In the last Texas legislative session, great controversy erupted over Austin’s attempts to reign in local governments. Bills were introduced to prohibit local controls over plastic bags, trees, short-term rentals, and more. Local governments claimed that these efforts by the state usurped their authority. A similar controversy has erupted in California.
California State Senator Scott Wiener has introduced a bill that would, according to the Los Angeles Times,
override local zoning laws to allow developers to build taller, bigger apartments and condo projects near rail stations and bus stops.
It seems that decades of draconian land-use regulations has (not surprisingly) created a housing crisis in California. Wiener’s bill would allow builders and developers more freedom to construct housing. Critics of Wiener’s bill argue that it will usurp the ability of communities to control development. A similar controversy raged in Texas last year.
In 2017, Texas legislators introduced numerous bills with the stated purpose of reigning in local governments intent on controlling how individuals used their property. And critics claimed that local control was being usurped by the state.
In both instances, the critics are attempting to defend local tyranny. They believe that communities should be allowed to do virtually anything, so long as they do it under the guise of the “will of the people.” If a community wants to ban short-term rentals, outlaw plastic bags, or regulate Uber into oblivion, it should be allowed to do so. And when the state steps in to offer a modicum of protection for property rights, the critics cry foul.
The advocates of local control believe that the majority in a community should be free to impose its values on everyone else. It is proper for the state to intervene and protect the rights of citizens when local governments want to violate those rights.