Prop 45 has split the people who care about building more homes in California, including YIMBY Action's own leaders, who have not come to consensus on the measure that would limit the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On September 30, we brought both sides together, moderated by Leora Tanjuatco Ross, the California Director of YIMBY Action.
Arguing Yes on Prop 45 were:
Arguing No on Prop 45 were:
Here's what they said, and what you wanted to know.
Prop 45 would change how CEQA applies to "essential projects" like housing, roads, bridges, schools, broadband connections, wildfire prevention efforts, clean energy production, and more. It would set a 365-day deadline for environmental review, require courts to resolve related lawsuits within 270 days, and create a 90-day shot clock for any other permits a project would need. It does not exempt projects from CEQA, so review and mitigation would still be required.
Manoukian Chung opened by framing Prop 45 as an affordability measure: "Every month that a project sits in the approval process, costs go up," she said, costs that land on all of us through higher rents, mortgages, and utility bills. She cited one estimate that permitting delays add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new California home.
A CEQA deadline, she stressed, "does not mean automatic approval." Cities and state agencies could still condition or deny projects. But the reforms could shave two to ten-plus years off approvals for essential projects, and allow the creation of at least 20,000 additional homes a year. "20,000 homes a year will not solve California's housing shortage," she said, "but it is meaningful progress year after year."
Manoukian Chung also asked YIMBYs to look hard at who is backing the No side, pointing to the building trades and the Sierra Club, groups she said have spent years "fighting tooth and nail" against housing and permitting reform.
Brewer brought the developer's view. "I think I'm the only actual affordable housing developer here on the call," she said. “There are many factors that AB 130 doesn't cover. The Swiss cheese approach to CEQA reform isn’t working.”
Ross argued that Prop 45 "fundamentally isn't a reform measure." His problem was that it would lower the bar for everything at once: sprawl and infill, market-rate and affordable, freeways and mass transit. "What we need to be doing is improving processes for the kind of housing that we want," he said.
He also warned that because Prop 45 is an initiative, the State Legislature couldn’t amend it. Even small, technical material in it would be "stuck for a generation." His prediction: "Prop 45 is going to look like our generation's Prop 13 not very long from now."
Grimes, a lead with Peninsula for Everyone, went further. "I personally believe as a YIMBY that Prop 45 represents a major threat to our movement," he said. His argument: we just won SB 79 and AB 130, which exempted infill housing from CEQA, and more than 15,000 units have already been permitted under AB 130. Prop 45, he said, would "explode sprawl development in California."
Throughout the debate, Grimes said AB 130 so many times he joked he'd "get it tattooed on my forehead." His case was that it was "the most sweeping reform the state of California has ever done," and the Legislature keeps adding exemptions to CEQA, from SB 423 and AB 2011 to this year's bills for student housing and hospitals.
In response, Brewer rejected the idea that AB 130 was enough to fast-track housing at the rate we need it: "It's simply not true, Jordan."
The Yes side continued to name three gaps in AB 130. Manoukian Chung said AB 130's infill exemption only covers sites under 20 acres, opponents can still sue over whether an exemption applies, and post-CEQA permitting takes nearly a year longer than CEQA review itself (438 days on average for multifamily housing in San Francisco, she said). She noted that Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who drove AB 130, also supports Prop 45.
The moderator went off script to ask both sides a yes-or-no question: Would Prop 45 apply to data centers? The Yes side said absolutely not. Data centers aren't one of the eight essential categories, and calling them "broadband" projects would make every building with Wi-Fi a broadband project. Grimes countered that legal scholars at UC Berkeley and UC Davis say there are situations where data centers would qualify. "This is clearly going to be litigated," he said.
Will Wright asked why the Legislature hasn't passed something as comprehensive as Prop 45 would be. The Yes side said organized labor blocks system-wide CEQA reform in Sacramento, which is why we get piecemeal bills. Grimes said nothing as "sweeping" as Prop 45 has been tried, but pointed to targeted wins like AB 205's shot clock for clean energy. [Fact check: AB 130 was as sweeping as Prop 45, and it never would’ve passed the Legislature without Governor Newsom putting his finger on the scale.]
Chris Tokita asked what CEQA actually does for the environment. Ross said its real teeth is mitigation: It's the hook cities use to require fixes for a project's harms, and Prop 45 would leave them "with no way to provide that protection." Brewer called that "a NIMBY argument," because cities could still impose conditions of approval under Prop 45. Manoukian Chung added that CEQA currently slows down wildfire prevention and clean energy projects, which Prop 45 would speed up.
The chat was its own debate, with more than 200 messages. Some highlights:
The closers both started with common ground. "All of us care about the same thing," Brewer said, "which is building enough housing for the people that live here and for future generations." Grimes closed for the other side with his own story. He grew up in the Bay Area, watched too little housing get built, and saw himself getting priced out. He's opposing Prop 45, he said, because sprawl will be its main housing beneficiary. He noted that California YIMBY, Streets For All, and East Bay for Everyone have either opposed the measure or stayed neutral. "We have to choose infill or sprawl," he said, "and I urge folks to choose infill."
Right after the debate, YIMBY Action’s volunteer chapter Leads voted on a recommendation. It takes 60% of leads agreeing for our organization to take a position, and they did not reach consensus. So YIMBY Action is not endorsing either side of Prop 45.
This is what a big-tent movement looks like. Smart, committed YIMBYs looked at the same measure and came out in different places. Make your own call on November 3. And if you want a voice in decisions like this one, become a YIMBY Action member.
