A long NYT article (not paywalled) reports that CA has rolled back its landmark 55 year-old environmental protection law CEQA (SEE-kwa)(California Environmental Quality Act), allegedly because it is the main driver of high housing cost and high homelessness:
Democrats have long been reluctant to weaken the law, known as CEQA, which they considered an environmental bedrock in a state that has prided itself on reducing pollution and protecting waterways. And environmentalists took them to task for the vote.
But the majority party also recognized that California’s bureaucratic hurdles had made it almost impossible to build enough housing for nearly 40 million residents, resulting in soaring costs and persistent homelessness. In a collision between environmental values and everyday concerns, Democrats chose the latter on Monday.
Discussions about changing the environmental law have repeatedly surfaced at the State Capitol over the past decade, only to be thwarted by opposition from environmentalists and local governments. This year was different.
Mr. Newsom threatened to reject the state budget unless lawmakers rolled back CEQA. Democrats were also aware that voters nationwide had blamed the party last year for rising prices.
So, the NYT posits this as choosing human needs over the environment. Is it really that simple? Probably not. But one needs to look deeper than the barely surface-scratched reporting the NYT gives. Pxy was tasked with identifying and ranking the main factors that cause high home costs in CA. The public Pxy link is here.
So, that analysis indicates that CEQA contributes about 5% of the reason for high home cost. It is the least important of the six factors that Pxy identified.
Restrictive zoning laws and community resistance, i.e., NIMBYism, (25%) is the 2nd largest cost factor. Research shows that over 56% of California jurisdictions identified neighborhood opposition as playing a notable role in constraining housing production 5. Additionally, restrictive zoning practices significantly contribute to the housing affordability crisis, with 70% of residential areas in major cities restricting or banning apartments 6.
Lack of federal and state investment in affordable housing is 3rd (15%). This reflects the substantial funding gap. Despite California doubling affordable housing production in recent years, the state is only funding 12% of what is needed to meet its goals 8. The national housing shortage includes approximately 2.1 million units for extremely low-income households 9.
Proposition 13 Tax structure impacts rank 4th (12%). Research demonstrates that Proposition 13's introduction led to a 15% increase in house prices and a 3.3% decrease in moving rates 10. The "lock-in effect" reduces housing turnover, limiting supply for new buyers 11.
Local opposition to affordable housing development is 5th (8%). This factor is a distinct but related factor from general NIMBYism, specifically targeting affordable housing projects with additional delays and cost burdens 7 12.
CEQA's impact is 6th (5%), is notably smaller than commonly perceived. Survey data from the Association of Environmental Professionals found that CEQA review was selected only 4 times out of 112 responses for market-rate housing constraints and just 2 times out of 124 selections for affordable housing constraints 13. Only 6% of housing projects require full Environmental Impact Reports 1.