The Riverside City Council once again demonstrated its troubling willingness to cede the city’s autonomy to Governor Gavin Newsom and California’s one-party system. As a charter city, Riverside has the constitutional authority to govern its own affairs, free from excessive state interference. Yet, the council’s actions—or rather, inactions—reveal a disturbing pattern of deference to Sacramento’s overreach, undermining the very principles that make Riverside a unique and independent community. This betrayal of local governance demands accountability, and it’s time for Riverside’s citizens to demand leaders who prioritize the city over political loyalty to the state’s ruling elite.
Under the California Constitution, charter cities like Riverside are granted significant autonomy to manage their own municipal affairs. This includes the ability to craft local policies, manage budgets, and regulate land use without being subject to certain state laws that apply to general-law cities. The Home Rule doctrine empowers Riverside to resist state mandates that infringe on local priorities. This authority is a powerful tool for protecting the city’s interests, whether it’s preserving local control over zoning, rejecting unfunded state mandates, or challenging regulations that harm Riverside’s economy and residents.
Charter cities have successfully pushed back against state overreach in the past. Huntington Beach has resisted state housing mandates by asserting its local zoning authority, arguing that Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all approach disregards unique community needs. Riverside could similarly leverage its charter status to challenge state policies that erode local control, such as burdensome housing density requirements or environmental regulations that stifle economic growth without addressing Riverside’s specific context.
Ironically, Governor Newsom himself has provided a blueprint for resisting overreach—albeit in a different context. Since 2019, Newsom has aggressively pursued lawsuits against the Trump administration, challenging federal policies on everything from environmental regulations to immigration enforcement. In 2020, he filed a lawsuit (Newsom v. Trump) against the federalization of California National Guard troops, arguing it violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. More recently, in 2025, Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta secured an emergency restraining order to block Trump’s alleged “illegal militarization” of Los Angeles, framing it as a defense of state sovereignty against federal overreach.
Riverside could adopt a similar legal strategy to protect its charter city autonomy. By invoking the Home Rule doctrine, the city could challenge state laws or mandates that encroach on local governance. If Sacramento imposes housing or labor regulations that undermine Riverside’s economic stability, the city could file lawsuits arguing that these mandates exceed the state’s authority. Newsom’s own rhetoric about defending “California values” against federal overreach could be turned against him. A bold city council could even partner with other charter cities to form a coalition, amplifying their collective resistance to Sacramento’s overreach.
Instead of wielding Riverside’s charter city powers, the current city council has chosen subservience to Sacramento. Tonight’s meeting was a stark display of this capitulation, as the council ignored opportunities to assert local control and instead aligned itself with Newsom’s agenda. This is not leadership—it’s surrender. A council that prioritizes loyalty to the state’s one-party system over the needs of Riverside’s citizens has lost its legitimacy. The only dignified response is for these council members to resign, making way for candidates who will defend the city’s autonomy and place its residents first.
Resignation is not an overreaction; it’s a moral imperative. By conceding control to Sacramento, the council has abandoned its duty to represent Riverside’s diverse community. Residents deserve leaders who view their role as a public trust, not a stepping stone to higher office or a means to curry favor with state elites. New candidates, untainted by the council’s current allegiance to Newsom’s machine, could restore Riverside’s independence and focus on local priorities like affordable housing, public safety, and economic development.
One of the most egregious symbols of the council’s fealty to Sacramento is its continued funding of junkets and photo ops with Newsom. These trips, often framed as “legislative advocacy,” are little more than taxpayer-funded networking events that reinforce the council’s dependence on state power. Riverside’s budget should not be squandered on lavish Sacramento visits or staged photo opportunities with the governor, especially when local infrastructure, schools, and public services are crying out for investment.
The council must immediately halt these expenditures. Every dollar spent on a Sacramento junket is a dollar stolen from Riverside’s taxpayers. Moreover, these photo ops send a clear message: the council values its ties to Newsom’s administration over its accountability to local voters. By cutting off this funding, Riverside can signal a shift toward true independence and fiscal responsibility.
Perhaps the most galling moment of tonight’s meeting was the council’s decision to praise former State Senator Richard Roth, a figure who epitomizes the state overreach they claim to oppose. Roth, a Democrat from Riverside, served in the State Senate from 2012 to 2024 and was a reliable supporter of Sacramento’s expansive agenda. His legislative record includes backing bills that increased state control over local governments, often at the expense of charter city autonomy.
For instance, Roth supported SB 35 (2017), which streamlined housing development by limiting local governments’ ability to review certain projects, effectively overriding charter cities’ zoning authority. He also backed SB 330 (2019), which further restricted local control over housing permits, forcing cities like Riverside to comply with state mandates or face penalties. These bills, while framed as solutions to California’s housing crisis, exemplify Sacramento’s top-down approach, disregarding the unique needs of communities like Riverside.
The council’s decision to laud Roth on the same night it feigned concern about state overreach is rank hypocrisy. By celebrating a politician who advanced Sacramento’s encroachment on local governance, the council exposed its true loyalties. If the council were serious about resisting state overreach, it would denounce policies like those Roth championed, not honor their architect.
The city’s charter status offers a powerful opportunity to reclaim its independence and chart a course that prioritizes local needs over Sacramento’s dictates. But this vision requires new leaders—bold, principled, and unafraid to stand up to Newsom’s one-party machine. The current council, with its track record of capitulation, is incapable of delivering this change.
We need leaders who will harness Riverside’s charter city powers to protect local control, whether by challenging state mandates in court, rejecting unfunded mandates, or forming alliances with other charter cities. We need leaders who will redirect city resources away from Sacramento junkets and toward Riverside’s pressing needs. And we need leaders who will call out the hypocrisy of praising state overreach while pretending to defend local sovereignty.
The path forward is clear: the current council must step aside, and Riverside’s citizens must rally behind candidates who will restore the city’s independence. It’s time to end the era of subservience to Sacramento and usher in a new chapter of local empowerment. We need all new leaders in Riverside—leaders who will fight for our city, not bow to the state.
