposition to upzoning in San Jose spans every district in the city, including in Arenas’ district. (A list of the more than twenty neighborhood associations that have come out in opposition to citywide upzoning can be found here.
Councilmember Peralez (see nearby) displayed a misunderstanding of basic civics when he attempted to justify the hijacking of local zoning authority by the state government.
Read Davis’ memo here.
The video of the Rules Committee can be found here.