California has become a test lab for housing reform.
The state stands as an ongoing experiment-in-process for how far lawmakers will go to legalize the development of more homes and how hard local officials and neighborhood activists will fight to stop it.
The latest flashpoint struck on Thursday, as the Los Angeles transit agency board voted against implementing a landmark transit-oriented development law that city council members passed last year. The same transit agency board, following a staff report, now threatens to oppose a bill this session that would reflect technical fixes to last year’s law unless lawmakers change it.
Similar clashes and conflicts between state and local governments have been playing out in Texas, Colorado and Florida. Local governments fight long after laws pass. They push back with workarounds, carveouts and political resistance that can neutralize and stagger even the most aggressive reforms.
State lawmakers respond with more legislative tweaks to make it tougher for local governments to block compliance or exploit loopholes. Florida state legislators, for example, are now working on a fourth iteration of the Live Local Act, passed in 2023.
Board continues opposition
In California, the Los Angeles Metro Board of Directors opposed Senate Bill 79 before Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law with much fanfare last year. The law pre-empted local authority and opened land around rail and rapid bus lines to mid-rise apartments.
Senate Bill 677, now under consideration, would tighten the screws to strip away local roadblocks. The goal is to get SB 79’s transit‑oriented housing approved and built, rather than having it die in the process due to finance and permitting expirations.
The Metro board’s staff argues in its recent analysis that automatic upzoning fuels local opposition, delays projects and puts key local transit investments at risk. In making its case, the staff used a gambit frequently employed in other states: questioning the law’s definition.
“It is unclear whether major Metro rail corridors qualify as eligible transit stops under the statute,” according to the report. “This lack of clarity undermines the consistent application of the law, complicates coordination with local jurisdictions, and weakens Metro’s ability to advance transit-oriented development on and around its own infrastructure.”
Statehouse allies vs. local skeptics
The transit board’s decision drew the ire of the state’s “yes in my backyard” organization that pushed for SB 79.
“Legislators should remember this the next time they come to Sacramento begging for more money,” Nolan Gray, senior director of legislation and research for California YIMBY, wrote in a social media почта.
For housing advocates, California’s slew of state and local affordability policy tactics and experiments has stood out. The state has gone further than almost anywhere else to curb single-family zoning, streamline approvals and upzone land near transit.
Lawmakers in Sacramento have spent the past decade building a barrage of “carrot and stick” statutes. Those laws set minimum standards for how many homes cities must plan for and where those homes can go, especially around rail and frequent bus corridors.
That push has inspired copycat ideas and draft bills in other legislatures around the country. It has also produced a parallel narrative about how local governments and agencies respond when their accustomed power over development is challenged.
Last year’s Los Angeles law set statewide zoning rules for land within walking distance of major transit stops, including property owned by agencies such as L.A.’s Metro. The law allows mid-rise buildings when projects meet affordability, labor and environmental requirements.
Supporters frame it as a climate and equity measure. They argue that more homes near high-capacity transit will cut emissions, increase ridership and open access to jobs and services for lower-income households shut out of high-cost neighborhoods.
The bill also aimed to prevent displacement by blocking certain demolitions and requiring income-restricted units. That provision nodded to tenant and equity groups that spent years warning that transit-oriented development could fuel gentrification without guardrails.
Local politics and concerns rise
However, the implementation details — and the politics around them — are where Metro has drawn a line.
Metro staff says in its report that ambiguity in the law creates legal and planning uncertainty for long-planned expansion projects. The agency also says it hinders coordination with the dozens of cities that share jurisdiction over station areas, streets and permitting.
Staff also warn that linking transit investment to automatic upzoning has turned new rail segments, bus rapid transit lines and dedicated bus lanes into magnets for neighborhood backlash.
Instead of transit projects serving as a “carrot” for communities eager to capture investment, they write, SB 79 has made them the “stick” that brings state-mandated density.
They seek fixes to vague definitions of “major transit stop,” “urban transit county” and bus rapid transit. They also want changes that stop SB 79 from automatically tying density to new bus lanes and rail extensions that already face intense neighborhood opposition.
The staff proposed delaying the law’s effective date or piloting it in the San Francisco Bay Area instead of Los Angeles County.
What California signals next
The pushback from a major transit agency shows how fragile that model can be. Entities that control critical infrastructure can feel boxed in by one-size-fits-all rules.
If Los Angeles secures exemptions, delays, or a narrower scope for SB 79 and SB 677, lawmakers elsewhere may read that as a cautionary note about how far to go when they try to overrule local governments.
If, instead, the state holds the line and finds a way to address Metro’s technical concerns while preserving the core of the law, California could still offer a blueprint for balancing state mandates with local realities—and for making sure train lines bring not only riders, but new homes, with them.
English