Housing and local control: where I stand

Sacramento has taken too much control over housing away from local communities. We have to follow the law, but following the law does not mean giving up the fight, and Menifee has now joined it.

Local control matters because the decisions are local. Higher-density housing belongs only where it makes sense: where the location and the roads, utilities, and public services can carry it, where traffic still works, and where it fits the surrounding neighborhood. I would review each proposal against that standard, and a proposal that fails it would not get my vote.

Here is what state law already dictates to Menifee. The regional housing assessment assigns the city 6,609 housing units to plan for between 2021 and 2029, a number Menifee did not choose. State law now requires cities to approve qualifying duplexes and lot splits in single-family neighborhoods, and accessory dwelling units, ministerially: no discretionary review, no public hearing, no council vote. Decisions that used to be made at a podium in Menifee are now made in the Government Code.

Ignoring those laws is not an option, and I won’t pretend it is. A city that falls out of compliance hands Sacramento even more leverage over what gets built here. Menifee should stay compliant precisely so the state never gets an excuse to take the pen.

But compliance is not surrender, and the fight is being organized right next door. Murrieta submitted Resolution No. 1 to the League of California Cities, calling for a working group to pursue a state constitutional amendment or other initiative to ensure final local authority over housing and land-use decisions. The cities of Banning, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Moreno Valley, Norco, and Torrance and the mayors of San Jacinto and Temecula signed letters of concurrence, cities as far north as Crescent City have joined, and the resolution goes before the League’s General Assembly in Anaheim on September 25, 2026. Murrieta’s council has also formed a subcommittee to explore sponsoring a statewide local-control ballot initiative of its own, and its mayor put the argument plainly in a June 2026 letter to an Assembly committee: the state “cannot continue to mandate housing outcomes while also limiting the ability of local governments to plan for the impacts of those mandates.”

On September 2, 2026, the Menifee City Council voted to support Resolution No. 1 and directed the city’s voting delegate to support it at the General Assembly. I support that decision. I will push for Menifee to follow through with a council resolution of its own, participation in the working group when it forms, and local-control language in the city’s Legislative Platform.

My position:

• Follow through on the council’s support. The council voted on September 2, 2026 to support Murrieta’s Resolution No. 1. Seek a council resolution of Menifee’s own, participation in the working group once it forms, and local-control language in the Legislative Platform.
• Follow the law. Keep Menifee’s housing element compliant so the state never gains extra leverage over local decisions.
• Use local planning authority responsibly. Where the city retains authority over design, infrastructure timing, and conditions of approval, plan infrastructure alongside growth and ensure each development contributes its lawful share.
• Review higher-density housing case by case. Higher density belongs where the location, roads, utilities, and public services can support it, with particular attention to traffic and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Where they cannot, it does not.

The people who live with the consequences of a land-use decision should be the ones their decision-makers answer to. That is the whole argument, and I will make it at the dais.