3 ms·

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

by euyyn 9y ago

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Environmental requirements are often a back-door for NIMBY-ism. If you black-box the process, raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled. We have enough such levers. Everything of this "levers NIMBYs can pull to discourage development near them" category should get offloaded to a a bureaucracy that's empowered to ignore people yanking on them.
- red_hairing 9y ago
  that is why if trump does manage to cut the EPA, it could drive down housing prices by increasing supply of new homes and apartments.
  - klipt 9y ago
    Pretty sure California's CEQA is independent of the EPA.
    - wahern 9y ago
      Yes, it is. And it's _much_ easier to bring and maintain a lawsuit under CEQA. The costs of environmental review under the federal law is basically baked into the cost of doing business these days. But CEQA is too easy to abuse, and NIMBYs can and do tie up projects for years, often killing them altogether, without any serious threat of substantive environmental harm. The procedural rules of CEQA make it difficult for judges to handle the cases efficiently, and it effectively immunizes plaintiffs from repercussions. The reason why CEQA can't be amended or repealed is because it effectively gives the environmental lobby a veto over projects, and that lobby is a pillar of the governing coalition in California. Setting aside the wisdom of granting such leverage to non-state institutions, any amendments that cut down on NIMBY abuse would almost necessarily reduce the environmental lobby's de facto veto powers. California can keep putting the screws to city councils, but unless they amend CEQA you'll see very little change in number of units built, except for large projects or well-heeled (i.e. well-lawyered) developers. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could step in. A possible silver lining of adding another conservative vote to SCOTUS would be that it might strike down CEQA as commonly applied. Likewise, they would hopefully crack down on the "community input" process that makes it difficult for developers to clear zoning hurdles. In particular, in cities like San Francisco zoning laws are so loosely defined and applied that it's impossible to submit a plan with any degree of confidence that it meets zoning and other regulatory requirements. In reality you're basically bargaining with the city like you would bargain with a corrupt city political machine in the 19th century, except it has the imprimatur of the courts. It's a failure of Due Process, the most basic guarantee of Western constitutional law. Government is supposed to apply clearly defined laws. In particular, zoning boards and other instruments of government (courts in CEQA lawsuits) aren't supposed to be venues for democratic feedback. NIMBYs are free to lobby to change zoning and regulatory law to shape the character of their neighborhood; they shouldn't have a backdoor to change those rules on-the-fly as part of development plan approvals.
      - malandrew 9y ago
        This. CEQA is a nightmare. If I recall correctly, CEQA has been abused multiple times to prevent bikesharing and expansion of bike lanes in San Francisco. The argument made I believe was that such changes would change the car driving patterns and increase pollution from emissions.
        amluto 9y ago
        I apparently can't put an environmentally friendly roof on my house because of CEQA. (Historical preservation is a part of environmental quality.)
      - coredog64 9y ago
        If someone could argue disparate impact along with 'delegating powers to the unelected' I would bet they would get a 9-0 ruling.
    - red_hairing 9y ago
      my comment applied to a greater scope than just california and a greater scope than the issues discussed in the article....
- 7952 9y ago
  The trouble is that "environment" can grow to encompass many highly political issues beyond the most obvious things. It lets politicians wiggle out of deciding things by setting up a scientific process.
- euyyn 9y ago
  > raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled Environmental concerns under CEQA aren't "black-boxed" or generic, they have to be categorized, detailed, and public. Mitigation measures are sometimes expensive, yes. Rubber-stamping construction permits in my island is how we ended up with rows of hotels destroying the coast illegally. Once the buildings are there, the harm is done, and no one has the money to demolish them. "Going after them after the fact" can work for arbitrary zoning requirements, but it doesn't work for environmental ones.

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

by euyyn 9y ago

Just for zoning requirements, not environmental ones, though.

Environmental requirements are often a back-door for NIMBY-ism. If you black-box the process, raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled. We have enough such levers. Everything of this "levers NIMBYs can pull to discourage development near them" category should get offloaded to a a bureaucracy that's empowered to ignore people yanking on them.

red_hairing 9y ago
that is why if trump does manage to cut the EPA, it could drive down housing prices by increasing supply of new homes and apartments.
- klipt 9y ago
  Pretty sure California's CEQA is independent of the EPA.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Yes, it is. And it's _much_ easier to bring and maintain a lawsuit under CEQA. The costs of environmental review under the federal law is basically baked into the cost of doing business these days. But CEQA is too easy to abuse, and NIMBYs can and do tie up projects for years, often killing them altogether, without any serious threat of substantive environmental harm. The procedural rules of CEQA make it difficult for judges to handle the cases efficiently, and it effectively immunizes plaintiffs from repercussions. The reason why CEQA can't be amended or repealed is because it effectively gives the environmental lobby a veto over projects, and that lobby is a pillar of the governing coalition in California. Setting aside the wisdom of granting such leverage to non-state institutions, any amendments that cut down on NIMBY abuse would almost necessarily reduce the environmental lobby's de facto veto powers. California can keep putting the screws to city councils, but unless they amend CEQA you'll see very little change in number of units built, except for large projects or well-heeled (i.e. well-lawyered) developers. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could step in. A possible silver lining of adding another conservative vote to SCOTUS would be that it might strike down CEQA as commonly applied. Likewise, they would hopefully crack down on the "community input" process that makes it difficult for developers to clear zoning hurdles. In particular, in cities like San Francisco zoning laws are so loosely defined and applied that it's impossible to submit a plan with any degree of confidence that it meets zoning and other regulatory requirements. In reality you're basically bargaining with the city like you would bargain with a corrupt city political machine in the 19th century, except it has the imprimatur of the courts. It's a failure of Due Process, the most basic guarantee of Western constitutional law. Government is supposed to apply clearly defined laws. In particular, zoning boards and other instruments of government (courts in CEQA lawsuits) aren't supposed to be venues for democratic feedback. NIMBYs are free to lobby to change zoning and regulatory law to shape the character of their neighborhood; they shouldn't have a backdoor to change those rules on-the-fly as part of development plan approvals.
    - malandrew 9y ago
      This. CEQA is a nightmare. If I recall correctly, CEQA has been abused multiple times to prevent bikesharing and expansion of bike lanes in San Francisco. The argument made I believe was that such changes would change the car driving patterns and increase pollution from emissions.
      - amluto 9y ago
        I apparently can't put an environmentally friendly roof on my house because of CEQA. (Historical preservation is a part of environmental quality.)
    - coredog64 9y ago
      If someone could argue disparate impact along with 'delegating powers to the unelected' I would bet they would get a 9-0 ruling.
  - red_hairing 9y ago
    my comment applied to a greater scope than just california and a greater scope than the issues discussed in the article....
7952 9y ago
The trouble is that "environment" can grow to encompass many highly political issues beyond the most obvious things. It lets politicians wiggle out of deciding things by setting up a scientific process.
euyyn 9y ago
> raising environmental concerns is a lever folks can pull to make specific proposed development more expensive and possibly cancelled Environmental concerns under CEQA aren't "black-boxed" or generic, they have to be categorized, detailed, and public. Mitigation measures are sometimes expensive, yes. Rubber-stamping construction permits in my island is how we ended up with rows of hotels destroying the coast illegally. Once the buildings are there, the harm is done, and no one has the money to demolish them. "Going after them after the fact" can work for arbitrary zoning requirements, but it doesn't work for environmental ones.