Comments on: California’s sclerotic CEQA

By: Lily

Lily — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:58:58 +0000

Bill, I didn’t say or imply that CEQA lawsuits only challenge rich developers. But asking ordinary citizens (typically having no potential for personal profit) to risk immense costs and fees when suing wealthy, well-defended developers is inequitable and wrong. Cash-strapped developers are less likely to mount a capable but costly defense. All developers bear the responsibility to adequately present their projects’ environmental impacts. If developers cut corners, or fail to professionally and accurately follow CEQA, they become vulnerable to citizen suits. Agencies these days are underfunded and can’t be trusted to competently abide by CEQA. Developers should backstop such environmental reports by hiring their own experts. Obviously that does not always happen. They should learn, you snooze, you lose. If CEQA scares fly-by-night developers into fleeing to Texas where regulations are lax, that is fine by me.

By: Bill Alexander

Bill Alexander — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:46:08 +0000

Lily, you believe that CEQA lawsuits are only brought against rich developers, so therefore they are good?

By: Lily

Lily — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 04:36:07 +0000

Response to audihalt:

California’s private attorney general statute is the weakened remnant left behind after avaricious corporate lobbyists and politial cronies took away the AG’s original authority to enforce CEQA. The bone they threw to we Californians was the right of self-enforcement, using attorneys if we choose. There is nothing surreptitious about private attorneys representing members of the public. For to suggest citizens should also have to risk becoming liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and fees if outlawyered by wealthy developers is absurd. What’s next? Demanding that the police repay criminal defense attorneys when crooks evade jail? So, come out and say what you really think: that CEQA should be voided and polluters have a free for all. How about you moving to China instead where you will feel more at home?

By: California’s CEQA, cont’d

California’s CEQA, cont’d — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:23:25 +0000

[…] up on last week’s post, Gideon Kanner calls our attention to this summer’s case of Clover Valley Foundation v. City […]

By: audi hult

audi hult — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 03:09:41 +0000

If we could change but one thing, that would be the citizen AG statute that allows the professional CEQA attys to gain surreptitious ‘public’ standing; followed by the inability of prevailing defendants to recoup any kind of compensation for defense of a spurious suit.
How about this:
1.) Must have explicit permission from the AG to file an action on behalf of the people;
2.) If no permission is given, then suit can be filed w/ that same standing, but there is a provision for ‘loser pays’ not just court costs, but atty fees as well; regardless of any subsequent appeal.

By: Smart Dude

Smart Dude — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:30:05 +0000

California deserves exactly what it gets, electing these corrupt officials and their hyper-regulation.

I especially like the social parasite litigators who make easy fortunes feeding off the intentionally vague Catch 22 totalitarianism, disguised as public law.

By: KDP

KDP — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:59:28 +0000

As an exiled California Native, it makes me sad the way that the social outcasts and misfits from everywhere else have ruined a once great and livable state. I left fifteen years ago when I came to the realization that the liberal immigrants want the state to be one great big natural park with people jammed into “approved” city areas.

By: Uno Hu

Uno Hu — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:58:34 +0000

It is to be assumed that the good citizens of California want the Gordian knot they now have. After all they elected the representatives/senators who passed this law, and by and large have re-elected them since the law was passeed (some of the several times). They must like it. And even if they don’t, people generally get the type government they deserve.

Besides which, unlike East Germany which otherwise California has considerable in common with, there is no wall around California and those who don’t like the governement they’re getting can escape. Other states will happily accept out-migrating businesses and development (but please leave your California attitudes and politics at home). California has experienced considerable out-migration of productive individuals and business over the last several years, but obviously not quite enough. But if they just persist, if they hold fast to their current course, they can drive out most of those nasty, conservative work-ethic types, though, and have their Mexifornia-Hollywood paradise.