by Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO — A broad coalition of environmental and labor leaders is urging the California Legislature to halt what they describe as a rushed and undemocratic effort to weaken the state’s foundational environmental law. The call comes as a new statewide poll released today shows overwhelming public support for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and strong opposition to legislative attempts to scale it back.
The poll, commissioned by Neighborhoods First and conducted by FM3 Research, finds that 75 percent of California voters support CEQA, including 46 percent who say they “strongly support” it. Support cuts across party lines and demographic groups. Meanwhile, 66 percent of voters oppose AB 609, a bill that would eliminate key CEQA provisions such as community input and environmental review for infill housing projects.
“These numbers make it clear: CEQA is not a barrier, it’s a safeguard,” said Chris Hannan, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. “Californians overwhelmingly support this law because it protects our air and water, ensures public input, and upholds labor standards. Lawmakers should stop trying to rush this bill through and respect the will of California voters.”
In addition to widespread opposition to AB 609, the poll found 70 percent of voters oppose reducing community input, 74 percent oppose bypassing environmental protections, and 70 percent oppose weakening workers’ ability to negotiate labor agreements.
The results arrive just as the Legislature is pushing forward both AB 609 and SB 607—measures backed by the Newsom administration that critics say amount to the most significant rollback of environmental protections in California history. Opponents argue these changes are being negotiated behind closed doors as part of a fast-tracked budget deal, bypassing the normal public hearing process.
“Why are state leaders rushing through the broadest rollback of environmental protections in the state’s history in private discussions with no public input?” asked Raquel Mason, Senior Legislative Manager with the California Environmental Justice Alliance. “Changes of this magnitude must include public input.”
Asha Sharma, State Policy Manager for the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, emphasized the stakes for frontline communities. “CEQA is often the only mechanism to ensure voices from already disproportionately pollution-burdened communities are heard. Gutting CEQA sacrifices people’s ability to make harmful projects less harmful and ensure more just outcomes for all.”
Environmental advocates have also raised concerns that undermining CEQA will do little to address the housing affordability crisis. “Dismantling California’s landmark environmental law in the 11th hour without considering public input is a grave mistake,” said Frances Tinney, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Gutting a law that requires transparency and public review of projects that can harm the environment—and doing it behind closed doors, no less—not only jeopardizes the environmental protections that keep our air, water, and wildlife safe, it will not solve the affordable housing crisis.”
Matt Baker, Statewide Policy Director of the Planning and Conservation League, echoed those concerns. “Side-stepping the legislative process in a fast-tracked budget deal that has had zero transparency—for such significant changes to the one law that gives our communities a voice in the planning decisions that affect them—is a disgrace to our democracy.”
The coalition is calling on lawmakers to pause any proposed CEQA rollbacks until the public has a meaningful opportunity to weigh in. According to the poll’s backers, the data demonstrates that Californians want to strengthen environmental protections—not quietly dismantle them.
The full poll results are available at Neighborhoods First California.
I encourage readers to look at that Poll… its total political BS. Asks questions in a deliberately slanted way : “do you support the gutting of environmental protections that keep your family safe”….
The press release repeated here is political theatre.
Yup, that’s how it’s done. Polls and surveys don’t mean much anymore. It all comes down to the advocacy of the group conducting the poll.
In fairness, not all polls are created equal.
In fairness, most polls have an agenda. Like I stated yesterday, when I see studies, surveys and polls from progressive or social justice organizations I tend to not believe their findings.
That’s false
What’s false?
I’d agree that there are polls created for understanding and polls created for purposes of influence. I’m just pointing out the latter… You need to look at who is behind the poll, what they asked andn why.
With regards to topic like CEQA that is not on every voters mind, the very idea that there is well informed opinions on this topic out there in the electorate is just laughable.
What if they were more honest and said: “We are a pro-organized labor group, and we like to abuse an environmental protection law as a cudgel to punish developers who arent using union labor”. You MIGHT. Just maybe get a slightly different response.
TK say: ” . . . the very idea that there is well informed opinions on this topic out there in the electorate is just laughable.”
The very idea that there is well informed opinions on ANY topic out there in the electorate is just laughable :-|
Seriously, this is not a serious poll.
“California enacted the California Environmental Quality Act in 1970 with bipartisan support. The law requires public agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed construction or development before approval. Agencies must identify potential effects on air and water and consider ways to reduce negative impacts. The law was created to safeguard California’s natural resources and allow for community input on development in their neighborhoods. Knowing this, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the California Environmental Quality Act?”
“Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose reforming the CEQA law to eliminate community input on development in urban areas and bypass many of the law’s environmental protections in order to allow developers to build more housing?”
Gavin NewTrump continues his march. Go Neighborhoods First! The great backlash of citizens against YIMBY development policies predicted by RO begins! I wonder with the DVG doesn’t advocate for a reduction in births and population as a solution to the so-called housing c—– instead. Hmmmm . . . follow the . . . hmmmm.
A Republican senator from Utah is using the so-called housing crisis as a “justification” to sell-off massive amounts of public land, via Trump’s “big beautiful bill”. (And in fact, Trump himself has asserted this as a reason to do so.)
Ask the public if they support THAT.
It was entirely-predictable that business interests would attempt to use this as a “reason” to sell-off public land, and it also shows who YIMBYs are actually aligned with.
This is what happens when claims go unchallenged. Business interests will attempt to take advantage of it every time.
This a big problem. You want to fight the notion that there is a housing crisis. In the meantime, you are blocking more reasonable solutions to it and opening the door for crazy stuff. This is how things like Prop 13 happen.
I believe there is a wealth/income discrepancy, more than anything else. But I also believe that young people in particular have to move to the locations where opportunity (and lower costs) are, as I did. (At least, until they inherit their parents’ property.)
When my parents were young, the Bay Area was different than it is now. (And that’s a result of the pursuit of economic development. It is NOT a result of “lack of residential development” on land that is ALREADY developed.)
What we’re witnessing is what occurs when a community is ALREADY developed, but continues to pursue economic development.
Regarding Proposition 13, it’s ironic that you mention that – since it seems to me that the most-likely outcome of the state’s draconian (and unrealistic) attempts to force growth are increasingly causing resistance among communities across the state. If there’s sufficient effort, voters can REMOVE POWER from the state – the same way they did with Proposition 13.
The only reason that there hasn’t been more resistance is because the state’s efforts have largely failed (e.g., it doesn’t “pencil out” – especially when the population itself is no longer growing).
Young people aren’t having kids at replacement levels – nationwide. This is an UNPRECEDENTED change.
When people who are making $150K cannot afford housing, that’s not a wealth issue. There are wealth issues, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not just a wealth issue.
If there’s couples making a combined $150K per year ($75K each), they’re not going to be able to compete with tech workers receiving $100 million signing bonuses (not including salary).
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/bay-area-artificial-intelligence-workers-20386541.php
That’s what we call a “wealth/income discrepancy”. (And that’s true even if they receive help from their parents or stay at home for awhile to save up for a downpayment, or avoided taking out ill-advised student loans.)
This is a summary from a CNN article this week….
A recent CNN article titled “Making $150,000 but still can’t afford a home” underscores how the housing crisis is increasingly impacting even high-income earners. Families making well above the national median income are finding themselves shut out of homeownership in major U.S. cities, where skyrocketing home prices and elevated mortgage rates have rendered traditional affordability benchmarks obsolete.
The article highlights the case of a couple in Denver earning a combined $150,000 who, despite being financially stable and having no debt, are unable to afford a modest home in their area. Their story reflects a broader trend: six-figure households are being priced out of markets once accessible to middle-class professionals, especially in high-demand regions like California, Colorado, and the Northeast. With home prices at historic highs and monthly mortgage costs up sharply due to interest rate hikes, even well-compensated workers are stuck renting.
Experts cited in the article explain that housing affordability has decoupled from income, with mortgage costs in many metros consuming far more than the recommended 30% of household earnings. Limited housing supply, investor competition, and zoning restrictions have all contributed to the crisis. The result is a generation of earners who feel betrayed by an economic system that promised security in exchange for hard work and financial prudence.
CNN’s reporting illustrates how the housing crisis is no longer just a low-income or working-class issue—it’s creeping up the income ladder and eroding the American dream of homeownership for many. The implications are vast, pointing to the need for systemic solutions: zoning reform, expanded housing supply, and mortgage relief mechanisms that reflect the realities of today’s market.
How many people are getting that? That’s a huge strawman argument and the funniest thing is this is the second time you’ve posted it even though it is totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Denver (the city you cited) is one of the markets that became over-valued during the pandemic.
From AI: “Yes, Denver’s housing market is currently experiencing a decline in prices, with some experts predicting a further 9% drop in the next year. This trend is driven by a combination of factors, including increased inventory, decreased buyer demand, and affordability challenges.”
(Pretty sure that anyone moving to Denver right now, or in the next couple of years can find a house while making $150K combined income per year.)
Regarding the $100 million signing bonus, your argument is with SF Gate, not me. But high tech salaries and bonuses (even at a much lesser amount) impact the ENTIRE surrounding housing market.
If some ignorant couple thinks they’re going to move to Silicon Valley (with a combined income of $150K, but no other assets) and get themselves a decent house, perhaps they’re too dumb to even be earning $75K each in the first place. Or perhaps just “too stubborn”.
“Don’t be afraid of change” – adapt (as most people who moved to Davis, did).
As for me, I firmly believe that I deserve a penthouse in Manhattan, a place in Tahoe, Hong Kong, Tiburon, etc. (I’d make Tiburon my permanent home.)