Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Opposes State Bill That Would Impose Sanctions on Jurisdictions Not Meeting Housing‑element Deadlines
Summary
After extended debate about regional responsibility for housing production, the council voted to oppose state legislation that would impose sanctions — including potential gas‑tax penalties — on jurisdictions that remain noncompliant with housing‑element requirements.
The Los Angeles City Council on May 9 voted to oppose proposed state legislation that would impose sanctions on cities and counties that fail to submit acceptable housing elements to the state, a measure councilmembers warned could penalize Los Angeles despite the city’s efforts to meet its housing obligations.
Councilmembers debated whether the bill’s sanctions appropriately target jurisdictions that refuse to plan for housing or instead risk imposing penalties on cities like Los Angeles that are actively seeking compliance but face regional imbalances. After floor amendments and negotiation, Councilmember Ridley Thomas moved to substitute a straight opposition in place of the “unless amended” position on the agenda; the substitute passed and the council recorded a vote opposing the bill.
Opponents said the bill would allow state sanctions such as withholding gas‑tax subventions after multiple planning cycles and could give nonprofits an accelerated right to sue noncompliant jurisdictions. Councilmember Hernandez and others warned the regional planning context is uneven: some neighboring jurisdictions have sought reductions in their required allocations, which shifts pressure to Los Angeles. Several councilmembers said Los Angeles is making active efforts — including a housing‑element submission staff hoped to secure state concurrence on within weeks — and that a punitive state approach would be counterproductive.
Supporters of stronger enforcement said sanctions may be necessary to compel less‑cooperative jurisdictions to accept housing allocations. But after amendments the council concluded the city should oppose the bill as written and pursue other strategies to hold regional partners accountable.
The motion to oppose the bill (straight opposition) was adopted by the council; the transcript records that the substitute and the opposition motion carried as the final council position.
