3 ms·

I know this is only half-serious, but people will often try to use environmental review processes to stop development (both for conservation or just because the

I know this is only half-serious, but people will often try to use environmental review processes to stop development (both for conservation or just because they don't want something). Especially in California, where the California Environmental Quality Act has a lot of teeth: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-environmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-... Handbook: https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelines_Handbook.pdf https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelin... PDF pages 348, 50, and cases in the appendix discuss aesthetic impacts. Anybody can raise these objections about a development (usually during a public comment period), with or without merit, and if enough people do so over enough comments, it can really mire down a project. Even if all the concerns are ultimately dismissed, it forces the developer and agency to spend time evaluating and rebutting them, and sometimes developers will just give up out of frustration and move onto areas with less regulation.

epistasis 3y ago
Aha, so the answer is that once something has happened, it's fine. But if a change is proposed, it can be stopped, or at a minimum much more costly and delayed. What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.
- solardev 3y ago
  Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot) In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort. Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.

epistasis 3y ago

Aha, so the answer is that once something has happened, it's fine. But if a change is proposed, it can be stopped, or at a minimum much more costly and delayed. What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.

solardev 3y ago
Its intent was to place guardrails/checks and balances around new development that could potentially damage fragile ecosystems. (It's still used this way a lot) In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort. Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different. Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.