Many regions of the United States have experienced rapid growth in recent decades with California being the best example of this growth. The dangers of such growth have been evident since the 1970s and yet, neither the state nor local governments have been very successful in implementing growth control policies. Why it is that government has been unable to rein in the growth has been the focus of much research in recent decades. There are essentially two schools of thought with regard to this question. One is that pro-growth forces—essentially landowners, business elites, and elected officials—actively promote growth because it provides them personally with benefits. The other view, advocated most by Paul Peterson back in the early 1980s, is that elected officials do support and adopt pro-growth policies, but not by choice. Cities, Peterson argued, are constrained by the economic situation around them and they must do what they can to raise revenues and reduce, or hold steady, expenditures. This research examines a region of southern California that has experienced tremendous growth despite the fact that surveys of resident attitudes within the region indicates that in general, residents favor growth control. This research contributes to an understanding of the driving forces behind the pro-growth policies of local governments by considering how fiscal constraints placed on local governments by the state may limit the policy options of local elected officials, as Peterson predicted. This study finds that there is evidence to indicate that the revenue-raising options available to cities may be contributing to pro-growth policies. And this could help explain why elected officials continue to support growth within their cities despite the fact that residents express negative views toward growth.