I read with dismay the recent Almanac article that discussed how the Woodside Town Council (where I was mayor in 2019) decided to block all building applications related to a recently enacted state housing law, Senate Bill 9, based on the "creative" argument that 100% of Woodside should be exempt from housing requirements because of its status as mountain lion habitat.

Apparently, in the council's view, mountain lions prefer to roam among large single-family homes rather than more affordable duplexes. After a letter from Attorney General Rob Bonta and an emergency Town Council meeting on a Sunday, the council backed off of its position.

Although it achieved less publicity, in its Jan. 25 meeting the newly installed mayor, Dick Brown, pushed a more extreme method to achieve the same goal. In the name of "local control" he wanted to put the Town Council on record supporting the proposed initiative Constitutional Amendment 21-0016 ("Our Neighborhood Voices") which attempts to preempt any state law (except in three limited areas) that conflicts with a local land use law.

The extent of state laws that could be ignored in favor of local land use initiatives are not named, presumably by design, but the expansive language could be read to cover California's fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, landlord-tenant laws, environmental laws related to oil drilling and mining next to homes, and the list goes on. Fortunately, other members of the Town Council, namely Ned Fluet and Jenn Wall, both opposed the resolution, and the mayor withdrew the item from the agenda with a vow to bring this bad idea to a future meeting.

Like many Bay Area cities and towns, Woodside is attractive to both long-time homeowners who have already benefited from the California dream and younger families and others looking to make a new home for themselves, some of whom are the sons and daughters of the first group. Also, like other Bay Area towns, Woodside vacillates between welcoming these new folks and pulling up the drawbridge.

If California has learned anything in the past 40 years of "local control" over housing policy, it is that most localities have their own special reasons to limit multi-unit housing growth, but with predictable results. California is among the most expensive states to live in; we have more homeless residents than any other state and most cities are happy to point the finger at others for not doing enough. Woodside's own local public elementary school has declining enrollment, not because it's not excellent (it most certainly is), but because families can't afford to move here.

I am extremely grateful that the state Legislature is working to remove barriers to housing development and I hope they are not overturned by NIMBY forces hiding behind big cats or, or worse, pushing initiatives to gut state civil rights, housing and environmental laws. Housing in our region is tight and expensive; we can all be part of the problem or part of the solution.

Woodside has always met its state housing allocations in the past. If the Town Council applies the same creativity to meeting its state housing numbers as its attempts to shirk them, I am confident solutions can be found.

For Woodside residents, if you don't want your tax dollars wasted on litigation defending "creative" arguments to avoid housing obligations, you have a remedy. This November, three Town Council seats are on the ballot. Most Woodside Town Council elections are sleepy, frequently unopposed affairs. I would urge residents who prefer Town Council representatives who will not invite unwanted litigation or advocate for issues that would gut important constitutional protections, to run for these seats or support the challengers who run.

Daniel Yost has lived in Woodside for 19 years. He served as mayor in 2019 and as a member of the Town Council from 2015 to 2020.