Huntington Beach ‘conservatives’ embrace leftist no-growth tactic

When it comes to land-use issues, conservatives traditionally try to reduce government regulations and protect owners’ freedom to develop their own property. They recognize that government red tape reduces housing supply and drives up prices. It’s a key reason the median home price in Orange County has soared above $1.1 million.

So it’s mind-blowing that the county’s most defiantly “conservative” council has gone all-in for development policies usually associated with the Left. Huntington Beach’s majority – Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark and council members Tony Strickland, Casey McKeon and Pat Burns – have refused to comply with state laws that more private housing permits.

It hasn’t gone well. The city has been repeatedly rebuked by the courts, having lost legal battles in 2019, 2023 and May. In the latest ruling, a San Diego court ordered the city to produce a “housing element” that allows developers to build more than 13,000 additional units. The city has cited environmental concerns and even defended the California Environmental Quality Act – an overreaching law that’s a scourge to actual conservatives.

Instead of reducing its no-growth regulatory grip, the majority is back with a new idea that also is gleaned from environmentalists. The majority is proposing a charter amendment that would require any city-proposed zoning changes to go to the ballot. It only targets city-initiated changes, but no supporter of property rights would subject reduced zoning restrictions to a public vote.

It’s a clear attempt to stop housing construction. The idea already has drawn the ire of state officials. The council minority objects to the majority’s secretive rush to bring this before the council without “robust public input,” but the substantive problem is that “its true aim is to evade state housing laws” by requiring a public vote to permit new development.

They also note that its supporters have dressed this up as an environmental-protection measure. Whatever the majority calls it, it’s an attempt to use big-government and “local control” to hobble the construction market. Even in the unlikely event it passes court muster, we’re not sure how this qualifies as “conservative.”