3 ms·

States are unitary governments so they're not "seizing" anything. They already have the authority to override counties and municipalities.

jeffbee 4y ago
Right, another mistake that casual commenters make. The relationship between the city and the state is not analogous to the relationship between the state and the nation. Cities have no powers other than those granted by the state, they exist to serve the purposes of the state and to further state policies, and the state has the unilateral ability to end a city for any or no reason. If a city fails to advance state policy it has no reason to continue existing.
- sremani 4y ago
  It is about Local-ism. You make stupid rules at city level, you feel the consequences and people who want to advocate their position can travel few blocks for them to be at least heard. Try that at State level esp. in a massive state like CA, TX, FL and NY. State bureaucracy is far removed from the people.. you are just a row in an excel sheet, if you are lucky.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    You're not conceptually wrong, but structurally, jeffbee is quite correct: the details vary from state to state (for the exact same reason: every state has its own constitution describing how it is organized separate from the federal government) but unless that constitution says otherwise, the governmental structure of the United States is (right there in the name) a union of states, and each state has (federally-constrained) sovereignty in its borders. If the California constitution says cities have more power, then they do. But I'm pretty sure it says (like every state constitution I'm familiar with) that city power is wholly defined by state authority and if the state wants to explicitly revoke the right to zone, they can do that. (Whether or not it's a bad idea is independent of the question "Do they have the authority").
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    So what? The constitution of the U.S., and likely of every State, clearly does not endow any independent sovereignty to local municipalities.

jeffbee 4y ago

Right, another mistake that casual commenters make. The relationship between the city and the state is not analogous to the relationship between the state and the nation. Cities have no powers other than those granted by the state, they exist to serve the purposes of the state and to further state policies, and the state has the unilateral ability to end a city for any or no reason. If a city fails to advance state policy it has no reason to continue existing.

sremani 4y ago
It is about Local-ism. You make stupid rules at city level, you feel the consequences and people who want to advocate their position can travel few blocks for them to be at least heard. Try that at State level esp. in a massive state like CA, TX, FL and NY. State bureaucracy is far removed from the people.. you are just a row in an excel sheet, if you are lucky.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  You're not conceptually wrong, but structurally, jeffbee is quite correct: the details vary from state to state (for the exact same reason: every state has its own constitution describing how it is organized separate from the federal government) but unless that constitution says otherwise, the governmental structure of the United States is (right there in the name) a union of states, and each state has (federally-constrained) sovereignty in its borders. If the California constitution says cities have more power, then they do. But I'm pretty sure it says (like every state constitution I'm familiar with) that city power is wholly defined by state authority and if the state wants to explicitly revoke the right to zone, they can do that. (Whether or not it's a bad idea is independent of the question "Do they have the authority").
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  So what? The constitution of the U.S., and likely of every State, clearly does not endow any independent sovereignty to local municipalities.