Local Control, Not Sacramento's One-Size-Fits-All
Why I support Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV), and what it would — and wouldn't — mean for Moraga. See this on my Priorities page too.
California has required Moraga to plan for 1,118 new housing units by 2031 — nearly five times our previous requirement. Under current state law, a project that meets the town's own zoning rules generally cannot be denied by the Council, no matter how strongly residents and their elected representatives disagree with it. Laws like SB 9 and SB 10 go further, allowing certain projects to bypass local review almost entirely — and they aren't isolated examples. By ONV's own count, Sacramento has passed more than 400 laws in the last eight years alone that shift zoning and housing decisions away from local communities. That's not a decision that should get made by a legislature in Sacramento instead of the people who actually live in the community in question.
What Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV) would do
ONV is a proposed amendment to Article XI of the California Constitution that would make zoning and land use a matter of local concern again, letting local law prevail when it conflicts with state law. Unlike some local-control arguments, this wouldn't only help Moraga if we were a charter city — it's written to apply to general-law towns like Moraga too, which today have no independent authority to push back on state housing mandates at all. That matters here specifically: Moraga has never adopted a charter, so right now we have zero legal standing to make a “local affairs” argument against a state mandate. ONV would hand us that standing directly, rather than requiring us to win a court fight the way some charter cities have had to.
For Moraga, that could mean:
- Real Planning Commission and Council review restored for projects currently fast-tracked with no public hearing
- Moraga setting its own parking, design, and density standards
- Real leverage to secure trails and parkland under the Quimby Act as a condition of development, not a hope
- Evacuation capacity and our limited road network actually factored into zoning decisions
- The choice between affordable, workforce, and market-rate housing made locally, not by a state formula
- Real deadlines on approvals, so projects can't sit half-built indefinitely without consequence
My commitment
If elected, one of my first requests as a Council member will be to ask for a discussion leading to a resolution supporting Moraga joining the growing number of California cities and towns backing ONV. I can make the request. Whether my colleagues ignore it, study it, or turn it into policy is theirs to decide, not mine to promise.
What this won't do
ONV won't undo a project that already has a building permit and construction underway — vested rights protect that regardless of what happens with ONV. It won't change Moraga's zoning the day it passes; the Council still has to act through its own ordinance process, with its own hearings and votes. It won't make the underlying housing demand or population growth disappear — it changes who decides how Moraga responds, not the fact that the pressure exists. It won't override federal law; the Fair Housing Act, the ADA, and federal environmental protections still apply no matter what the state constitution says about local zoning. And it hasn't qualified for a ballot yet, so this is a multi-year effort, not a quick fix — expect legal challenges over its exact scope even after a win at the ballot box.
A common question: isn't this just a way to block housing?
No. The problem with the current mandate isn't that Moraga has to grow — it's that the state removed the town's ability to decide how. ONV doesn't let Moraga refuse to plan for growth; it lets Moraga set the terms under which growth happens, including the trail dedications, evacuation planning, and design standards that make new housing fit the community it's landing in, instead of just arriving.