Does CEQA matter?

There was a bit of discussion about the City of Industry / Ed Roski plan to build a new sports stadium in LA County. The stories neglect to tell you a very major point, that Ted Lieu is listed as a principle co-author of ABX381, a bill that many detests.

Now, Lieu is running for Attorney General and does not dare brag about this bill on his web site.  In fact, the news lets Senate ProTem Steinberg take the rap for setting aside California’s Environmental Quality legislation to aid a private developer and a city of less than 1000 people.

I don’t think that this state needs an Attorney General who is so willing to set aside environmental law when it becomes convenient, just for that sake of a big developer who promises jobs… something that sports complexes routinely fail to deliver.

It might have been expected from a Republican.  That Lieu is a Democrat should be embarrassing to the party. I have already seen an effort to have SoCal Greens oppose Lieu over his willingness to set aside existing law.

3 thoughts on “Does CEQA matter?”

  1. Too often it’s used by NIMBYs and others opposed to a project to slow down, bleed dry, or just plain kill it.

    CEQA as it stands now is designed to promote obsolete and even damaging principles of “no growth” or “slow growth” and strangles the kind of “smart growth” we need. When people are using CEQA against solar energy or high speed rail, you know something has gone very wrong. Such uses of CEQA actually promote environmental damage.

    So CEQA needs to be updated to provide for actual assessments of how a project impacts the natural environment, its effect on global warming and carbon emissions. Other impacts, such as on neighbors, etc, should be excluded from CEQA analysis entirely. Projects shown to provide reduction in carbon emissions and air/water pollution should be given expedited review.

Comments are closed.