The passage of AB72 will significantly impact state laws concerning urban planning and housing development. By mandating the DHCD to monitor local adherence to housing regulations, the bill aims to reduce the discrepancies between state housing objectives and local implementation. Cities and counties will be required to not only draft housing elements but actively ensure their compliance and report their progress regularly. This amendment emphasizes the importance of the housing element as a vital tool in meeting the housing needs of California's growing population.
Assembly Bill No. 72, introduced by Santiago, amends Section 65585 of the Government Code related to housing. The bill strengthens regulations surrounding the preparation and compliance of housing elements that cities and counties must adopt as part of their planning and zoning laws. Specifically, it requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to review any actions or failures to act by local governments that are found to be inconsistent with their adopted housing elements. The DHCD has been given the authority to issue written findings and enforce compliance, with the ability to revoke its findings until compliance is achieved. This change seeks to enhance the accountability of local governments in progressing towards their housing goals.
The general sentiment surrounding AB72 reflects a push towards greater accountability and systematic compliance in housing development. Proponents argue that this bill is a necessary measure to combat the housing crisis by holding local governments accountable for their commitments. However, there are concerns among some local government representatives about the potential for state overreach and the challenges in adapting existing plans to meet stringent state criteria. This dichotomy highlights a tension between state oversight and local control in urban planning.
Notable points of contention surrounding AB72 involve the complexities of local governance in relation to state mandates. Critics have raised concerns regarding the feasibility of swift compliance with state regulations, particularly in areas where local priorities may diverge from state objectives. The bill also places significant pressure on local planning agencies to act promptly and cohesively to avoid risking violations that could lead to state scrutiny or legal actions from the Office of the Attorney General. Ultimately, while AB72 seeks to promote synergy between local actions and state housing goals, it also raises questions about operational capacity and local autonomy in the governance of housing policy.