The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was generally a good idea at the time in the 1970s. I believed at the time that it was necessary, but it went a little too far. However it was better to have the act as it was passed than to not have it. The Coastal Protection Act was another similar measure that was needed but was written a little too broadly.
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA - Conservative News:
Now that we have 30 years of experience with these laws, I do agree it is time to "tune them" to make a little more sense. Both of these laws have caused our State to be considered "business unfriendly." They provide opponents of any sort of progress to have an almost unlimited set of tools to delay, stall or stop projects. Anyone who wants to invest and start something new can be stopped by a very small minority using these laws. In addition, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that the laws have actually had the unintended consequence of having the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve. For example environmentalists want to keep things natural and pristine --so they generally prefer no development. However by not developing some areas, non-native plants and animals take over, erosion can fill streams etc. By doing nothing, we may be damaging the environment. Housing studies have shown that by making it very difficult to build in the coastal zone, the Commission has contributed to the "gentrification" of the coast. If developers were free to build high-rise condos and apartments along the beach, more middle-class citizens could be enjoying the beach areas.
The problem is that the various special or "vested" interests scream when any minor change is made to these laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment