Proposition 45 would overhaul how the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA, applies to projects like affordable housing developments, water infrastructure, schools and clean energy facilities. Backers argue the law, while well-intentioned, has increasingly become a tool for delay rather than environmental protection.

Jenna Abbott, executive director of the California Council for Affordable Housing, says her organization sees the consequences of that dysfunction every day. Members of her trade group work to build housing for veterans, seniors and working families who have been squeezed out of the communities where they grew up or work. But instead of moving quickly, many projects get bogged down for years in a permitting system Abbott describes as outdated, unpredictable and increasingly disconnected from its original purpose.

“The result is fewer affordable homes, higher costs, and more Californians wondering if they’ll ever afford a place to live,” Abbott said. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”

Prop. 45, she argues, would preserve the state’s environmental, worker and tribal protections while creating clearer timelines and a faster process for resolving legal disputes tied to essential development projects.

Abbott stresses she is not opposed to environmental review itself. She says thorough evaluation of a project’s impact on air quality, water resources, traffic and wildlife is important, and that communities deserve input before shovels hit the ground. Prop. 45, she says, keeps those safeguards intact.

But she points to what happened in Redlands as an example of how the system can be exploited. Nearly a decade ago, a nonprofit developer proposed an all-affordable apartment community for veterans, families with special needs and working households. The 80-unit project, which included on-site support services, was the kind of development many residents say the region desperately needs.

Instead of moving forward smoothly, the project was hit with a lawsuit — not over water quality, habitat loss or pollution, but over complaints about noise and aesthetics. A court dismissed the suit in 2018, but the legal fight had already set off a cascade of delays. By the time the dust settled, the project’s cost had ballooned by $21 million, a 70% increase that worked out to roughly $266,000 in additional expense per affordable unit.

The development, known as Liberty Lane Apartments, didn’t open its doors until this past April — nine years after it originally received approval.

Abbott says that story isn’t unique. Citing research from the law firm Holland & Knight, she notes that 87% of CEQA-related lawsuits target infill housing — projects built in already-developed urban areas near jobs and transit, rather than in open space. Many of the groups filing these suits, she said, have little track record on environmental issues, suggesting the law is sometimes used as leverage for unrelated grievances rather than genuine environmental concerns.

The financial toll of these delays, Abbott argues, ultimately lands on the people who can least afford it: veterans waiting for supportive housing, seniors hoping to age in place, and essential workers forced into ever-longer commutes because they can’t afford to live near their jobs. Taxpayers also end up footing a larger bill, since delays often mean the same publicly funded projects cost far more by the time they’re finally built.

Statewide, Abbott said, permitting delays alone tack on more than $75,000 to the cost of the average new home — a significant burden in a state facing a housing shortfall in the millions of units.

And it’s not just housing that suffers, she added. Clean drinking water upgrades, road and transit improvements, new schools, health clinics and renewable energy projects can all get caught in the same bureaucratic bottleneck.

Abbott is careful to note that Prop. 45 would not repeal CEQA or strip away the state’s environmental standards. Local governments would still retain authority over what gets built in their communities, and the public would still have opportunities to weigh in. What would change, she said, is the introduction of firm deadlines and a more efficient system for resolving lawsuits, replacing years of open-ended litigation with a clearer, faster path to resolution.

She acknowledges the measure won’t single-handedly solve California’s housing affordability crisis. But she believes it targets one of the most persistent obstacles: a permitting and legal review process that too often works against the very projects meant to help struggling residents.

“California has a choice,” Abbott said. “We can continue accepting a broken status quo, or we can update our project approval process while preserving the strong protections Californians value.”

For voters across the Inland Empire and beyond, Prop. 45 will pose a fundamental question — whether the state can find a way to protect its environmental standards without letting the review process itself become the biggest barrier to building the homes and infrastructure communities need.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voters Could Fix Misused Environmental Law to Speed Up Vital Projects appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Proposition 45 would loosen environmental review requirements and limit public input on a broad range of projects, from freeway widenings to power plants and mineral extraction sites. Critics argue the measure hands developers and corporations far more control over what gets built and where, while stripping away the checks that communities — particularly those already burdened by pollution — depend on to protect their air, water and health.

For Inland Empire residents living near warehouses, freight corridors and industrial zones, the stakes are not abstract. Southern California communities have spent years pushing back against the health impacts of nearby logistics hubs, refineries and heavy industry. Advocates warn that Prop. 45 could make it significantly harder for local officials to impose the kinds of conditions that have historically softened those impacts — things like altered truck routes, stronger air filtration systems or requirements to control polluted runoff.

At the center of the debate is the California Environmental Quality Act, widely known as CEQA. The decades-old law requires developers to study and mitigate the environmental harm their projects may cause before construction begins. Supporters of the law say it has served as one of the few real tools available to residents fighting to keep hazardous facilities away from schools, hospitals, parks and homes.

Opponents of Prop. 45 argue the measure would effectively hollow out CEQA’s protections for a wide swath of development — not just housing, which supporters of the initiative say is the primary target of reform. Legal analysts have noted that other large-scale developments, including data centers and warehouse facilities, could also benefit from the loosened rules, even though they aren’t explicitly named in the measure.

Beyond limiting community input, the proposition would also grant developers new legal standing to sue government agencies that attempt to impose additional environmental safeguards. Critics say that provision could discourage cities and counties from pushing back on harmful projects altogether, out of fear of costly litigation.

There are also financial concerns. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop. 45 could cost the public more than $100 million annually in its early years, with the long-term fiscal impact potentially growing even larger. Opponents argue that taxpayers — not the corporations backing the measure — would ultimately bear the burden of mitigating pollution that a full environmental review might have prevented.

Adding to concerns from opponents is a clause that would make future changes to the law extremely difficult. Under Prop. 45, state lawmakers could only amend the measure with a two-thirds vote, and only if the changes were found to “further the purposes” of the original initiative — a bar critics call nearly impossible to clear.

More than 270 organizations, including environmental justice groups, labor unions, civil rights advocates and public health organizations, have come out against the measure. They argue that at a time when federal environmental protections are already being rolled back, California cannot afford to weaken one of its strongest remaining tools for safeguarding public health.

Supporters of the measure contend that California’s housing crisis and infrastructure needs demand faster permitting and fewer regulatory roadblocks. But for many communities across the Inland Empire and beyond that have spent years fighting the health consequences of industrial development in their backyards, opponents say the tradeoff is too steep — and the cost, ultimately, could fall on the residents who can least afford it.

Voters will decide the measure’s fate at the ballot box this November.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Prop. 45 Threatens Clean Air Protections and Public Oversight in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.