![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thedailyeconomy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2025\/09\/Shutterstock_1427562989-300x190.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
California is home to numerous profitable industries<\/a>, but many of the state\u2019s residents struggle to survive under the weight of big government. Case in point: excessive regulations have suffocated the state\u2019s housing market and led to some of the nation\u2019s highest rents<\/a> and most expensive homes<\/a>.<\/p>\n In contrast, metro areas in the South, particularly in Texas, are leading in the construction<\/a> of new apartment buildings this year. Austin hosted nearly double the number of new units as Los Angeles, which is larger tin both geographic and population size. One of the reasons for the South\u2019s housing boom is its less-restrictive regulatory environment. According to Doug Ressler, a senior analyst and manager of business at Yardi Matrix, a real estate data firm, \u201cSouthern metros typically offer streamlined approval processes and fewer regulatory hurdles, making it easier to bring multi-family projects to market.\u201d Notably, Texas lawmakers further relaxed<\/a> the state\u2019s land zoning laws earlier this year to allow for more housing construction.<\/p>\n Californians have long been victims of government overreach. Has the tide begun to turn?<\/p>\n Earlier this summer, members of the heavily Democratic state legislature voted to roll back<\/a> CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, for certain building projects. The law, passed in 1970 and signed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, mandates that developers consider environmental impacts when proposing construction projects. CEQA requires government agencies tasked with approving building projects to conduct<\/a> reviews based on potential environmental threats, including those to nearby water, air, flora, and fauna. CEQA also allows members of the public to file lawsuits to block projects based on environmental concerns.<\/p>\n The law has faced widespread criticism, as builders say it contributes to making housing construction too expensive and time-consuming. But faced<\/a> with staggering housing shortages and skyrocketing costs, the Democrat-dominated state legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom instituted unprecedented reforms at the end of June.<\/p>\n The reforms removed<\/a> the CEQA review for certain types<\/a> of developments, effectively \u201cexempting or streamlining infrastructure projects, including high-speed rail; community water and sewer systems; certain types of daycare centers, health clinics and food banks, wildfire risk reduction projects; and \u2018advanced manufacturing\u2019 located in industrial zones,\u201d Deborah Sivas<\/a>, co-director of Stanford University\u2019s Environmental Law Clinic, told<\/a> ABC News<\/em>.<\/p>\n Perhaps most significantly, the reforms grant<\/a> an exemption<\/a> for \u201cinfill\u201d housing construction projects. Infill housing generally refers to urban housing built in and around existing developments. CEQA restrictions previously created a huge hurdle to building infill housing in densely populated areas where it is most needed. The reformed CEQA will unblock most new infill housing developments, which is expected to expand the state\u2019s housing supply.<\/p>\n CEQA advocates have argued the law is not a significant impediment to the housing supply, claiming<\/a> few CEQA lawsuits actually target housing projects. But others disagree with this assessment.\u00a0<\/p>\n Nick and Daniel Yost, a father and son who are both environmental attorneys and activists, have pointed out<\/a> that \u201cThe mere threat of a CEQA lawsuit is enough to stifle new housing developments since such suits can add substantial time, cost and risk for builders who already face daunting construction costs<\/a>.\u201d Lawsuits don\u2019t actually have to be filed to disincentivize developers from starting new projects.\u00a0<\/p>\n Further, according to a 2018 analysis by veteran attorney Jennifer Hernandez published<\/a> in the University of California Law Environmental Journal<\/em>, the most frequent targets of CEQA lawsuits have been housing projects \u2014 specifically multifamily construction projects in urban areas. Referring to her previous research on the effects of the law, she wrote that \u201cCEQA lawsuits were most often aimed at infill housing (especially multifamily apartments in urbanized areas).\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n She also noted that projects generally viewed as good for the environment often become CEQA targets, as \u201cmore transit projects were challenged than roadway and highway projects combined, and that the most frequent \u2018industrial\u2019 targets challenged were clean energy facilities like solar and wind projects.\u201d Additionally, even some environmental advocates have taken issue with CEQA\u2019s detrimental effects on the environment. As Nick and Daniel Yost noted, CEQA restrictions on infill housing can force construction projects into open and agricultural spaces.<\/p>\n Further, many CEQA lawsuits are actually efforts to weaponize the law for non-environmental interests. A 2022 paper by attorney Noah DeWitt published<\/a> in Pepperdine University\u2019s law journal argued that \u201cthe wrong people have discovered the right ways to make CEQA serve their own interests \u2014 interests that demote the environment to a secondary concern.\u201d Developers seek to stymie projects<\/a> that may compete with their own business. Unions are also known to threaten<\/a> CEQA suits if developers do not hire their workers.\u00a0<\/p>\n NIMBYs (\u201cNot In My Backyard\u201d) also leverage CEQA<\/a> \u2014 not to protect the environment but to limit new housing developments<\/a> in their communities. Such applications of the law have harmed the poor and minorities<\/a>, who suffer the most from rampant housing shortages. As DeWitt notes, CEQA tactics are used to keep such groups out of certain areas, and bear a \u201cstrange resemblance to the sorts of racially based tactics used to keep minorities out of white communities in the 1960s.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n CEQA perfectly encapsulates a key flaw of progressive governance: the \u201cfix\u201d for one problem often creates another. An ideology attempting to serve many high-minded ideals will quickly damage some\u00a0 cherished cause by seeking another. CEQA\u2019s costs have become so high that some Democrats are willing to compromise. Even so, others in the legislature staunchly opposed these CEQA reforms, insisting<\/a> that reforms should also prioritize the construction of low-income housing. The endless appetite for controlling and tinkering \u2014 in this case, in the name of helping the disadvantaged \u2014 has virtually ensured such dire, if unintended, outcomes.<\/p>\n This fracture within the California legislature highlights an emerging attitude in left-leaning ideology: the \u201cabundance agenda<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The term aligns with the popular book, Abundance<\/em><\/a>, by authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. This mindset acknowledges that bureaucracy and administrative excesses have created serious barriers to prosperity and innovation, from housing to infrastructure and energy. Klein called out progressives in a New York Times <\/em>piece<\/a> earlier this year, writing:<\/p>\n It has become too hard to build, and too expensive to live, in the places where Democrats govern. It is too hard to build homes. It is too hard to build clean energy. It is too hard to build mass transit. The problem isn\u2019t technical: We know how to build apartment complexes and solar panel arrays and train lines. The problem is the rules and the laws and political cultures that govern construction in many blue states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Unsurprisingly, a 2024 UC Berkeley survey<\/a> found more than half of California voters agreed that \u201cit is difficult to access at least some essential goods and services.\u201d Limiting the question to finding suitable housing at an affordable price, almost half said they strongly agree, reflecting, the scholars summarized, \u201cthe severity of the state\u2019s decades-in-the-making housing crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n Some skeptics of the CEQA rollback are not defenders of the law, but worry rolling it back may not have much effect. Some builders have said<\/a> the reforms may provide more freedom and speed up timelines, but that \u201cplenty of barriers to home construction remain in California,\u201d citing \u201cbureaucratic delays, high labor and materials costs, strict liability laws, and environmental regulations.\u201d Further, while the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market research organization, praised the reforms, it highlighted<\/a> new instances of bureaucratic red tape built into them.\u00a0<\/p>\n The state\u2019s CEQA rollback is a vital step toward solving at least some of the many problems California\u2019s big government has created. But there is a long way to go, if legislators intend to help the people most hurt by decades of excessive regulation.<\/p>\n The post Regulatory Rollbacks Begin to Combat Cali\u2019s Housing Crisis<\/a> was first published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)<\/a>, and is republished here with permission. Please support their efforts.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" California is home to numerous profitable industries, but many of the state\u2019s residents struggle to survive under the weight of big government. Case in point: excessive regulations have suffocated the [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":274,"featured_media":2324418,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2481268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2481268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/274"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2481268"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2481268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2481269,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2481268\/revisions\/2481269"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2324418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2481268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2481268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2481268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n