It is unlikely that I would write another book on California politics. My next book would be called Unintended Consequences. It would detail how political policy decisions can change to have unanticipated consequences.
There are many examples of this syndrome, but these are just two.
In the 1960s, a new governor was elected. Ronald Reagan signed two pieces legislation that aimed to reform the treatment and care of the mentally ill. They began phasing out the state’s large system of mental hospital in favor of community mental clinics. Reagan wanted to cut costs and advocates for the mentally sick had condemned the prison-like and abusive atmosphere of the hospitals.
Reagan, his successor governors, and the Legislature never fulfilled the promise of community mental healthcare care. This left many mentally ill people to fend for their own and contributed to the current homeless crisis.
In the late 1970s, two seemingly separate acts, the extension of collective bargaining rights for California’s public employees in 1975, and the passage Proposition 13, the landmark property-tax limit, in 1978, led to the dominance of public employee unions in the Legislature.
Proposition 13 indirectly transferred financial responsibility to schools and much of the local government to state. Unions were motivated to remake the Legislature into an overwhelming pro-union body because of the unionization of state and local workforces.
Reagan also signed the California Environmental Quality Act. Its purpose was to require sponsors to assess the environmental impact of their projects and mitigate any adverse effects.
CEQA has evolved into a legal mess in the half-century that has passed since its passage. This can make it impossible to complete even the most benign projects. Often, opponents raise objections which have nothing to do environmental protection.
Construction unions can threaten to file CEQA lawsuits against project managers in an ill-informed effort to get their members access to the jobs. CEQA has become so burdensome that the Legislature gives exemptions to some of its provisions to high-profile sports arenas, such as this year’s Super Bowl stadium in Inglewood.
Although CEQA is not the only factor in California’s inability build enough housing to meet demand, it is a significant factor. People who don’t want this housing in their neighborhood use CEQA to stop or delay construction until it becomes financially impossible.
Berkeley is the latest example of CEQAs being used for purposes that were not intended. Save Berkeleys Neighborhoods sued Berkeley to stop plans by the University of California to expand enrollment.
Alameda County Judge Brad Seligman affirmed the challenge to UC’s plans for a new academic facility and faculty housing. He declared that the CEQA studies of the projects were inadequate and did no adequate analysis of impacts on noise, housing, displacement, and other impacts. The university was also required to stop enrollment at 2020-21 levels.
It is the same kind of attitude that has been so damaging to California’s housing needs and its housing output. In this case, it will block access for several thousand students who had intended to enter the university.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown once called CEQA the Lords work, even if he was not willing to do it.
It is still there.
CalMatters columnist Dan Walters
