|
|
|
|
|
|
by rsj_hn
1853 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, Federal environmemntal laws also don't serve California or other arid jurisdictions well. I often feel like much of our policies are written by people who think the rest of America is New England and don't understand the needs of arid climates. Just look at how little we care about preserving aquifers versus preserving forests to see the bias. But in CA you risk being sued even if you have a timber harvest plan on Federal land, and then you need to deal with california district courts. Do you think the Ohlone, when they burned millions of acres each year, cared about whether there was a red-legged frog in one of the areas they were burning? But when you need to drag botanists everywhere to check on each tree and measure the girth of the tree and note all the species around it, it becomes hard to do what you need to do, which is get rid of hundreds of millions of trees every single year to keep these pests in check. Then there is the issue of local government, which while it doesn't control a lot of land, certainly controls a lot of land around cities, which is relevant for safeguarding lives and property. Take a look at what it takes to cut down a tree in Marin county - god help you if the tree is near a stream or if it is on a lot someone owns https://www.marincounty.org/-/media/files/departments/cd/pla... |
|
|
But these things aren't responsible for the systemic problems in this state. They're just what people are familiar with, and what drive the familiar refrains in communities across the world.
Zoning powers do contribute to systemic issues, but that's a different matter and varies locally. When zoning powers matter, it's when the local policies permit easy challenges. In both cases--zoning and CEQA--the fundamental problem is abrogation of Due Process--the orderly and equitable application of the law. Whenever a government makes a decision they're supposed to do so according to the commands of the law (including whatever specific statutes and regulations were promulgated beforehand), and do so in a strictly prescribed manner. Even if the fees are insane and the process slow, it's basically a fixed cost like any other. If the costs of a project pencil out, you proceed; if not, you move on. If too many people move on, it's relatively clear to policy makers and the electorate which hurdles (e.g. anti-logging laws) likely need adjusting. In theory the transparency and predictability make for a self-correcting system.
But when random citizens can interject themselves into the legal process, introducing arbitrary delays and costs, that's an entirely different matter. It creates tremendous uncertainty, much like if you had a capricious king making every decision. Time is money. Even if you know with absolute certainty the final verdict, if you don't know when you'll get that verdict you have no idea what your real costs are. Maybe you can placate the challengers w/ this or that concession or exaction. Either way, going in and until you get a court's final imprimatur, your risk is open ended. So not only do your direct costs increase, indirect costs like financing increase, and in general the uncertainty disrupts capital allocation, whether you're a homeowner or a billion dollar business. Every potential project, no matter how vanilla, turns into a high-risk, speculative venture.
Regulatory litigation over land use and development projects is the biggest problem facing California, IMO. The impact of everything else is relatively small. Other jurisdictions have the luxury of debating substantive policy. California's basic pathology is on a higher dimension altogether--a regression in the basic operation of orderly society; a government of men, not of laws.
You can see how this plays out w/ companies like Uber. Uber operates in a market not subject to this pathology. And despite their market being otherwise riddled w/ the same degree of red tape and costs, they do just fine. Whether they obey the law or break the law, they know their costs. (Indeed, often breaking the law is the cheaper option.) They could make more revenue w/ fewer regulations, and if the regulatory burden were drastically increased they might need to quit (like they said they would if they couldn't operate their drivers as contractors), but they enjoy an intrinsically business-friendly environment relative to markets dependent on land use and development.
FWIW, here's an example of some anonymous person(s), operating through an unincorporated association, using CEQA to prevent controlled burns in Mill Valley: https://www.marinij.com/2019/12/07/dick-spotswood-lawsuit-to...