☆ Top homeowners' org backs more local control, warns about muni gov't mission creep
Image by Wikimedia Commons
Families & Homes San José (FHSJ), San Jose's leading citywide homeowners' group, came out with their election endorsements earlier last month. And in doing so, daylighted growing areas of concern for local neighborhoods: the abdication by City government of authority over important municipal issues, as well as an expansion of city lobbying efforts well outside the City's responsibilities. Sandra Delvin, a Board Member of FHSJ, explains it all in an exclusive phone conversation with Opp Now's Christopher Escher.
Opp Now: "Local control" was always your rallying cry when the group started back in 2020. And then, the issue was housing densification and zoning initially focused on the “Opportunity Housing” proposal. You had a special focus on local standards, expectations, and infrastructure needs. What's the same, what's changed?
Sandra Delvin: Over time, because of the passage of SB9 and 10, we have lost a lot of local—and by that, I mean at the city level—control over zoning, because the state has implemented a one-size-fits all approach.
At FHSJ, we have broadened our focus since then—but we're still inspired by the need for local authority, local control, and local influence over important issues. Sometimes FHSJ does not take formal positions, but tries to inform the discussion by identifying missing or incorrect data.
Some examples of issues we have advocated on include:
Concerns about natural gas ban costs and implementation for homeowners
The City over delegating important local issues to non-profits that are not always as accountable as they should be
Support for the Our Neighborhood Voices ballot initiative effort. If it qualifies for the statewide ballot and passes, it would restore local control over planning and zoning decisions which the state legislature has been stripping away
Currently we are supporting the ballot initiative effort Reform Proposition 47 by gathering signatures
ON: It appears that Sacramento is increasingly expanding its authority into areas that used to be city and county issues.
SD: There is no denying that The State of California is definitely exerting more power in the last three years over municipalities and residents. People and cities who care about local power and authority should be very concerned. And it's not just Land Use issues. As we see with Proposition 1, the State is trying to exert more power over medical and healthcare programs and funding—typically the purview of county government. Opponents of Proposition 1 suggest that Santa Clara County, if it passes, may in fact end up with less to spend on mental healthcare issues.
It is surprising and disappointing to me that our city has not forcefully protected local authority over these issues, and has often either been silent or actively supported the diminishment of local control.
ON: It sometimes seems like the City actually wants the State to take over these issues, so the City doesn't have to confront citizenry on controversial and potentially unpopular positions. It's like they'd rather take orders from Sacramento than from the citizens in their districts.
SD: It's easy to say you're in favor of local control, but then do nothing about it and just shrug your shoulders when the State takes that control away.
An example of the tacit—or was it an active effort— to undermine local control was the actions of the Rules Committee in 2021 to reject Dev Davis’ memo to discuss SB9 at a council meeting. However, because of a parliamentary maneuver by Councilwomen Dev Davis and Pam Foley, SB9 was discussed. In December 2021, the Council took action to limit the impacts of SB9. If this had not occurred up to 10 units could have been built on single family lots in San Jose. Currently, the city has limited SB9 impacts to 4 units.
ON: We noticed that in your most recent endorsement communique that your concern for local control and focus has now expanded to the City's office of Intergovernmental Relations (IGR), in which the City lobbies State and Federal governments for a whole range of issues, often that run counter to what San Jose citizens actually vote for.
SD: You want your city to lobby for legislation that helps and supports city policies and responsibilities: roads, infrastructure, speed cameras, zoning, transit and the like.
So that makes sense of us.
The Board is concerned that the City and the IGR are taking positions that are beyond the City’s core functions. They have taken positions on numerous tax propositions, immigration, and affirmative action and in so doing they are implying that residents and voters agree with these positions.
Just two examples include:
ACA 1 which is a measure the state legislature passed that will be on the November 2024 ballot. The yet-to-be named and numbered measure would effectively gut Proposition 13 by lowering the threshold for new local taxes and tax increases from a supermajority to 55%.
The IGR says the City is in favor of affirmative action (see page 8) when voters roundly voted against affirmative action in November 2020 when voting on Proposition 16.
Our City should not be spending their time on issues that are outside their core responsibilities. They do not have the knowledge, nor expertise, to be making calls on these issues. We elected them to manage local government, not state and federal issues.
Focusing on local control goes both ways. We don't want our council to cede its responsibilities to the State, but we also don't want our Council to be acting like stealth state and federal representatives. Nor do we want them acting against what the voters have decided. We are perfectly capable of expressing our will on state and federal issues through the state legislature and Congress.
The City is upending our balanced, separated system of government with this power grab. It should stop. They are disempowering us on both sides of this issue. The Council needs to take a deep breath and remember what their scope of work is and who they work for.
Related:
Gilman: It’s time SJ regains control of local zoning decisions
Zoning is a city responsibility, ceding it to Sacto a grievous mistake, says governance expert
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.