Republish
CEQA has a harmful effect on housing
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.

CEQA has a harmful effect on housing
Share this:
By Donald P. Wagner, Orange County
Donald P. Wagner is an Orange County Supervisor. He is a former Assembly member and vice chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Re “Housing justice relies on a strong CEQA”; Commentary, Sept. 30, 2021
In this commentary, we are told that “less than 1% of projects subject to environmental review” end up in litigation. The statistic is meaningless. It ignores the number of projects that are threatened with CEQA litigation and adversely changed or delayed. It ignores the number of proposed new affordable housing units reduced because of CEQA concerns or those projects that never get started because of CEQA challenges. That number is far above 1% and likely impacting closer to 100% of construction projects in California.
The pernicious effect of CEQA is well known in the construction industry. More importantly, that effect is well known in Sacramento. More than once during my six years serving in the Legislature, we considered a bill sponsored by Democrats to waive or limit CEQA on a particular project. Why? Because the project was a political favorite of the Democrats, and they knew CEQA stood in its way.
I voted for those bills every time. Why? Doing so opened me and other supporters of these bills to the charge of playing favorites. But I looked at it as an admission by Sacramento’s ruling party of the fact that CEQA abuse is a real thing, with very bad real world effects on development in California.
By bringing relief for favored projects, those legislative leaders were admitting the arguments as to CEQA’s deleterious consequences on building in California. Unfortunately, they would not follow those arguments to their logical conclusion: the need for genuine, substantive CEQA reform. The special interest attorneys would always stand firmly in opposition to that much needed reform.
Beyond doubt, environmental impacts must be considered and remediated within reason on California building projects. The environment is important. But CEQA today is not merely “strong,” as Ashley Werner contends. It is a hulking behemoth warping the construction industry statewide. As currently interpreted, CEQA remains a substantial roadblock to the elimination of California’s housing crisis.