California needs more housing. California needs better transit. Few would disagree.
The problem is that Sacramento increasingly believes both goals can be achieved by reducing the role of the governments responsible for making them work.
Senate Bill 1361 is the latest example.
As amended, the bill would restrict cities from requesting changes to transit service related to SB 79, limit their ability to raise concerns regarding transit projects, and discourage local governments from withholding support for federal transit grant applications.
The bill is built on a troubling premise: that cities are standing in the way of progress.
For the California Contract Cities Association and our 84 member cities, that premise reflects a growing disconnect between state policymakers and the realities local governments manage every day.
The first disconnect is infrastructure.
Sacramento continues advancing policies that increase density while placing less value on the voices of the communities responsible for accommodating that growth.
Transit stations do not exist in isolation. They bring additional housing, traffic demands, utility needs, public safety responsibilities, parking impacts, and long-term infrastructure obligations. Cities remain responsible for managing those realities long after a project is approved.
Responsible planning requires coordination between the agencies setting policy and the communities responsible for implementation.
Yet SB 1361 would limit the ability of cities to raise concerns when state-imposed density requirements create legitimate impacts on streets, infrastructure, public services, and neighborhood quality of life. Restricting local participation does not eliminate those challenges. It simply increases the likelihood that they emerge later as costly conflicts, infrastructure deficiencies, and community frustration.
Cities throughout California have warned that they need greater clarity regarding implementation standards, infrastructure planning, and compliance requirements before many of these policies can be effectively carried out.
The second disconnect is transit itself.
Sacramento increasingly assumes that density alone will solve both housing and transportation challenges.
The data suggest otherwise.
California has invested billions of dollars in transit expansion over the past several decades. Yet statewide ridership was declining before the pandemic and continues to recover unevenly today. UCLA transportation researcher Dr. Brian Taylor recently noted that many transit agencies continue to face significant ridership and fiscal challenges despite substantial public investment. Recent developments in Los Angeles County reinforce that reality. Even as Metro prepares to open the long-awaited D Line extension through one of the region’s most transit-rich corridors, transportation experts acknowledge that attracting riders remains a challenge. Meanwhile, Metrolink continues to struggle with ridership pressures, service reductions, operational challenges, and financial constraints.
Density alone does not create transit success.
Safety, reliability, service frequency, cleanliness, affordability, and rider confidence all influence whether people choose transit. Restricting local input will not improve service reliability, increase ridership, enhance safety, or strengthen public confidence. It simply removes valuable perspectives from governments that help address many of the factors influencing transit performance.
The third and most troubling disconnect is Sacramento’s view of local government.
SB 1361 is premised on the idea that cities raising concerns are attempting to obstruct progress. In reality, local governments are balancing housing production, infrastructure capacity, public safety, economic development, environmental compliance, and community expectations every day.
That is governance.
Cities such as Paramount and Pico Rivera have expressed support for transit investment while raising legitimate questions about implementation and local impacts. Their position reflects practical responsibility but is labeled opposition to progress.
Local knowledge is a planning asset that helps identify problems before they become expensive mistakes. Communities affected by these decisions deserve a meaningful voice in shaping them, and cities deserve to be treated as partners rather than barriers.
California’s housing and transportation challenges are real. But they will not be solved by assuming Sacramento always knows best.
The most successful projects emerge when state agencies, transit providers, and local governments work together toward shared goals. That partnership becomes harder when legislation begins from the premise that local expertise is something to be managed rather than valued.
SB 1361 moves California further away from that principle.
Marcel Rodarte is the executive director of California Contract Cities Association (CCCA), an organization representing over 84 cities throughout Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire.