Column

SACRAMENTO —  When does positive reform become negative regression? That’s what Californians need to answer before voting on Proposition 45, which would substantially change the state’s landmark environmental protection law.

The business-backed ballot measure would make it much easier and less costly to build loads of projects — not just housing, but also water works, clean energy and transportation facilities.

It also, however, would give citizens much less time and fewer tools to assess and oppose projects they deem unfit for their area — like freeway expansions or giant warehouses.

“It tips the scale from favoring the public and the environment to favoring developers and polluting projects,” asserts state Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas), chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.

“It’s an overreach.”

“We streamline the building process for billionaires to erect stadiums. Why don’t we do it for middle-class homebuyers?” declares Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., a major backer of Proposition 45.

It’s a bitter, high-stakes fight that’s too close to call. Polling has indicated the outcome could be decided in the final days before the Nov. 3 election.

Proposition 45 would be the most significant overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act since Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it in 1970.

CEQA — as it’s commonly called and used as a four-letter obscenity by developers — is justifiably credited with keeping California air less polluted, water relatively clean, urban traffic from being worse and more outdoors open to the public.

It requires developers — private and public — to undergo a lengthy process of analyzing a project’s environmental effects and reducing their negative impacts.

But over the years CEQA became blatantly abused.

Union blackmailers — ”greenmailers” — threatened frivolous CEQA lawsuits unless developers caved to labor demands. Business rivals drove off potential competitors by filing protracted suits that wore down investors. NIMBYs — ”not in my backyard” — fought local projects that crowded their spaces or blocked views.

As a CEQA battle dragged on, the developers’ costs soared and many cut their losses by abandoning the project. Home building plummeted in California and the law of supply and demand ruled. Housing costs skyrocketed.

Project opponents legitimately concerned about environmental impacts also filed lawsuits, but they weren’t the developer’s big problem — not like the CEQA abusers.

Finally, prodded by Gov. Gavin Newsom, lawmakers have been responding in recent years to the developers’ frustration. They’ve been pecking away at CEQA with meaningful reforms for most types of housing, especially urban apartment projects near transit hubs.

“You’ve got to just move things,” Newsom exclaimed at an economic summit in Long Beach last week. “I’m just done with the [CEQA] litigation…. Years and years of B.S…. Eight years to develop something? Give me a break.”

But the nearly termed-out governor still hadn’t taken a position on Proposition 45.

Money and power, of course, have always had their privileges in the state Capitol. Billionaire sports team owners have had no trouble securing CEQA exemptions for construction of new stadiums or arenas. The exemptions are handed out like free bobbleheads.

In fact, Newsom recently signed legislation essentially granting a CEQA exemption in San Diego for a 16,000-seat sports arena and housing project led by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

Dunmoyer says that lawmakers “have done quite a bit” to expedite housing, “although not quite enough. It has been limited in scope and size — limited to urban infill and close to transit. It doesn’t address the overwhelming amount of housing needs in California.

“It doesn’t help the first-time middle-class homebuyers or address market rate rentals.”

He pegs the cost of a CEQA battle at $75,000 per new home, noting that’s added to the selling price — if the dwelling ever gets built.

Opponents of Proposition 45 argue that the measure’s backers wish to return California home building to 1960s sprawl when the state’s population was half its current size and there was more usable open space to pave over with roads and subdivisions — more orchards to rip up and wetlands to drain. And that led to longer smog-spewing car commutes to city jobs.

“Sprawl housing is not affordable housing,” Blakespear says. “There are costs to build new infrastructure like utility lines and water facilities, and high insurance costs. Then taxpayers have to clean up the pollution.

“Do we really want new sprawl housing developments in wildfire areas? We need to incentivize [urban] infill housing, instead of in the middle of the forest or the desert.”

Proposition 45 — generated by the state Chamber of Commerce — would streamline the CEQA approval process for several types of construction projects the measure deems “essential.” They include housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, jails, fire stations, wildfire reduction, broadband access and transportation.

Two very controversial projects were excluded — the bullet train and delta tunnel —
and so was nuclear power.

Opponents insist that the proposition eases the way for construction of massive data centers. But backers adamantly deny it, and they make sense. The anti-45 campaign is trying to scare voters with a Halloween bogeyman.

But there’s plenty of other ugly and smelly potential projects that could benefit.

If this were solely about housing, it wouldn’t ring so many alarms.

Here’s how I see it: We elect a governor and Legislature to handle such complex issues. Let them — especially the new governor, presumably Xavier Becerra — consider enacting new CEQA reforms, holding months of public hearings and ultimately compromising on a deal.

OK, maybe that’s dreaming. But it beats voters trying to wrap their heads around this in a few days.

Unlike regular legislation, if the ballot measure did pass and flaws emerged, it would be very hard for lawmakers to amend, requiring a two-thirds vote.

Proposition 45 rolls back CEQA protections too far — especially with a dangerous anti-environment California abuser in the Oval Office.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘He’s everywhere’: This California Republican wants to make his party relevant again
CA vs. Trump: Big assertions, sharp exchanges, little clarity define DOJ election battle with California
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — The California Secretary of State has mailed a thick “Official Voter Information Guide” to every registered voter. It’s jam-packed with helpful material. But one bit should be totally ignored.

It tells voters to fill out their ballot immediately — ”today” — and return it right now. Don’t take any time, in other words, to think about what you’re voting on.

Here’s what it says in bold ink on the cover of the 173-page guide: “Don’t Delay, Vote Today! Return your ballot as soon as you receive it.”

That’s not just a throwaway line. It’s repeated throughout the guide.

Under “Quick Facts” for the Nov. 3 election: “Return your ballot by mail as soon as you receive it.”

Who’s writing this stuff? Officially it’s from Secretary of State Shirley Weber. But is some high school freshman who hasn’t taken a civics course the actual author? Isn’t Weber or anyone in the vast bureaucracy proofreading with raised eyebrows?

Doesn’t anyone realize there are 14 complex propositions on the state ballot that voters may want to mull over for more than two seconds? They aren’t all what they seem. Some require reading between the lines.

Proposition 1, for example, is an expensive $11.25-billion bond issue for affordable housing — mostly rentals — requiring at least $500 million in annual state costs for 25 years. That cuts into spending for other services such as education and healthcare. Is the new borrowing actually worth it?

Proposition 39 is relatively easy but needs some thought. It would require everyone to show a government ID before they’re allowed to vote. Is that really needed when there is scant evidence of voter fraud? And it would invariably slow vote counting even more.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth. Should we set the precedent of taxing people’s wealth? Who’s next? We’ve already got the nation’s highest state income tax.

Proposition 45 would substantially alter the landmark California Environmental Quality Act. It has been terribly abused, stymying housing development. But the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently have streamlined CEQA to expedite home construction. This business-backed proposition is geared more toward easing infrastructure projects. Does it go too far?

Then there are some low-profile propositions that are just mind-numbing.

Not to mention some crucial congressional races that may determine control of the U.S. House.

We’re at the peak of campaign season. TV ads are running practically nonstop. Mailboxes are overflowing with political pitches. There are local candidate debates. And newspaper endorsements.

Let the election season play out. Don’t interfere with the political process.

I intend to do what I’ve always done: Wait until the last minute to vote. Something could happen to change my mind on an issue. I’ll take the filled-out ballot to a post office — or maybe a secure official drop box — a couple of days before the election.

Maybe I shouldn’t take the Secretary of State so literally. But since her “give me your vote now” admonition is featured in an official government publication, some voters are likely to accept it and obey.

This is what Weber apparently really means, as also stated in the guide: “Mail your ballot back as soon as possible. … To be counted, [it] must be postmarked no later than election day. We recommend mailing it at least seven days before election day.”

OK, that’s all she should say. End of lecture.

Still, I resent being urged to mail back my ballot a full week before the election. I’ll take my own sweet time that’s allowed by the law, thank you.

I queried the Secretary of State’s press office about the “vote now” edict but didn’t get a straight answer.

“Of course we absolutely encourage voters to carefully review the [guide] contents … and other trusted sources to make a decision that is best for them,” some unnamed spokesperson emailed. The top cause for ballots being rejected is their late arrival, the aide added.

The Postal Service has slowed its deliveries of all mail, especially in rural areas. Plus, President Trump tried to inject mail voting with crippling rules, but the Supreme Court stopped him.

The secretary’s office also emailed me that “when voters return their ballots early, it ensures more time for the ballot [counting] process.”

“It’s not good policy for the SOS to urge voters to vote the minute they get their ballot,” veteran Democratic strategist Garry South told me. “A lot can happen in the last month. And with a ballot that seems like it’s several feet long, I suspect it’s being done to deal with the criticism of how long it takes to count the votes in California.

“But the goal should be for voters to make considered and informed choices, not just to rush into marking their ballots.”

Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley, said: “Weber is under fire for taking too long to count votes. …. But the answer is for her to count faster, not to push voters to rush their decisions.”

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, points out that vote counting, in fact, has sped up during recent elections. And this year, the Legislature appropriated $29 million to speed up counting much more.

But “I don’t agree with the message” in the voting guide, Alexander said. “It’s a long ballot. People need to take some time to decide.”

Voting is a very personal exercise. It’s my duty not only to vote, but to try to get it right.

It’s not my duty to make vote-counting easier for election officials. It’s their duty to count — more swiftly.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: What Steve Hilton doesn’t get about Xavier Becerra’s parents
CA vs. Trump: FBI whistleblower alleges Trump ordered investigations of L.A.-area immigration protesters.
The L.A. Times Special: Hilton warm on tax cuts, tepid on Trump, cold on offshore wind during gubernatorial town hall

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO —  Look, Xavier Becerra could cruise to a South Pacific island and bask on the beach until election day and Californians would still choose him as their next governor.

So, last week’s televised CNN debate between Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton really had no election significance, although it was important for the Democratic frontrunner in other ways.

Who won the debate? Becerra, because he came across as calm, collected and capable of governing this troubled state — certainly very few voters’ ideal candidate, but the only real choice for most Californians.

There’s simply no way Becerra can lose on Nov. 3 because his only opponent is a Republican. Californians will not elect a Republican governor in this polarized era, particularly one endorsed by the reviled President Trump.

Moreover, Hilton’s only previous political experience was as an advisor to a British prime minister and his sole claim to U.S. notoriety was as a Fox News TV host–not exactly resume boosters in California.

Becerra — with public office experience spanning more than three decades — held a growing 25-point lead in a recent poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

He’s a shoo-in simply because he has a “D” beside his name in this state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1 and despise the GOP president.

Californians haven’t elected a Republican to statewide office in 20 years — and that’s Hilton’s main pitch to voters.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result,” the GOP candidate asserted during the debate, as he does several times a day.

Turning to Becerra, Hilton said:

“You’re the candidate who is supported by the machine in Sacramento — the unions, big business, all these people that for 16 years have given us the highest cost of living in the country, made it impossible to build anything, given us the highest unemployment rate, the highest poverty rate….

“And that’s why we’ve got to try something different this time instead of voting for more of the same.”

OK, fair point. But try what exactly? That’s where Hilton stalls or veers erratically.

He’d build “10 new cities.” Build them where exactly? He doesn’t say.

He definitely doesn’t want to construct new apartment buildings in the suburbs “when we have got so much space that we could be building on in California.”

Like out in Southern California deserts or Central Valley farm fields — requiring two-hour commutes to urban jobs?

And where does the water come from for these 10 new cities as the West scrambles for what’s left of diminishing supplies? But unfortunately there was no discussion of that during the debate.

One debate exchange that caught my attention was about vaccines. Hilton seemed to be carrying the torch for whacko anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Becerra’s successor as U.S. health secretary in the Trump administration.

Debate co-moderator Dana Bash recalled what Hilton said previously about children’s vaccinations: “The government should have nothing to do with these fundamental and vital decisions.” And she asked whether he’d push to eliminate California’s vaccine requirements.

“No,” Hilton replied. “I’m pro vaccine.” But then he seemed to wander all over the stage looking to have it both ways.

It’s a “very, very emotional issue for a lot of parents,” he said, adding there’s “data around the world” showing that where vaccine “mandates are lower… you actually have higher [vaccination] compliance, where parents don’t feel that they’re being bullied into doing something that they don’t want to do. And that’s what I want to see here.”

But he ultimately said,“I’d follow the law.”

In California, the law requires all children without medical exemptions to be vaccinated for several diseases — including polio, measles, mumps, chickenpox, hepatitis B and whooping cough — before they’re admitted to school.

That’s a blessing. When I grew up, practically every kid at some point was bedridden with one or more of those dangerous ailments. Then some saviors invented vaccines.

“We had nearly eradicated measles,” Becerra said, responding to Hilton. “When I left HHS, you rarely heard of a case of measles…. Today, children are dying of measles. Today, the spread of measles has reached a proportion we haven’t seen since the 1960s.

“That’s what happens when vaccine deniers take over.”

Becerra achieved all he needed to in the debate. He didn’t screw up. He kept cool and actually was fairly quick on his feet in replying to Hilton’s attacks, while planting a MAGA hat firmly on the Republican’s head.

He missed an opportunity to accomplish more, however — like making Californians feel really good about voting for him, rather than merely because he’s the only Democrat left standing in the contest to replace the termed out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Voters might like to hear what Becerra’s vision is — if he has one — for the California he wants to build.

What does he have in mind besides just defending California against Trump? That’s a given. How’s he going to lower our living costs? Upgrade public education? Prevent wildfires? Details, not platitudes.

Rather than relaxing on his lead, Becerra should be constantly moving around the state, introducing himself to Californians and — more importantly — listening to their problems and ideas. To his credit, he’s doing that this week.

“The debate was boring and uneventful, but Becerra won it,” says Republican consultant Rob Stutzman. “He is perfectly vanilla and that makes it really hard to pin him down in an attack.”

“We got the genuine Xavier Becerra. That’s exactly who he is,” says veteran Democratic strategist Garry Sragow, a longtime political ally. “Thoughtful, committed and very decent, but does not go very high on the charisma meter.”

In California right now, a candidate’s charisma rates much lower than a simple “D.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Voter ID proponents accuse California Democrats of lying about Trump’s support for Prop. 39
Eyes of the World: Will or won’t they? Newsom and Harris weigh 2028 contest — and possible collision
The L.A. Times Special: Voter guide to the 2026 California general election

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.