It’s been quite a year on the housing front, but not in the way many North County residents were expecting.
When Encinitas voters chose a new mayor and two new councilmembers who promised to fight state housing laws that they say are impeding local control, cities across North County watched and waited.
This idea that current state housing laws are overreaching is a sentiment shared by residents and elected leaders in cities like Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach and Del Mar.
What We Learned This Year is our annual reporting series where reporters reflect on some of the biggest stories of the year. Read more stories here.
But how was Encinitas going to do it? Maybe the new Council would start rejecting housing projects that came before them like a previous Council did in 2022, which prompted a threat of legal action from the state attorney general’s office.
Or maybe city leaders would implement new city laws to counteract the state’s housing laws like in 2020, when a previous Council adopted an ordinance to try to exempt the city from the state’s density bonus law. That move prompted the California Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HCD, to issue Encinitas a “Notice of Violation,” demanding the city repeal the ordinance.
(Density bonus allows developers to build larger developments if they set aside homes for low-income residents in their project.)
But that’s not what happened this year. Instead, elected officials in Encinitas and most other North County cities have been largely compliant with state housing laws, approving large and unpopular affordable housing projects because the state requires them to.
But there’s another plan in motion behind the scenes—a statewide ballot measure that some public officials are hoping will force the state’s hand.
The Shift Away from Defiance
In February, when a controversial 448-unit development called Quail Meadows Apartments came before the Encinitas City Council for final approval, many residents were hoping city leaders would shut the project down. But that didn’t happen.
The state’s housing department had sent a letter to Encinitas ahead of the meeting, warning city officials that if they didn’t approve the project, they would be violating stating law and the situation would escalate to the state attorney general’s office.
In that case, state officials could decide to decertify, or revoke approval of, Encinitas’ Housing Element, a state-required plan that outlines how a city will make way for housing at different income levels. That could then trigger the Builder’s Remedy, a law that allows developers to bypass local zoning rules and build affordable housing projects regardless of the city’s wishes.
It wouldn’t be the first time Encinitas has faced consequences for not complying with the state’s housing laws. Several developers have previously sued the city, and the attorney general’s office has threatened the city with legal action on more than one occasion.
Encinitas Mayor Bruce Ehlers said at the February meeting that it was a “Sophie’s choice,” where every alternative has significant negative consequences. He and the Council approved the project that night.
Resistance to new development and higher density isn’t new. For decades, the need for more housing at different income levels has clashed with efforts to preserve community character, especially in smaller cities.
But in the past several years, California lawmakers and elected officials have been cracking down on cities that don’t follow state housing laws. These laws require city leaders to approve affordable housing projects that are viable and legally compliant, create and fulfill plans to accommodate for housing at all income levels, allow developers to build bigger projects if they include affordable housing and more.
When cities don’t comply, the consequences are swift.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and the state’s housing department have been known to take legal action against cities that try to evade state housing laws, like Huntington Beach and La Cañada Flintridge in Los Angeles County, for example. And the state’s housing department isn’t afraid to decertify a Housing Element; last year, Portola Valley in San Francisco became the first California city to have its Housing Element decertified.
“The most brazen violators are the priority,” said Bonta during Voice of San Diego’s Politifest live podcast back in 2023.
And there likely won’t be a push to relax or change the current housing laws at the state level any time soon.
State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, told Voice in March that the rhetoric being expressed in cities like Encinitas is not reflected in Sacramento. Blakespear is the former mayor of Encinitas. If anything, she said, there’s a perspective that housing laws need to get stricter because some cities are creating barriers to housing.
Assemblymember Chris Ward, who represents the 78th Assembly District, which includes small cities like Coronado, Del Mar and Solana Beach told Voice in March that housing problems are solved regionally, and cities have a responsibility to do their “fair share.”
A New Strategy
Since state lawmakers are unlikely to budge on housing laws, many of North County’s elected officials have shifted to a new strategy, a statewide ballot measure.
It’s called Our Neighborhood Voices, and it aims to change the California constitution to give local governments control over housing and land use decisions, allowing them to override conflicting state laws.
Four North County cities—Encinitas, Del Mar, San Marcos and Oceanside—have officially endorsed the measure. The Carlsbad City Council decided not to endorse it with some councilmembers citing concerns about transparency and the desire to see the final ballot language. Carlsbad Mayor Keith Blackburn, however, voiced his support for the initiative.
Our Neighborhood Voices is a nonprofit that argues that current state housing laws aren’t increasing affordable housing but are actually worsening the affordability crisis by flooding the market with market-rate and luxury housing units.
“We are being sold a lie: that endless upzoning and luxury development will solve affordability. In truth, it fuels speculation, drives prices up, and pushes families out,” the website says.
Supporters of the measure have also criticized the state for not providing financial support for these housing mandates, like money for infrastructure improvements, new schools and increased water supply demands.
Encinitas Mayor Bruce Ehlers told Voice that the goal is to have the measure qualify for the 2028 election.
Some of the more pro-housing public officials in the region have denounced the continued attempts to get around state housing laws.
Ward told Voice in March that he ultimately doesn’t think any effort to circumvent the state’s housing policies will work.
“You are rallying up the masses to try an approach that has been tested time and time again –whether you are Beverly Hills or Newport Beach or Coronado – and you have failed at the courts,” Ward said. “And so, I don’t know how reinventing this strategy, with a new set of characters and a new coalition that’s been coined, I don’t know how that results in a different outcome.”
Ah! A return of segregated housing of old, “We don’t want ‘Those People’ Here.” Are you going to adopt the “Sunset Laws” as well? The ones that say Those People have to leave town at sunset. George Wallace, would be proud of Y’all.
Oceanside was recently forced to approve a development that includes the bare minimum of affordable units (3, IIRC) which qualified the developer for 16 separate waivers of housing code, side-stepping green space, solar, parking, and other requirements. So we’ll have 70+ market-rate units with no parking, no solar, no consideration of evacuation routes in an emergency. Yes, we need affordable housing but the current laws are just being gamed by developers with no significant effect on the real needs of communities.
Wow Bruce. This is California. Maybe YOU should move to the libtopia of Venezuela🙄
Your comment is completely irrelevant to 21st Century California. The opposition has nothing to do with “who?” but with “how many?” Nothing whatsoever to do with George Wallace or racism.
Bruce, what a weird way to look at the world. You must be one of “those people” – you know, the ones that think they are entitled to the everything but want it given to them without having to work for it.
Forcing the construction of ‘affordable’ housing is just another form of taxation on an already frustrated tax base. Policies like this are ruining the states economy and making life unaffordable for EVERYONE, not just the folks that think everything should be handed to them.
The headline of this article frames the topic in a way that suggests something covert and nefarious is happening. In reality, what’s being discussed — including a proposed statewide ballot initiative to adjust how housing decisions are made — would, if successful, require millions of voters to approve it in the open at the ballot box. It doesn’t fit the common sense meaning of “behind the scenes.” 
That framing sets a tone that feels less like neutral reporting and more like advocacy, which risks distancing readers who are genuinely trying to understand the range of views on housing policy and local control. Our community would benefit from a report that lays out the facts on each side and lets readers form their own judgments.
Tigist, I’ve appreciated your work in other contexts — for example, you did a strong job moderating the North County mayors forum — and I know you’re capable of reporting with depth and balance. 
There are two sides to this issue: one emphasizing the urgency of meeting state-required housing targets and another emphasizing local control and civic stewardship to mitigate community impacts. Both deserve clear reporting rather than language that could be read as thinly veiled advocacy.
SACTO has caused the housing crisis with the long term capital gains taxes, along with Wall Street firms that bought up houses during 2008-2010 and turned into rentals. Long term capital gains taxes have frozen many boomers in place if they have little to no other retirement income aside from equity in their houses. By the time these people pay taxes on their gains, almost half the gain with CA plus Fed taxes, and even with the 500k exclusion, they cannot downsize within their own communities due to high mortgage rates and housing prices that will eat up most of the gain, leaving them living off social security and not much else. Or they have to move somewhere a lot less expensive—perhaps rural Mississippi—and lose proximity to their communities and friends and perhaps family. Some elect to build ADUs if they have capital and enough land, and they rent the house. Others just pay the tax and end up having to start over—unappealing and unhealthy for most older folks. And the author of all these housing bills—Scott Wiener,SF—garnered nearly $1,000,000 from developers in his last campaign. Look it up Tigist—same story with Todd Gloria, David Alvarado, and maybe Chris Ward? Please look at who supports these politicians and what the real dynamics are behind a frozen real estate market. It’s a rigged game that these “progressive” politicians have cooked up with their developer and investor sponsors, and then they spin stories of affordable housing to naive younger people who actually don’t know how this is really going down, and in politics money is the blood of victory. Politicians want power. Developers want profit. Neither actually cares about the people of California. Changing taxation laws to allow boomers to sell to younger people would unleash a flood of new stock and prices would go down a great deal. But then where would Scott Wiener get the funds to run for Nancy Pelosi’s seat?
The state’s “one size fits all” mandates completely ignore the fact that most of the smaller coastal cities have already reached their respective population carrying capacities. Roads are clogged with traffic, and there is no available right of way to expand them. Water and sewer distribution systems can’t handle additional growth, and neither can electric power lines. The mandates too often require demolition of smaller, older, inherently more affordable units, and the (expensive) new construction does not even replace these. How many of the new luxury units are either second homes, vacation homes, short term rentals, or held vacant for potential appreciation in value? We end up destroying our desirable neighborhoods in the process of somehow believing there is room for anyone who wants to live there. There are far more effective ways to provide affordable housing, including tiny homes, mobile home parks, and conversion of sprawling office and commercial strips and complexes into mixed-use. Affordable housing simply cannot be built without a government subsidy, and the state government is broke. Mandating affordable units on the most expensive real estate solves nothing.