Telepeer

A modest proposal: Knock off the phony local-control mantra

May 30, 2026

SACRAMENTO — British satirist Jonathan Swift offered his infamous modest proposal to deal with an 18^th-century food crisis: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled.”

He obviously wasn’t serious about having poor Irish parents sell their children for food, but Swift effectively spotlighted the hypocrisy of the upper classes. Likewise, my modest idea isn’t really serious, but it would highlight the inconsistent views of California conservatives who champion “local control” to oppose state laws that deregulate local housing construction.

Quite simply, if Republicans truly believe that local control is preeminent, then they should lead the charge to eliminate Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 tax-limiting initiative that severely restrains the ability of local governments to raise taxes. Of course, a consistent application of this localism philosophy would stew, roast and boil their other supposedly cherished philosophy of limited government.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. I have repeatedly been assured by Republicans, especially during the latest election campaigns, that the right of city councils to exert power over what private developers build in their communities is sacrosanct. The government that governs best is the one closest to the people, they crow. And intrusion by Sacramento lawmakers is nothing short of tyrannical.

It’s an easy way for conservatives to sound principled as they oppose laws (Senate Bills 9, 10, 35 and 79) that require municipal governments to approve housing construction on a “by right” basis. That means planning commissions and city councils cannot impose arbitrary approval requirements or reject projects out of hand. These laws expand property rights (albeit modestly), because in this case locals are more freedom-averse than the state.

After Huntington Beach lost its umpteenth lawsuit against state housing laws, Mayor Casey McKeon issued this statement: “The voters of Huntington Beach elected us to defend our local control over municipal affairs, especially housing …. Even though this path has ended, other paths will always exist for us to continue to rigorously fight to defend the Huntington Beach residents’ local control.”

If these conservatives are right, then how do they support Prop. 13 and other state-imposed restrictions on local taxes? If locals reign supreme, then city councils should be free to impose new taxes at will whenever they overspend their budgets, right? That’s my modest proposal: If you want to fly the local-control banner, then you need to put an end to these tax restrictions. I’m sure many Democrats and public-sector unions will gladly join the effort.

“Under Prop 13, all real property has established base year values, a restricted rate of increase on assessments of no greater than 2% each year, and a limit on property taxes to 1% of the assessed value (plus additional voter-approved taxes),” the Santa Clara County assessor’s office explains. The measure is clearly a state limit on profligate local governments’ ability to raise taxes. It was imposed by voters, but it remains California’s most stringent state restriction on local control.

Conservatives also are championing a Local Taxpayer Protection Act for the general election ballot that would, per its advocates, reverse the “loophole in the two-thirds vote requirement that has allowed special interest groups to easily impose their own tax hikes using the local initiative process” and restore a “ban on real estate transfer taxes that steal the equity of homeowners when they sell their property.” The latter would overturn Los Angeles’ locally imposed mansion tax.

To be clear, I’m totally in favor of that measure and do not believe locals should be allowed to impose confiscatory taxes — nor should they be free to confiscate private property with rent controls. Then again, I’m not a conservative who touts the local-control banner. I’m certainly not a conservative who bleats about federalism, then cheers when the Trump administration bullies states into doing what it wants. Actually, I’m not even a conservative, but a libertarian, and this partially explains why.

The ultimate goal is limited government. Local control is a useful way to determine that, say, Huntington Beach should fix its own potholes. Basic municipal tasks shouldn’t be handled in Sacramento or dictated from Washington, D.C. But cities are administrative units of the state, so I’m not against the state requiring cities to roll back their stringent regulations. I also support the conservative pre-emption movement that stops locals from passing other rights-infringing laws.

Just as I don’t believe that poor people ought to fricassee their children to make ends meet, I don’t think Californians ought to once again let their local governments tax them out of their homes. But I modestly suggest that it’s past time for California conservatives to knock off their intellectually lazy defense of “local control” and take a consistent stand for property rights and freedom.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Orange County Register

News Details

A modest proposal: Knock off the phony local-control mantra

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS