I'm not convinced CEQA was about the Abundance Agenda at all. To me this looks more like the standard "every political faction getting policy victories on the issues they care about the most" that we see in federal politics. I'd wager that Newsom isn't really motivated by Klein/Thompson at all and is just invoking a catchy buzzword while not-super-ideologically following the path of least resistance as usual. Centrist dems and left-libertarian types rightly went all in on housing deregulation, and now they are getting what they wanted the most. No reason to think there is an avalance of Carter/Clinton Southern Dem Deregulators on the horizon.
I hear you. The terminology is tricky here when trying to explain this to a mass audience. "Environmental exemptions" or "rollbacks" in a headline could convey the impression that these policies are a loss for the environment, which wouldn't be fair.
Arguably some of the components from the original SB 607 also count as reform by changing the legal standards and guidance, clarifying the scope required for almost exempted projects, etc.?
I'm not convinced CEQA was about the Abundance Agenda at all. To me this looks more like the standard "every political faction getting policy victories on the issues they care about the most" that we see in federal politics. I'd wager that Newsom isn't really motivated by Klein/Thompson at all and is just invoking a catchy buzzword while not-super-ideologically following the path of least resistance as usual. Centrist dems and left-libertarian types rightly went all in on housing deregulation, and now they are getting what they wanted the most. No reason to think there is an avalance of Carter/Clinton Southern Dem Deregulators on the horizon.
There wasn’t really any reform. The state just punched a big hole in CEQA. That’s not a bad thing. But it’s not the same as reform.
I hear you. The terminology is tricky here when trying to explain this to a mass audience. "Environmental exemptions" or "rollbacks" in a headline could convey the impression that these policies are a loss for the environment, which wouldn't be fair.
Arguably some of the components from the original SB 607 also count as reform by changing the legal standards and guidance, clarifying the scope required for almost exempted projects, etc.?