Prop 45 (CEQA): Testing the Case for NO

David’s question: “What about the case against it?”

Eve: “Here are three arguments for NO, and all three fail or are badly weakened. One: "a 2025 law already did this for infill." Only partly. It doesn't cover utility-scale clean energy, transmission, or bigger water projects, and Prop 45 adds a ninety-day clock for other permits. Two: "the real beneficiaries are fire-zone subdivisions." That's a real effect, but California YIMBY says its much bigger impact is on non-housing projects. Three: "the Legislature can't fix it." Wrong. It can amend it by two-thirds, as long as the change furthers the measure's purposes. That doesn't make me all in. I'm narrowly in. The costs are real: it makes freeways and fire-zone subdivisions easier, and it leaves out high-speed rail by design. If you weigh sprawl and wildfire risk heavily, NO is a reasonable vote.”