I’m here in the belly of Southern California’s worst acronym for what could be a key vote over how the region grows over the next decade. Here’s some background on what’s happening:

For 50 years, the state has required local governments to set aside land for new housing to accommodate projected population growth. This process is deeply flawed and hasn’t led to nearly enough housing, but does require cities to zone for growth latimes.com/projects/la-pol-…

The process begins as a back and forth between the state and regional agencies over a) how much a region should grow and then b) where that growth should be. We’re now going through this for the Southern California Assn of Governments, which represents half the state’s population

In June, the regional government, which is made up of local officials from Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura, said they wanted to plan for 430k new homes through 2029, citing potential “chaos” if the state pushed for more latimes.com/politics/la-pol-…

The state, at Gov. @GavinNewsom’s urging, has said local governments have to do a lot to accommodate growth as a remedy to California’s housing problems. So a few months later, the state responded by tripling the region’s housing allocation to 1.3 million latimes.com/california/story…

Now, the fight moves to where that growth should be. Some local governments say it should go inland where there’s more vacant land and provide less disturbance to existing development. Others contend, for climate change and housing demand reasons, it should go nearer to the coast

A lot of things could happen today, but there could be a key vote between two very competing visions. The inland growth option pushes the responsibility to zone for about 130k homes to Riverside/San Bernardino. The coastal one puts those homes in LA and Orange County.