From the founding of the United States of America, a crucial question of how and who should prevail in governance has continued to permeate all levels of society. The founders of our democratic republic wrestled with this question when attempting to differentiate a new nation from others ruled by fiat of a despot, whether oppressive or benevolent. States of the union then (and now) were not equal in size or economic power, yet there was fear that relinquishing too much authority to a federal system would result in a different, political, type of inequity.
The primary problem of democratic rule was possible (and probable) tyranny of the majority and the result if hard and uncompromising factions arose in opposition. If distinct and separate branches of government – executive, legislative, judicial – are compromised, the case for such a system is weakened. This difficulty is prominently displayed currently at the national level.
Dividing government into distinct branches with specific and definitive powers was considered a solution to the vexing problem of autocrats and dictatorships. It was reasonable to assume that by diluting power of any one branch of government, a fair balance between majority and minority interests would be maintained. Some of the same patterns of control can be seen at state and even local levels as well. The question remains, however, of how lines of authority are drawn and what to do when they are breached. When does an issue transcend local politics and become the purview of a broader authority?
At the local and state level, governments are trying to determine how housing can be made available to all residents. In a Bay Area environment of high property values and incessant demand, prices skyrocket leaving many behind. In response, local authorities have tried to address the problem with limited success. State and regional governments have stepped into the breech with a formulaic approach that assigns housing goals and regulations based on land availability, building codes, population and a series of assumptions such as proximity of transportation hubs. Local government has been restricted in many instances, serving as a bystander who, while occupying the land, has seen its authority usurped.
A slew of bills from California’s legislative branch has either been approved or in process of passage. While welcome as attempts to stem the tide of homelessness and lack of affordable (whatever that means) housing, it also drains the strength of local government. Where does the balance lie between local, regional, state and federal jurisdiction? Complicated by the pandemic and shifting economic, housing and traffic patterns, it may be time to consider alternatives without resorting to established paradigms of a pre-pandemic society.
For example, Fremont’s Vision Zero modifications of traffic and mobility issues has significantly altered the streetscape and safety of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Much of this has been done at the local level with comprehensive study of novel ideas and the assistance – not control – of other governmental jurisdictions. It may be time for our local governments to use this as a template for an examination of affordable housing solutions outside state mandates.
Note:
Tri-City Voice publisher William Marshak received his second vaccination to protect against COVID-19 with the help of vaccinator Carmen at Washington Hospital on March 8. After receiving the treatment, Marshak said, “I urge everyone to get vaccinated as soon as possible. Together, we can beat this virus!”