Since their inception, the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Commission have been praised as pillars in protecting against negative impacts of development and in preserving pristine stretches of the state’s seashore.
For about as long, they have also been pilloried by builders and mostly Republican politicians who have maintained the landmark environmental law and coastal have put too many restrictions on housing development and hindered economic growth.
In more recent years, the spectrum of critics has broadened greatly to include Democratic lawmakers and pro-housing advocates expressing similar frustrations. That’s not particularly new.
During his second go-round as governor, Jerry Brown called reforming CEQA “the Lord’s work,” but, alas, neither the heavens nor Sacramento seemed able to effect actual change.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has also sought to amend the law and essentially did so on an emergency basis by waiving some CEQA and Coastal Act requirements for the rebuilding of areas in Los Angeles recently devastated by wildfires.
There’s a sense that the inability to tackle the state’s acute shortage of affordable housing may be building toward a critical mass that could alter CEQA and the Coastal Commission — but we’ve been here before. In addition to more legislation introduced to do that, the push in California has been bolstered by a national call for deregulation, particularly to facilitate housing.
That’s not just coming from President Donald Trump and his government demolitionist Elon Musk, both of whom have suggested taking a sledgehammer to the Coastal Commission, which rejected plans for additional launches by Musk’s SpaceX. (They probably have similar thoughts about how to treat CEQA).
A new book titled “Abundance” has been making the rounds in policy and political circles, with some Democrats viewing its theme as their way forward. The book is the culmination of years of columns, articles and podcasts by the co-authors: Ezra Klein, columnist at The New York Times, and Derek Thompson, staff writer at The Atlantic. Both are considered progressives and sometimes described as liberal.
In a nutshell, they maintain Democratic-run cities and states, including California, have had well-intentioned goals of blocking bad things from happening but while doing so have stymied good and needed things — from curbing drug problems and homelessness to developing renewable energy and, particularly, housing.
Their main theme is Democrats have focused on process rather than results, leading to overly restrictive environmental policies, zoning and costly requirements on housing and infrastructure.
“An endless catalog of rules and restraints,” Klein and Thompson write, has made it difficult and sometimes impossible to build things.
Similar concerns have been raised by others, such as Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, who face headwinds in attempting to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 to facilitate needed upgrades and expansion of the country’s energy grid.
Critics contend the “Abundance” movement, as it is being called, is essentially a sweeping deregulation effort that will wipe away important safeguards aimed at protecting the public and environment.
NEPA, CEQA, and the California Coastal Commission all were enacted about a half-century ago and largely became untouchable “third rails” of politics, particularly in the view of many environmental groups and political progressives. (Interesting note: CEQA was signed into law in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon.)
But the laws have expanded over the years and have their flaws. CEQA at its best requires developments to mitigate their impacts, such as building or expanding roads to handle increased traffic. At its worst, the law has been abused politically and legally as leverage that at times has had little to do with environmental protection, but more aimed at slowing or stopping a project, or forcing concessions.
Still, one person’s proposal to tweak and modernize CEQA is another’s concern that it will be gutted.
Politico recently said that preceding the “Abundance” concept was California’s YIMBY (“Yes, In My Backyard”), a pro-development organization with regional chapters created to counter neighborhood resistance to housing construction, long known (and derisively so) as NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”).
Some opponents to bills targeting CEQA, which include some unions, suggest the cost of materials, financing available land, and a shortage of workers are greater impediments to housing construction than the environmental law.
YIMBY groups initiated or ed many California pro-housing laws and local ordinances in recent years, though the actions so far have not spurred the kind of housing construction even advocates say is needed.
Overreach is not limited to environmental protection laws, of course. Legislation in Sacramento and cities like San Diego to facilitate building more homes more quickly have been found to have exploitable loopholes leading to projects that weren’t intended under the laws, resulting in significant backlash.
The city of San Diego has become a darling in pro-housing quarters, receiving recognition and awards for its policies, particularly its accessory dwelling unit program, which was the most aggressive in the state.
But a 22-story hotel and residential building proposed for Pacific Beach on Turquoise Street was greeted with alarm even by some ardent housing advocates. The project at least tentatively was allowed under the state’s density bonus law. State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, introduced an amendment to the law to prevent similar projects.
After actual apartment buildings were allowed under the ADU law in some single-family neighborhoods, San Diego rolled back some of its incentives so, in Mayor Todd Gloria’s words, projects “are consistent with the scale and character of San Diego’s neighborhoods.”
Not surprisingly, there’s disagreement over what that consistency is.
What they saidRon Nehring (@RonNehring), former chair of the San Diego and California Republican parties.
“From my international work, I’ve received multiple reports of Chinese diplomats showing up in countries hit with US tariffs, trying to drive the wedge further between these countries and the US while pushing for closer ties to Beijing.”
