10 ms·

Hogwash. CEQA is doing exactly what it was meant to do. By its very nature it's a conservative ideal that we should be careful about development. That process

• astrange 5y ago
  And that's bad. CEQA has no respect for projects that improve the status quo and is mainly used for concern trolling by NIMBYs - that's why it takes ten years to add a bus lane in SF. Don't need to write an EIR for not changing anything.
• space_fountain 5y ago
  It was sold as a way to protect the environment but it doesn't help when business as usual is destroying the environment. It was also sold as a process requiring much less time and money than it takes now, but yes you are absolutely right that its fundamentally conservative and fundamentally locks in those with power under the current system. It needs reformed
• mperham 5y ago
  No, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.
  • saurik 5y ago
    Why do you feel development through sprawl would be easier to get through CEQA than building upwards? (As someone currently serving on a Local Agency Formation Commission, I actually think I would have told you the opposite?...)
  • Abekkus 5y ago
    Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty
    • thetinguy 5y ago
      Tell that to delivery drivers
      • paranoidrobot 5y ago
        When talking about "throwing out cars" I suspect what most would mean is re-architecting cities to be less car-dependent. Walkable cities with well integrated public transit and mixed retail, restaurants/cafes and residential, so that you don't need a car to go and do your grocery shopping, get a coffee or even most regular purchases. Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go. You don't eliminate cars, but driving a car isn't the default option because it's more convenient not to. But if you need a car for something, well, that's still an option.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • davidw 5y ago
          > Many (most?) European cities are like this to a greater or lesser degree - you still get deliveries, but you can walk, or ride a bike, or catch a bus/tram/metro to most places you want to go Yes! Where we lived in Padova, Italy, transportation was a 'right tool for the job' situation. We did have a car, and used it from time to time, but we also walked, biked and took transit, depending on what we needed to do.
    • davidw 5y ago
      I've always loved this article comparing different kinds of growth in the real world: https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to-affordable-housing/ https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-... I'm a 'Montreal' guy, and you sound like one too from your comment, but everyone has different tastes.
    • thereisnospork 5y ago
      Agreed 3-5 is plenty; one of the worst parts about these sorts of overly-onerous regulations is that the regulatory overhead and expense is per project and not per floor or per dwelling. This makes it all the more difficult for 'modest' or 'common-sense' upward development.