California
‘Duplex’ law allowing 4 homes on a lot struck down for California’s charter cities
A Los Angeles County judge found that charter cities aren’t subject to Senate Bill 9, the 2021 “duplex” law that allows up to four homes to be built on a lot in single-family neighborhoods.
The law fails to accomplish its stated purpose of creating more affordable housing, and therefore, doesn’t meet the high bar of overriding local control over zoning, Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin said in a ruling released Wednesday, April 24.
SB 9 “is neither reasonably related to its stated concern of ensuring access to affordable housing nor narrowly tailored to avoid interference with local government,” Kin wrote.
The ruling applies only to the state’s 121 charter cities, not to more than 400 “general law” cities and counties operating without their own charters.
See also: 4 LA County cities, including Redondo Beach, Whittier, file legal challenge against state housing bill
Seen as an effective end to single-family zoning in California, the law allows lot splits in suburban neighborhoods, with one home and one “accessory dwelling unit” (or granny flat) on each new lot — replacing one home with up to four.
The law sought to address soaring housing costs by giving renters and working families greater access to neighborhoods they couldn’t otherwise afford.
The state Legislature also found that SB 9 should apply to charter cities, which enjoy greater autonomy, because affordable housing is a “matter of statewide concern.”
But five Southern California cities — Redondo Beach, Torrance, Carson, Whittier and Del Mar — sued to block the law, arguing it violated the state constitution that gives the state’s “home rule” cities the right to govern their own “municipal affairs.”
Kin wrote that Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state housing department failed to prove that SB 9 would increase the number of homes affordable to low income families — “especially in economically prosperous cities,” he wrote.
See also: California is suing Huntington Beach for limiting housing developments
Asked if the state plans to appeal the ruling, the Attorney General’s Office issued a terse statement: “We are reviewing the decision and will consider all options in defense of SB 9.”
All California cities and counties operate under California “general law.” But charter cities effectively operate under their own constitutions that supersede state laws on local affairs, such as planning and zoning.
The legislature, can override city charters, however, in matters of statewide concern, such the lack of affordable housing.
“The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal affair,” SB 9 states. “Therefore, … (this law applies) to all cities, including charter cities.”
See also: Housing developers win first ‘builders remedy’ battles in fight to bypass local zoning
But the law does nothing to guarantee more affordable housing, Kin wrote. At the same time, he rejected the state’s argument that SB 9 promotes housing affordability at lower income levels by increasing the overall housing supply.
” ‘Affordable’ refers to below market-rate housing,” Kin wrote. The state gave “no evidence to support the assertion that the upzoning permitted by SB 9 would result in any increase in the supply of below market-rate housing.”
Redondo Beach City Attorney Michael Webb hailed Kin’s ruling, saying SB 9 amounts to a “kind of trickle-down economics applied to zoning.”
“It was a massive upzoning that would have just led to more market-rate housing, more million-dollar townhomes,” Webb said. “In Redondo, we support affordable housing, but we don’t support one size fits all, top-down laws that disrupt communities and don’t … lead to more affordable housing.”
California
California bill to block registered sex offenders from local office rejected by Senate committee
FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) — California bill aimed at preventing registered sex offenders from holding local elected office was halted Tuesday after a Senate committee declined to advance the measure without changes opposed by its author.
Assembly Bill 2753, introduced by Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria in February, would have prohibited anyone who is or has been required to register as a sex offender from running for local elective office.
“This issue is critical. We have heard loud and clear from the community that we must do something,” Soria said.
The proposal came to a stop in the Senate Elections Committee, where lawmakers argued the bill’s restrictions were too broad.
California’s sex offender registration system is divided into three tiers. Tier 1 offenders are generally required to register for 10 years, Tier 2 offenders for 20 years and Tier 3 offenders for life.
According to Soria, committee members proposed limiting the bill to Tier 3 offenders. She rejected those amendments, arguing that the legislation should apply more broadly.
“For this not to be the law today, where we’re banning people that have committed some of the most horrific crimes against children, against other people, you know, and we have survivors out there, I think it’s a disservice,” Soria said.
The bill had attracted significant support before reaching the Senate. It was backed by the Fresno City Council and passed the Assembly floor in April.
Fresno City Council President Nelson Esparza traveled to Sacramento to testify in favor of the measure and said he was disappointed by the outcome.
“I call it really a gut punch for our community, and what we had experienced here, and sort of the upheaval… I don’t think we want that to happen again here at Fresno,” Esparza said.
Esparza referenced controversy earlier this year involving registered sex offender Rene Campos, who sought a seat on the Fresno City Council but ultimately did not qualify for the ballot.
Opponents of the bill argued that candidacies should be decided by voters rather than restricted by law.
“It should be a decision made by the voters, so a person should not be barred from running for office and let the voters make the decision that makes the most sense for them,” said civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci.
With the committee declining to move the bill forward under its current language, efforts to enact the proposed restrictions have stalled for now.
Copyright © 2026 KFSN-TV. All Rights Reserved.
California
Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) California voters will face a high-profile “billionaire tax” measure on the November ballot, a proposal supporters say would raise new revenue, but critics warn could push some of the state’s wealthiest residents to leave.
If passed, the measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.
Tal Eslick, owner of Vista Consulting, said, “I think there is this effort, especially on the part of progressive state leaders, to somehow, you know, go after billionaires or maybe even the trillionaires that may exist in the future.”
Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
Political analysts say a proposal like this could encourage some of California’s wealthiest residents to relocate, potentially taking investment and business activity with them.
Eslick said, “And for that matter, they can come back occasionally to visit and do a little bit of business, but live in a state that is a little more accommodating for them from a tax standpoint.”
Questions have also been raised about what the impact could be for Kern County if billionaires leave the state.
Sherod Waite, CEO of Moneywise Guys, said, “It’s questionable how much revenue would actually be generated from the tax and how much revenue would be lost from those people exiting the state. It’s questionable. It’s a gamble.”
Waite said billionaires leaving could reduce state revenue that could be used in Kern County.
Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
“Think of all the support services that the state offers to the entire state, including us here in Kern County, that are paid for by tax dollars,” he said.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has been outspokenly against a state wealth tax and is instead proposing a national tax policy that would tax anyone with a net worth of $100 million.
Newsom said, “It’s time for a national billionaire’s tax and a new social contract. Just think of this, just ten percent of people own 2/3’s of the nation’s wealth.”
Eslick said Newsom’s position can be difficult to square.
“It’s a naturally confusing sort of position to be opposed to the tax in California but be supportive of it at a national level. But I think that’s him walking a treacherous political road,” he said.
Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)
In a statement regarding the measure, Assemblyman Stan Ellis said in part, “This would hurt Kern’s energy, Agriculture, manufacturing, and working families through lost investment, fewer jobs and unstable state funding.”
California
Southern California residents say HOA made them take down American flags
WASHINGTON (TNND) — Residents in a neighborhood in Southern California said that their homeowners association has threatened to fine them if they don’t take down the American flags displayed outside their homes.
Amy and Chris Cooke and their neighbor Terri Collins live in San Marcos, which is located in San Diego County.
They said that they could potentially face a $100 fine if they keep the flags displayed outside their homes, according to the Daily Wire.
“I’m not taking my flag down,” Collins said. “They can fine me, $100, $200, $1,000, I’m not paying it.”
Collins said that the neighborhood is very patriotic because it is located close to the former Miramar Navy Air Station.
She said that “all the Top Gun pilots lived here.”
The neighbors said that ever since President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the HOA has enforced the rule about flags.
“Once the members allow use of a common property by an owner to express what is essentially a political or affiliative view in a flag, other owners will want to do the same and the common area will degrade,” a letter from the HOA reads.
Homeowners were told that flags displayed in “exclusive use” areas like backyards.
An HOA attorney told the Daily Wire HOAs “count on the fact that homeowners don’t know better and might be scared.”
BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT
“I would tell these people to stand firm and under no circumstances should they remove that flag,” he told the outlet.
-
Kentucky3 minutes ago
Former Northern Kentucky school bus driver sentenced in child pornography case
-
Louisiana5 minutes agoAudit finds barriers hinder Louisiana WIC enrollment – American Press
-
Maine11 minutes agoHow to safely enjoy the water in Maine as temperatures rise
-
Maryland18 minutes agoRep. Glenn Ivey, Community Members Discuss Gun Violence Solutions
-
Michigan21 minutes agoThousands without power in mid-Michigan
-
Massachusetts26 minutes agoMass. Legislature reaches compromise on $63.4B state budget. Here’s what’s in it
-
Minnesota33 minutes agoMinnesota Wild Signs Goaltender Calvin Pickard to a One-Year Contract | Minnesota Wild
-
Mississippi36 minutes ago
New autopsy of a baby killed by police in Mississippi deepens outrage