Since their creation, California Environmental Quality Act and California Coastal Commission have been congratulated as pillars to protect against the negative impacts of development and to preserve the virgin stretching of the state seaside.
For so long, they were also porchicion by manufacturers and especially republican politicians who maintained the law of environmental law and the coastal panel expressed too many restrictions on the development of housing and obstructing economic growth.
In recent years, the specter of criticism has widened considerably to include democratic legislators and pro-housing defenders expressing similar frustrations. It’s not particularly new.
During his second round as governor, Jerry Brown called the CEQA reform “the work of the Lord”, but, alas, neither the heavens nor sacramento seemed capable of making a real change.
Governor Gavin Newsom also sought to modify the law and essentially did it in an emergency by renouncing certain requirements of the CEQA and the Coastal Liaison Act for the reconstruction of Los Angeles areas recently devastated by forest fires.
There is a feeling that the inability to fight against the acute shortage of affordable housing of the state can develop towards a critical mass which could modify the CEQA and the coastal commission – but we have already been here. In addition to more legislation introduced to do this, the thrust in California has been reinforced by a national call for deregulation, in particular to facilitate housing.
This does not only come from President Donald Trump and his government demolitionist Elon Musk, who both suggested taking a hammer at the coastal committee, which rejected the additional launching plans of Musk’s Spacex. (They probably have similar thoughts on how to treat CEQA).
A new book entitled “Abundance” has toured political and political circles, certain Democrats considering its theme as their path. The book is the culmination of years of columns, articles and podcasts of co-authors: Ezra Klein, columnist of the New York Times, and Derek Thompson, Writer of the Atlantic Staff. Both are considered progressives and sometimes described as liberal.
In a word, they maintain cities and states managed by Democrats, including California, had well -intentioned goals to block bad things, but in doing so, which had good and needed things – from the limitation of drug problems and homelessness to the development of renewable energies and, in particular, housing.
Their main theme is that democrats have focused on the process rather than on the results, leading to too restrictive environmental policies, zoning and expensive requirements on housing and infrastructure.
“An endless catalog of rules and constraints,” writes Klein and Thompson, made it difficult and sometimes impossible to build things.
Similar concerns have been raised by others, such as representative Scott Peters, D-San Diego, who are faced with contrary winds to try to modify the 1970 law on national environmental policy to facilitate the necessary improvements and the expansion of the country’s energy network.
Critics argue that the movement of “abundance”, as it is called, is essentially an effort of radical deregulation which will have important guarantees aimed at protecting the public and the environment.
The NEPA, CEQA and the California coastal commission were all promulgated about half a century ago and became largely untouchable of “third rails” of politics, especially in the opinion of many political and progressive political groups. (Interesting note: CEQA was promulgated in 1970 by the government of the time, Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon.)
But the laws have developed over the years and have their faults. CEQA to its best requires developments to alleviate their impacts, such as the construction or expansion of roads to manage the increase in traffic. At worst, the law was mistreated politically and legally as a lever effect which sometimes has little to do with environmental protection, but aimed more at slowing down or stopping a project or forcing concessions.
However, a person’s proposal to modify and modernize the CEQA is the concern of another that it will be emptied.
Politico recently declared that the precedent of the concept of “abundance” was the Yimby of California (“yes, in my backyard”), a pro-development organization with regional chapters created to counter the resistance of the district to the construction of housing, known for a long time (and derisory) that Nimby (“not in my backyard”).
Certain opponents of the invoices targeting the CEQA, which include certain unions, suggest the cost of materials, the available financing of land and a shortage of workers are greater obstacles to the construction of housing than environmental law.
Yimby groups have launched or supported many laws provoking the creation of California and local orders in recent years, although actions so far have not stimulated the type of housing construction, even if the defenders are necessary.
Overach is not limited to environmental protection laws, of course. Legislation in Sacramento and cities like San Diego to facilitate more quickly construction has proven to have exploitable escapes leading to projects that were not intended for laws, resulting in a significant reaction.
The city of San Diego has become a darling in pro-housing districts, receiving recognition and awards for its policies, in particular its accessory housing unit program, which was the most aggressive in the state.
But a hotel and a 22 -storey residential building offered for Pacific Beach on rue Turquoise were welcomed with alarm even by certain ardent defenders of the accommodation. The project was provisionally authorized under the law on state density premiums. Senator of the State Catherine Blakespear, D-enCinitas, introduced an amendment to the law to prevent similar projects.
After the buildings of real apartments were authorized under the Act of the ADU in certain unified districts, San Diego made some of his incentives back down, therefore, in the words of Mayor Todd Gloria, the projects “are in accordance with the scale and the character of the districts of San Diego”.
Unsurprisingly, there is a disagreement on consistency.
What they saidRon Nehring (@ronnehring), former president of the Republican parties of San Diego and California.
“From my international work, I received multiple reports of Chinese diplomats appearing in countries struck by American prices, trying to drive the corner between these countries and the United States while pushing narrower links to Beijing.”
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
