Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Metaverse CapitalistsMetaverse Capitalists

Investing

Should California Waive Environmental Laws?

Jeffrey Miron

On January 12, California Governor Gavin Newson signed an executive order waving permitting requirements for homeowners and businesses affected by the fires in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. The directive suspends sections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, aiming to expedite the rebuilding of as many as 12,000 homes destroyed in the fires.

Even before the fires, the typical home in California was $790,742, 220 percent of the national average. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal points out that California’s onerous building codes and permitting fees contribute to astronomical “affordable” housing costs, where units can cost $1 million to build. The state’s regulatory framework is widely regarded as a significant barrier to development; by requiring environmental reviews and opening the door for lawsuits, CEQA and the Coastal Act delay projects for years, driving up costs and discouraging investment.

Governor Newsom’s executive order waives permits previously justified as necessary for environmental protection and sustainable development. But if these regulations were essential before the fires, why suspend them now? The risks they seek to mitigate, such as soil erosion and waterway contamination, still exist post-fire and may be amplified by rushed rebuilding.

On the other hand, if these regulations were always excessive, then why limit their suspension to fire recovery? In the past, CEQA exemptions have been granted for high-profile projects such as sports stadiums and affordable housing developments. These cases highlight an inconsistency: the state recognizes that CEQA hinders timely and efficient development but has so far resisted broader reform. Why not reform or relax the laws to make them less onerous everywhere, rather than relying on piecemeal exceptions during crises?

Newsom’s executive order exposes a fundamental tension in California’s housing policy. If the regulations are too restrictive for disaster recovery, they are likely too restrictive broadly. And if they truly are necessary, they should remain, even in the face of the fires.

This article appeared on Substack on January 29, 2025. Jonah Karafiol, a student at Harvard College, co-wrote this post.

    You May Also Like

    Stocks

    In this edition of StockCharts TV‘s The Final Bar, Dave shows how breadth conditions have evolved so far in August, highlights the renewed strength in the...

    Business

    In the UK, the care sector is under incredible strain, it’s good to know there are people working hard to address the issue. One...

    Business

    With the increased threat of industrial strike action looming across the UK, we consider whether a force majeure clause can strike the right chord...

    Politics

    On January 10, the French government announced plans to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. The change would mean that after 2027,...

    Dislaimer: pinnacleofinvestment.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 metaversecapitalists.com | All Rights Reserved