Do not believe anyone that says they can slow down or stop housing growth in Manteca as they try to sweet talk you out of your vote this year.

The reason is simple. No one — not the incumbents, not challengers, or not a mixture there of them can if there are changes Nov. 3 — can stop housing growth in Manteca.

The reason is simple. It’s illegal to do so.

Even Manteca’s Ordinance 800 adopted in 1988 to control growth that is liberal by all standards isn’t worth the byte space it takes up on a PDF file.

It is illegal to enforce growth control measures or moratoriums on housing in California through Jan. 1, 2030.

The odds are overwhelmingly that before the expiration date on Senate Bill 330 that was signed into law in 2019 for six years and extended in 2021 through 2030 it will be extended again.

Dubbed the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, it contains numerous measures to speed up and encourage more homes to be built to address California’s perennial housing shortage. One of those provisions suspends the act of growth management.

Are the people lying that make promises they will slow or stop residential growth in Manteca?

Technically, yes.

But I doubt it is with the knowledge they know it is a lie.

They are likely unaware of the law.

It’s a law a city council is powerless to change.

They are perpetuating a lie.

And while it is for political purposes by playing to the biases or frustration of voters and is clearly intentional by the standard of their seeking to curry favor and win an election, it is not a lie rooted in deceit.

Instead, it is more in the arena of ignorance than calculated misconception.

Manteca is about to break the 100,000 population mark in the next two years or so.

It is an event put in place long before anyone on the current council was first elected.

It was cemented by basic decisions regarding sewer and water made in the 1980s to mid-1990s when Manteca’s elected leaders were wrapped up in political infighting and acting like the Stockton City Council is now but with more restraint.

Manteca’s proximity to the Bay Area — and to a lesser degree Sacramento — along with key freeway and rail corridors has helped make growth inevitable.

Forget the irony that those most vocal in wanting to put on the brakes are among those who physically moved here in the 1960s and mid-1970s when Manteca was smaller than Ripon as well as up to a few months ago.

The growth they complain about was caused by them.

It’s just that now that they are here they want the door slammed shut.

But they still demand the things growth brings which is new retail and dining options and new revenue streams to fund existing and expanded municipal services.

Property taxes are one example.

Someone who has owned a home in Manteca for years have lower property taxes by far than newcomers given annual increases are capped by Proposition 13.

Buy an $800,000 home in Manteca and your basic property tax bill before bond measures and community facilities district fees is $8,000.

Of that $8,000, roughly 17 percent or $1,360 goes to the City of Manteca. Fifty-one percent goes to schools, followed by the county, Delta College, and other government agencies.

There are plenty of older resale homes that are 25 years or older with market values of $500,000 plus but typically have assessed values under Prop. 13 that are around $300,000.

That represents a basic property tax bill of $3,000, of which $510 goes to the city.

This is not an argument to modify or do away with Prop. 13. Far from it. If anything, it underscores how established homeowners who eventually see household income gains slow down as they approach retirement age are protected against generational inflation squeezing them out of their homes.

If you bought a house in 1980, the minimum wage in California at the time was $3.10 an hour.

The minimum wage today is now $16.90 an hour.

Wage increases raise the cost of everything. And minimum wage hikes represent the ever rising floor of the price goods and services cost not to mention housing.

That doesn’t mean growth shouldn’t be a factor in who you chose to vote for in the Nov. 3 municipal election.

You definitely want elected officials that maximum growth benefits since they can’t stop or slow growth.

Growth needs to bring more amenities that benefit the whole community.

That said, growth needs to occur by being directed and/or molded in the best possible configuration for the community.

Candidates addressing such realities are the real deal given if elected, they have no legal authority even if they got a majority of the council to join them to actually stop or slow growth.

Everyone else is blatantly misleading voters, even if they don’t realize they are doing so.