The list of those who hope to roll back all or part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a long one: Billionaire developers and real estate moguls, the world's largest retailer, some advocates of densifying cities and suburbs, and Governor Brown and the state legislature (at least when it's politically expedient).
They've been increasingly successful in demonizing CEQA as a job killer, NIMBY-ist coddler, sprawl defender, and development strangler.
Except CEQA isn't a land use law. It's fundamentally a transparency statute. CEQA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of private and public development projects (except those that are categorically exempt) and to make their environmental impacts public, along with measures that might mitigate those impacts.
Mitigation measures that are deemed "feasible" by a city council or a county board of supervisors become part of the project's entitlements.
CEQA has blind spots. As a result of 40 years of case law, CEQA ignores the social and economic effects of development projects, although most of us would include neighborhood cohesion under the definition of environmental quality. Some exemptions in the law are crude fig leafs for projects that should be examined more closely. And it requires work, a diligent news media, and luck to become sufficiently well informed to understand the environmental risks a proposed development poses.
As a practical matter, compliance with CEQA is left to city and county staff members during the plan check and construction inspection process. When mitigation requires the property owner to commit to on-going activities, local governments rarely have the staff to monitor what's being done, particularly years after a project is completed.
The current CEQA process is far short of ideal. CEQA affects buildings far more than it does behaviors. The results are so piecemeal and short-sighted - and so political - that real community interests are often ignored. And given the scope of CEQA - in effect, nearly everything that's built - it's understandable that CEQA regulations are used cynically as a weapon that developers deploy to poison the plans of rivals or by community members as a barrier for obstructing reasonable change.
(Wal-Mart, as reported by California Watch, adopted a different strategy, threatening cities with costly special elections to get around CEQA's often lengthy reviews.)
CEQA was - and is - a compromise. And that compromise is breaking down under the combined impacts of the national recession, growing corporate power, malicious litigators, and a degraded political culture. But CEQA, for all its faults, is often all that we have between the quality of our lives together and those who only have contempt for such sentimental values as "quality of life."
So I wonder . . . who will be left to defend CEQA . . . and us?
D. J. Waldie, author, historian, and as the New York Times said in 2007, "a gorgeous distiller of architectural and social history," writes about Los Angeles on KCET's SoCal Focus blog.
The image on this page was taken by flickr user Alhambra123. It is used under a Creative Commons License.
-
A Stateside Solar Industry is the Way to Go
The Obama administration has made it no secret that green energy is the heart of its economic plan, not to mention its re-election bid.
-
'A Growing Sense of Resignation,' But What are Angeleños to Do?
A lot has changed since April 1992. Mostly, there are a lot fewer jobs from which a decent life might be made.
-
Prop 29: Should I Vote for a Good Proposal or Against a Bad Process?
Here are two fairly uncontroversial things that I believe: First, fewer people should smoke since smoking can cause serious health risks; second, more money should go to cancer research. But here is a third, more controversial belief: The initiative process is deeply flawed.
-
April-May, 1992: Remembering is a Political Act
1992 was a long time coming in neighborhoods across Los Angeles County; it will be a long time going.
RSS: SoCal Focus
newsdesk@kcet.org
Mikey says :
You wrote: "Except CEQA isn't a land use law. It's fundamentally a transparency statute. CEQA requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of private and public development projects (except those that are categorically exempt)."
Don't you mean "statutorially exempt" i.e. have a statutory exemption? There is a huge difference.