California
‘Too damn hard to build’: A key California Democrat’s push for speedier construction
In summary
Oakland Democrat Buffy Wicks said lawmakers will soon see 20 bills to speed up housing construction, along with more on energy, water and transit.
A California legislator wants to solve the state’s housing crisis, juice its economy, fight climate change and save the Democratic Party with one “excruciatingly non-sexy” idea.
Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks sees the slow, occasionally redundant, often litigious process of getting construction projects okayed by federal, state and local governments as a chief roadblock to fixing California’s most pressing problems, from housing to water to public transportation to climate change.
Last year, Wicks helmed a select committee on “permitting reform” — a catch-all term for speeding up government review at all stages of a project’s development, not just its literal permits. The committee went on a state-hopping fact-finding mission, taking testimony from experts, builders and advocates on why it takes so long to build apartment buildings, wind farms, water storage and public transit, to name a few notoriously slow and desperately needed project types.
Today, that committee released its final report. The summary, per Wicks, is that “it is too damn hard to build anything in California.”
The report stresses the need for the state to build millions of new housing units and electric vehicle chargers; thousands of miles of transit; drought, flooding and sea level rise projects; and renewable energy projects “built and interconnected at three times the historical rate.”
Though the jargon-laden technical analysis isn’t likely to go viral, the report tees up what could be one of the biggest legislative battles of the coming year. Wicks said lawmakers in both chambers are hammering out 20 bills on permitting snags for housing construction alone. Other bills to speed approvals for transit, clean energy and water projects are reportedly in the works too.
Lawmakers regularly pass one-off bills aimed at making it easier for favored projects to get built. Nearly every legislative session for the last decade has seen at least a handful of “streamlining” bills for dense housing.
This political moment may be primed for something bigger, said Wicks. In the capitol, an aggressive red-tape snipping mood seems to have set in. More California officials, especially in Los Angeles and especially in the wake of January’s wildfires, want to re-examine how buildings get permitted.
President Trump’s unambiguous, if modest, electoral victory in November, riding a wave of public anger over Biden-era inflation, has pushed many Democrats to reorient their policy platforms toward cost of living issues.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, kicked off this year’s legislative session by urging lawmakers to “consider every bill through the lens” of affordability. Gov. Gavin Newsom more recently acknowledged “the inability of the state of California to get out of its own way” on big, important projects. He suspended certain environmental regulations for fire prevention projects last Saturday.
In California and across the country, concurrent housing and climate crises have convinced many lawmakers and Democratic-leaning policy commentators to prioritize building lots and lots of things: apartment buildings, EV charging stations, electric transmission lines, solar and wind farms, rail lines and bus networks. The quicker the better.
The catastrophic Los Angeles firestorms from January highlighted just how difficult it can be to rebuild. Newsom has named cutting environmental regulations and speeding up entitlement and permitting processes in the burned areas as his top priority.
In Sacramento, a new batch of state lawmakers, elected partly by mad-as-hell voters and unscarred by past legislative battles over permitting changes, may be newly receptive to making big changes too.
“All of that combined makes, I think, a unique opportunity for us to actually have some pretty significant change,” said Wicks.
The report itself does not offer precise recommendations, but its analysis is often tellingly specific, offering clues about the changes that lawmakers can expect to debate this spring.
Described as “opportunities for reform,” these are, in Wicks’ words, often “excruciatingly non-sexy.” For example, the report notes that lawmakers could be more specific about when a certain type of housing application is deemed “complete” in order to shield developers from future legal changes. Another “opportunity”: Allow for third-party experts to sign off on a project’s plans.
Current policies that could be a template for regulatory revamping, according to the report: the state’s bolstering of accessory dwelling units, electric vehicle charging stations and certain environmental restoration projects.
But those “success stories” share a trait that points to what could be the most contentious aspect of the coming legislative package. All three are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, a 1970 law that requires governments to study and publish findings on the environmental impact of any decision they make, including the approval of new housing, transit or energy projects.
The act, pronounced see-kwah, is among the most fiercely debated in California politics. Opponents contend that the law is regularly hijacked by special interest groups, such as NIMBY property owners or organized labor unions, to stall projects for decidedly non-environmental reasons. They point to high profile court battles as examples of the act’s abuse, such as the case resolved by the state Supreme Court last year in which Berkeley neighborhood groups argued that the noise predicted to come from college student housing amounted to a pollutant under the law.
“If we want to reach our climate change goals, CEQA needs to be reformed,” Wicks said. “If we want to reach our housing goals, CEQA needs to be reformed.”
Defenders of the law say it is vital to deliberation, public input and transparency, keeping local and state governments and developers from running roughshod over vulnerable communities.
“Sometimes, for vulnerable communities, the act is the only tool available to have a seat at the decision making table,” said J.P. Rose, a policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “To brush all of that aside to say ‘that’s just permitting,’ I think that’s a misguided lens to address this issue.”
Lawmakers often carve specific exemptions into the law, but historically, making across-the-board changes to CEQA has been a heavy lift in Sacramento. Two years ago, Newsom rolled out plans to overhaul the law in order to speed up the approval of big, infrastructure projects. Many of its most ambitious proposals were sidelined. Last year, the Legislature tried to rush through a bill aimed at getting clean energy projects up and running more quickly (it failed).
“Right now, there are too many opportunities in the process to put a wrench in the gears.”Buffy Wicks, Assemblymember, Oakland
Lawmakers are likely to spend plenty of time arguing about the act, no matter what happens to the permitting package. One bill, already in print, by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, would make it easier for urban housing projects to exempt themselves from the law and for local and state governments to avoid having to conduct full environmental reviews for every aspect of each project. The senator dubbed it “the fast and focused CEQA Act.”
Rose, at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the bill “fires a shotgun at the heart of CEQA.”
Carter Rubin, a public transportation advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council who testified to the select committee last year, said there ought to be a difference between the way regulators review projects that help achieve the state’s housing and climate goals and those that emphatically do not.
“We certainly would not support streamlining highway expansion or sprawl development that impacts ecosystems,” he said in a phone interview. “It’s really important that the Legislature focuses on shovel-worthy projects, not just shovel-ready projects.”
Wicks said she will put forward a housing bill on CEQA as part of the overall package.
“Right now, there are too many opportunities in the process to put a wrench in the gears,” she said. “There will be a cost for us Democrats on the ballot in the future if we don’t fix that problem.”
Source link
OAKLAND, Calif. – With Tuesday’s primary election approaching, the race for California governor is coming into focus — and one candidate’s rise has surprised nearly everyone watching.
That’s according to Joe Garofoli, senior political writer and columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle, who broke down the latest polling and key races to watch with KTVU.
Who’s in the lead?
By the numbers:
The latest Berkeley IGS poll of 5,000 likely voters from May 19-24, shows former Attorney General Xavier Becerra leading the field at 25%, with Republican Steve Hilton at 21% and billionaire activist Tom Steyer at 19%.
Just two months ago, Becerra was polling at 5% and Democratic Party leaders were quietly urging lower-performing candidates to reconsider their campaigns. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is now polling at 1%, was among those who suggested Becerra consider dropping out.
“This would be the greatest comeback since Lazarus,” Garofoli said.
He attributed Becerra’s turnaround primarily to the exit of Congressman Eric Swalwell from the race, saying Swalwell’s voters and Becerra share many of the same moderate positions.
Becerra, Garofoli said, has leaned into a steady, reassuring image on the campaign trail.
“He’s sort of portraying himself as Tío Becerra — Uncle Becerra, the kindly uncle,” Garofoli said. “This is not a guy who’s going to go to Sacramento and turn over the tables.”
The other side:
Steyer, meanwhile, has climbed from 15% earlier this month to 19% in the latest poll, powered by $213 million of his own money and a string of endorsements from major progressive organizations in California.
His support for single-payer health care and his pledge to not take corporate PAC money have resonated with the left, even as some progressives have historically been skeptical of billionaire candidates.
“Steyer’s a different type of billionaire than the tech billionaires who they traditionally oppose,” Garofoli said, noting that Steyer’s platform focuses on protecting and creating working-class jobs rather than advancing technologies that could eliminate them.
Ballots are slow coming in
Dig deeper:
Despite the competitive field, Democrats have been slow to return their mail-in ballots, with return rates sitting around 12%.
Garofoli said the hesitation reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the candidate pool.
“I can’t tell you how many people told me, ‘I don’t know who to vote for, none of these people appeal to me,’” he said. “Nobody in this field really has that outsized big personality, or at least has demonstrated it at this point.”
Local perspective:
In San Francisco, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added a new variable to the congressional race to fill her seat, endorsing Supervisor Connie Chan over front-runner State Senator Scott Wiener. Garofoli said the endorsement was expected, though its timing surprised him.
Pelosi’s recent endorsement record in San Francisco has been uneven — she backed Dean Preston, who lost, and Joel Engardio, who was recalled — but Garofoli said this one may carry more weight.
“It is for her seat. She has tapped Chan on the shoulder and said, this is the person I want,” he said.
Chan is currently in a tight race with Saikat Chakrabarti, a former tech engineer and one-time aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, according to Chronicle polling.
The Pelosi endorsement, Garofoli said, could be enough to push Chan into the top two alongside Wiener.
The Source: Interview with Joe Garofoli, senior political writer and columnist with the San Francisco Chronicle, Berkeley IGS poll
It’s been quite the unexpected slog through a field of candidates so numerous that all of their names don’t even fit on a single page of the ballot. Democrats in California have held the governor’s mansion, state House, and state Senate for almost two decades and unrest about that trifecta out West is real. The traditional political alliances are frayed, at best, with socialists backing a billionaire and Trump supporting an immigrant. A sex scandal tanked the hopes of a leading candidate, Rep. Eric Swalwell, and Trump’s endorsement of Hilton all but sidelined tough-on-crime Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco. It’s why Hilton, who moved to California in 2012, is in the mix in a race that is set to test assumptions about party loyalty, candidate partisanship, and money’s power. And it carries massive consequences about who will be the de facto CEO of the fourth-largest economy on the planet, between Germany and Japan, and a major player on the national political stage. This is not some backwater local election.
By Alejandro Lazo, CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
California air regulators on Friday approved a contentious overhaul of the state’s carbon market, creating a program that could steer billions of dollars in free pollution permits to oil refineries and other major polluters over the objections of environmental groups, key lawmakers and three of the board’s own members.
Ten members of the California Air Resources Board voted to adopt the changes to its cap-and-invest program after two days of lengthy hearings, including a full day dedicated to hundreds of public comments.
The overhaul followed intensive lobbying by the oil industry as well as pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration to help keep refineries operating in the state amid rising gas prices.
The approval sets up a potential budget fight in Sacramento. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that quarterly auction revenue for state climate programs will drop from roughly $4 billion a year to about $2 billion under the new overhaul.
Such a shortfall would effectively zero out programs lawmakers spent last year fighting to fund: affordable housing, public transit, drinking water in low-income communities and pollution monitoring in California’s most polluted neighborhoods.
The governor’s office praised the measure as a compromise that balanced economic uncertainty with the state’s climate goals. Refinery closures and the Iran-Israel war have driven average California gas prices above $6 a gallon.
Newsom, in a statement, used the moment to draw a contrast with President Donald Trump.
“While Trump sows ongoing chaos and uncertainty, California is staying focused by protecting our economy, safeguarding public health, and doubling down on the clean energy future all Californians deserve,” he said.
Environmentalists warned the changes to the program amount to a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that weakens California’s only program setting a firm cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California senior director for the Environmental Defense Fund, called the decision “deeply misguided” for prioritizing polluters over communities.
“Newsom’s air regulators are handing billions to oil executives at the expense of our climate, health, and affordability for working families in a rushed process that has shortchanged meaningful public participation,” said Bahram Fazeli, policy director at Communities for a Better Environment.
How the program works — and what changes
California’s 13-year-old carbon market forces major polluters to buy permits while the state lowers the overall cap each year. Friday’s vote will reduce those permits – and creates a new subsidy program carved out of the market.
The program, which may still see changes, could make available a new pool of free pollution permits available to industry valued at as much as $4 billion. Companies that pledge to invest in clean energy and efficiency may qualify for the permits in exchange for investments in clean energy.
The pool will be capped at 118.3 million permits — the same number the air board has said must come off the market for California to hit its 2030 climate target. Environmentalists say the proposal risks wiping out those reductions.
Half are reserved for the fossil fuel sector. A recent Berkeley analysis, by the chair of an independent committee that oversees the carbon market, found refineries could end up with more free permits than they need to cover their emissions.
The air board has defended the design. Officials say the credits will go only to companies undertaking decarbonization projects, will be limited and temporary and can be clawed back if companies misuse them. The plan, they say, is meant to keep California refineries operating at a time of mounting closures and global market pressure. According to air regulators, the amended program will spur clean-energy investment as Trump cuts federal support.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
-
Lifestyle21 minutes agoThe ‘Hacks’ finale ties a melodramatic bow onto a beloved series
-
Technology33 minutes agoWelcome to Night Vale host Cecil Baldwin shares his tech pet peeves
-
World36 minutes agoMoscow, Taliban forge military alliance in power grab after US Afghanistan exit: reports
-
Politics41 minutes agoTrump floats replacing 250th anniversary concert with massive MAGA rally after artists pull out
-
Health48 minutes agoCancer survivors may see surprising benefits from one specific exercise, study says
-
Sports51 minutes agoPSG Champions League victory causes chaos in Paris, with 45 arrested and fires set across city
-
Technology56 minutes agoWill this high-tech lounge change how you wait at airports?
-
Business1 hour agoStruggling Carls Jr. franchisee plans to close 10 and sell 49 California locations
