A recent ruling in Orange County may have sweeping implications across California, including right here in Davis. On June 18, a Superior Court judge sided with the City of Newport Beach and upheld its decision to implement its state-mandated housing element—without first securing voter approval—despite a city charter provision requiring such a vote.
The ruling, celebrated by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom, affirmed what the state has argued for years: local voter initiatives cannot obstruct compliance with California’s Housing Element Law.
For cities like Davis that are governed by voter-controlled growth ordinances—specifically, Measure J—the implications are hard to ignore.
The case centered on Newport Beach’s Greenlight Initiative, a voter-approved charter amendment requiring a public vote on major land use changes. In 2022, the city adopted a new housing element to comply with its regional housing obligation of more than 4,800 units. To meet that requirement, the City Council approved rezoning in six areas.
Local groups sued, arguing that these rezonings triggered Greenlight and should have gone to a public vote. The court disagreed, ruling that enforcing the local voter requirement would obstruct state housing law and render timely compliance “legally infeasible.”
Attorney General Bonta and the Newsom administration had filed amicus briefs in support of Newport Beach, arguing that cities cannot use voter referenda or charter provisions to derail legally required housing plans.
In their view, allowing voters to veto mandatory rezoning actions would effectively dismantle the state’s housing framework. The court agreed, emphasizing that state law takes precedence when local measures interfere with statewide concerns like housing affordability, access, and supply.
This precedent lands squarely on the doorstep of Davis.
For over two decades, Davis has operated under Measure J (and its successor amendments, Measures R and D), which requires voter approval for any rezoning of agricultural or open-space land for development. While supporters hail Measure J as a model of local control and environmental stewardship, its practical effect has been to sharply limit housing growth—particularly on the city’s periphery—and complicate efforts to meet state housing targets.
Davis is not alone in this; many cities have enacted procedural or political barriers to housing. But Davis is unusual in that it places final land use authority in the hands of voters, not elected representatives or professional planners.
The Newport Beach decision challenges the viability of that structure. While Measure J does not have an explicit exception for state preemption—unlike Newport’s Greenlight, which stated it “shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote”—courts have repeatedly held that local rules cannot trump state mandates.
In City of Morgan Hill v. Bushey, the California Supreme Court ruled that even general plan referenda could not be used to block housing element compliance. The court emphasized that local democracy must yield to state authority when the public interest—particularly in housing—is at stake.
In that context, the question is no longer whether the state can override Measure J. The legal foundation for that override already exists. The more pressing question is when the state or developers will force the issue in court.
The consequences of noncompliance are severe. Cities that fail to adopt or implement compliant housing elements may lose their authority to deny housing projects, face court-imposed fines of up to $600,000 per month, or even see a court-appointed receiver take over land use planning.
In Davis, a city already struggling to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the risk of such sanctions is real. And under the so-called “Builder’s Remedy,” cities without a compliant housing element cannot deny affordable housing projects even if they violate local zoning or height restrictions.
To avoid these outcomes, Davis will need to confront a hard truth: the days of voter-controlled growth may be numbered. Continuing to apply Measure J in a way that blocks state-mandated housing development could invite legal challenge—and likely defeat. The court in Newport Beach made clear that local control must yield to legal mandates when the two are in conflict.
That doesn’t mean Davis has no options. City leaders could proactively align Measure J with state law—through a narrow amendment or reinterpretation—to exempt housing element rezonings from voter approval. They could also adopt a policy framework that preserves public input while ensuring timely compliance with the housing element. Such a move would be politically sensitive but legally prudent.
There is also a broader question of fairness. As Attorney General Bonta noted, “cities statewide are obligated to plan for their fair share of housing.” When cities like Davis place procedural obstacles in the way of housing—especially affordable housing—they shift the burden onto other jurisdictions. That deepens regional inequities, raises housing costs, and reinforces patterns of segregation and exclusion.
The Davis community must decide whether it wants to be part of the solution or part of the problem. Measure J was born of a specific time and set of concerns, but we now face a statewide housing emergency. The legal landscape has changed, the political pressure is mounting, and the courts are increasingly siding with the state.
Newport Beach just became the canary in the coal mine. Davis would be wise to pay attention.
“The ruling, celebrated by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom, affirmed what the state has argued for years: local voter initiatives cannot obstruct compliance with California’s Housing Element Law.”
That sounds like authoritarianism, something that the Vanguard has been complaining about lately when it comes to other issues.
I’m going to bet that there will be comments that it’s not the same but I don’t see much difference.
How does enforcing a law passed by the Legislature who was elected by a majority of population and ruled on by a court appointed by several elected governors and approved by multiple Legislatures constitute “authoritarianism”? That’s democracy where the majority rules over pockets of citizens who want to protect their privileges over the rest of the population. You’re just trolling because you know how ridiculous your statement is.
McCann asks: “How does enforcing a law passed by the Legislature who was elected by a majority of population and ruled on by a court appointed by several elected governors and approved by multiple Legislatures constitute “authoritarianism”?
Actually, it sounds just like the Trump administration – including threats issued by Newsom. (I’m not the only who noticed that. For example, Dan Walters (who seems to have views similar to YIMBYs) also noticed this:
“Gov. Newsom employs aggressive tactics, similar to Trump, to pressure opponents and achieve his political goals.”
“Newsom’s administration uses media campaigns to discredit critics rather than refuting their analysis with data.”
“Newsom threatens to withhold funds from local governments that don’t comply with his demands on issues like homelessness.”
“Newsom is never shy about forcing local governments to obey his demands, whether it’s making more land available for housing or being more aggressive about clearing encampments of homeless people. Newsom periodically threatens to withhold funds from or take legal action against cities and counties he deems to be negligent, emulating Trump’s tactics against states that won’t bend to his will.”
https://gvwire.com/2025/05/14/newsom-reveals-his-weaknesses-when-he-needs-political-hardball-to-get-his-way/
California Governor Gavin Newsom has indeed been taking aggressive state-level actions that many describe as heavy-handed—or even authoritarian—when it comes to enforcing housing and homelessness policies on local cities.
Newsom’s administration created a specialized enforcement team within the Department of Housing and Community Development to monitor city councils and planning departments, ensuring compliance with state housing mandates.
A package of laws signed in September 2024 empowers the state Attorney General to impose fines (up to $50k monthly) on jurisdictions that fail to adopt required housing plans—hard financial penalties for noncompliance.
Newsom signed several bills (SB 35, AB 2097, SB 684, SB 10/450/1211) between 2021–2024 to eliminate minimum parking mandates, promote duplexes and ADUs, and streamline approval for multifamily housing—often overriding local design standards and permitting rules.
The state has sued or threatened to sue cities like Huntington Beach, Norwalk, Elk Grove, La Cañada Flintridge, and San Francisco for failing to comply.
Mayors and city councils argue these tactics undercut democratic local governance.
Some accuse Newsom of wielding power like a “strike force” or “secret police” .
Local officials label certain actions as arbitrary, punitive, and an overreach hammering their autonomy.
Newsom has dramatically expanded state power over local housing policy suing cities, levying fines, bypassing local zoning, and micromanaging cities through enforcement teams.
But I’ll stop there.
“The Davis community must decide whether it wants to be part of the solution or part of the problem.”
The Davis community decided to be part of the problem long ago.
You asked yesterday if this would apply to Davis – it looks like it could
No, it doesn’t.
Neither Davis, Newport Beach, or any other city throughout the state can rezone land outside of city limits.
And it sounds like Newport Beach’s law dealt with land that is already in city limits.
You’re not a lawyer so I don’t know how you can categorically state anything with respect to the applicability of a court decision to Davis.
You’re the one who asked the question, and you’re not a lawyer either – “though you play one on TV”.
The problem here (regarding these types of articles) is that we all know what your underlying motivation is. As such, these types of articles are a form of advocacy, and are not intended to be “informational”.
You should focus on this point: “The court agreed, emphasizing that state law takes precedence when local measures interfere with statewide concerns like housing affordability, access, and supply.”
“you’re not a lawyer either”
But maybe he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
David, you didn’t address Ron’s point:
“Neither Davis, Newport Beach, or any other city throughout the state can rezone land outside of city limits.
And it sounds like Newport Beach’s law dealt with land that is already in city limits.”
I already noted the key part of the decision: “The court agreed, emphasizing that state law takes precedence when local measures interfere with statewide concerns like housing affordability, access, and supply.” In addition, it’s not a new point by Ron and I have addressed in some detail previously.
Within city limits – you seem to be conveniently forgetting about that part.
The state is supposedly not interested in promoting sprawl onto farmland OUTSIDE of city limits.
I do see some signs of all of this “winding down” (e.g., the massive failure of housing elements across the entire state, the fact that we have a lame duck governor, the fact that the state is not growing – other than via immigrants that Trump is likely reversing, the fact that the housing market – including prices, are declining for reasons UNRELATED to new construction, etc.). The fact that by the time these proposals go through the entire legislative process – they’re either eliminated or watered-down to a degree that renders them meaningless or not viable in the first place, etc.).
The problem with the state’s efforts is that it’s based on a flawed notion of a housing shortage, and that expensive infill – with all kinds of Affordable or other requirements is going to fix that.
I’ve addressed this point several times, you have yet to cite authority on this issue.
Authority for what? You’re the one making the allegation.
Prove it. (Why is it that I’m “less worried” about legal challenges to Measure J than you supposedly are?)
I’ll tell you why – you’re not “worried” about a legal challenge at all. Instead, you and a handful of other people (including some on the council) are trying to make a case for either saying “yes” ALL the time (when a proposal appears on the ballot), OR a case to eliminate Measure J “before someone else has a chance to do so”. (Neither of these arguments are going to be successful, and yet you keep trying. Even Ron Glick knows that this is absurd – and he despises Measure J.)
In legal writing, authority refers to a source—such as a case, statute, or regulation—that supports a legal argument or proposition. You made a claim: “Within city limits – you seem to be conveniently forgetting about that part.” In other words, you are claiming without citing legal authority to back you up, that it matters “within city limits” – you’ve shown that in the law, that does matter.
I realize you’re intent on continuing to suggest that Measure J is vulnerable, and that this is a reason that voters should eliminate it first.
But if you want to talk about differences between Newport Beach vs. Davis, we’ve already done so. The land that the state is focusing on is already IN CITY LIMITS.
It’s up to you (or a legal challenge) to prove that the state’s laws force cities to expand outward. (Which would also mean that councils have no choice in the matter, either.) You seem to think that all councils would have no choice but to approve expansions onto farmland outside of city limits in the absence of any law requiring them to do so.) Show me the law which requires them to do so (I’ve asked for that, before – and you acknowledged it doesn’t exist.)
There’s a reason it doesn’t exist – the state can’t put itself in the political position of requiring sprawl.
It’s not up to me. I just pointed out how this might apply to Davis, time will tell whether it does.
“City leaders could proactively align Measure J with state law—through a narrow amendment or reinterpretation—to exempt housing element rezonings from voter approval.”
“City leaders” cannot do this. The voters have to. And IMO the likelihood of the voters of Davis approving any modification to Measure J is slim.
The voters could approve a couple of Measure J projects in the next year or so, which could make this moot.
“Measure J was born of a specific time and set of concerns, but we now face a statewide housing emergency.”
Measure J was born of a time when people were concerned about protecting farmland in the future when housing-development pressures were overwhelming and needed to be controlled so the farmland around Davis wasn’t consumed and thus Yolo County resemble Orange County where once-fertile farmland is GONE. That day is today, and that time has come. Just look at Folsom, Lincoln or Elk Grove to know what could happen here.
I am against Measure J not because I want massive peripheral development, but because it is bad law that has given us unintended consequences such as gaslighting developer campaigns and community division. That is why I believe we should terminate Measure J and establish and urban limit line like Petaluma. “This is the footprint of Davis”. Citizens, State, and Developers now know — and that’s it.
I have a friend who lives in southern France. His town, not far from a large city, has a footprint that hasn’t changed in centuries. Because they value landscape and farmland and character/quality of life. What do we value? Take a drive on this fine Sunday afternoon to Folsom, Lincoln and Elk Grove mind-killing suburbs. That’s what we value in California: sh*thole suburbs.
I agree with the urban footprint concept. That’s why Tim Keller and several of us have written about that approach. And to avoid looking like Lincoln or Folsom we need to add some further conditions on the developments to ensure that they don’t exacerbate the problems we already have with true sprawl.