Battle between California’s state officers and its almost 500 cities and counties — particularly over cash — is nothing new.
Nevertheless, relations between state and native governments lately are arguably the worst in dwelling reminiscence, as illustrated by a few points percolating within the remaining week of the 2025 legislative session.
Senate Invoice 79, the newest of many state efforts to power native governments to just accept high-density housing tasks, is one level of competition. It will primarily exempt such tasks which might be inside a half mile of public transit providers from native oversight, whatever the constructing website’s native zoning.
“This is exactly where we should be building more housing, right by our highest quality transit,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener, the invoice’s creator.
It has drawn heavy criticism from native officers, who would lose their potential to supervise such tasks and from residents of single-family neighborhoods that might be affected.
Opponents even embrace the Los Angeles Metropolis Council, dominated by Wiener’s fellow progressive Democrats. The council voted 8-5 to oppose the measure, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed on, saying cities with state-approved housing plans needs to be exempt.
“While I support the intent to accelerate housing development statewide, as written, this bill risks unintended consequences for L.A.,” Bass mentioned.
“I’m not interested in funding failure any longer,” he mentioned at one level. “So I’m going to speak for myself, just one guy that’s got three more appropriation cycles in front of him. I want to see results. Everybody wants to see results.”
After threatening to chop off direct help to native governments for homelessness applications, he signed a funds in June that suspends funding for not less than a 12 months. Native officers contend that getting one-year appropriations, with out ensures of continuity, makes it unimaginable for them to ascertain ongoing housing tasks and providers.
Along with these high-profile factors of competition between state and native officers, there’s a spate of comparatively minor points, one among which is Senate Invoice 487. Sponsored by a raft of police and firefighter unions, the measure would restrict the sum of money public employers might get better from their workers’ lawsuits for on-the-job accidents.
Native governments opposed the invoice, saying it might probably enhance their employee compensation prices. Their opposition turned to bitter denunciation final week after state authorities was exempted from its impression.
“This is classic state do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do hypocrisy,” mentioned Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Affiliation of Counties. “It’s a clear indication that lawmakers know this is terrible public policy, but they’re fine forcing local governments to live with it.”
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.
