Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state.
Rancho Palos Verdes should comply with the law, or face the consequences of not being able continue that control of their land management.
A great value of democracy is that a "random activist" can petition the government to enforce the law, that's how we keep the whole thing in check. The idea that random activists could not be a check on illegal behavior of the government is a very, well, authoritarian idea that is not compatible with any of the values embodied in the US or California constitutions, our legal system, or the very character and culture of the US.
> Communities are fully in control how they manage themselves, as long as they do it within the law of the state.
Yes, and my point is that continued trend of state and national laws overriding local jurisdiction over things like land use is not a positive one for residents of desirable areas (and arguably any land owner) and not something I agree with philosophically, not the litany of things you decided to rail about that have nothing to do with my comment.
Presumably you think it's not good for land owners of "desirable areas" because local laws create a monopoly that allows the landowners to extract wealth from others, through restriction of land use?
Can you see why there might be laws against that?
It is pretty well established that zoning was invented and is justified merely to enforce economic segregation. That economic segregation is perhaps the interest of landowners in these "desirable areas"?
I think by surfacing the true motivations of what's going on, it will become very clear why municipalities must be subjected to laws to enforce better behavior.
> Presumably you think it's not good for land owners of "desirable areas" because local laws create a monopoly that allows the landowners to extract wealth from others, through restriction of land use?
I think individuals should reap the rewards or suffer the losses from their individual decisions. If a community generates value, they are entitled to the rewards. If they run things into the ground (see Detroit as a notorious example), they're left holding the bag.
> Can you see why there might be laws against that?
Can I see why people would want to force themselves into a desirable situation that they had no part in creating? Sure. That doesn't make it right.
> It is pretty well established that zoning was invented and is justified merely to enforce economic segregation. That economic segregation is perhaps the interest of landowners in these "desirable areas"?
Citation needed on the first claim, but yes economic segregation is desirable to most people. That's not news.
> I think by surfacing the true motivations of what's going on, it will become very clear why municipalities must be subjected to laws to enforce better behavior.
The true motivations aren't hidden. Have nots are trying to get a piece of something desirable, and the people who already have it want to keep it.
US cities are under the jurisdiction of their states. States hold the power to abolish or establish cities. Cities are required to follow state law. Whether residents or non-residents remind cities of their legal obligations is utterly irrelevant.
If a city was allowing racial discrimination and no one within the city sued, would that make it ok?
Rancho Palos Verdes should not be required to comply with the request of some random activist who probably has never even stepped foot in the town.