|
|
|
|
|
|
by Labienus
1231 days ago
|
|
|
It's unlikely to change development significantly. California NIMBYs still have enormous autonomy through CEQA. It enables any individual to contest developments for years, obligating developers enormous sums of money and time to study "environmental impacts". Last winter, the law was expanded through a ruling in Berkeley. If a development adds a sizable number of people, it can be seen as an environmental impact and denied. Development will remain costly, time consuming, and ultimately as unpredictable as the law allows. Wealthy and well connected developers might get by, but it won't be a Japan-like situation. For those wishing reform on an "environmental law" it will be a lot more politically costly. We'll likely get another Houston situation where "no zoning" doesn't imply what it should imply. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-... https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/how-environmental-... |
|
|
As for CEQA, here's what a local law firm has to say: "In particular, the intersection between Builder's Remedy and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) remains untested. Jurisdictions may try to use CEQA to regain discretionary authority over Builder's Remedy projects. Whether that tactic will prove effective remains to be seen, given that CEQA may not be used to do that which other statutes prohibit. Pub. Res. Code, § 21004; CEQA Guidelines § 15040(e)."
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/10/build...