Reform

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.

Fewer City Council meetings

McOsker, who represents the Harbor Area and parts of South L.A., said he’d like to spend less time on the 110 Freeway getting downtown and more time serving his community directly. He called the frequent council meetings the “most nonproductive part of my week.”

Many cities, including Long Beach, San Diego and Sacramento, have councils that meet just once a week, McOsker noted, adding that the council still could meet more frequently if needed.

Fewer meetings also would make it more likely for the council to settle issues at one meeting, he said — a benefit to constituents who show up at meetings only to see a vote on their issue deferred to another day.

Fewer meetings also may encourage people to instead attend council committee hearings, McOsker said, which often discuss measures in more detail and allow for robust public comment.

Rob Quan, an organizer with the watchdog group Unrig LA, opposes the amendment but said he would support fewer meetings if the council made other changes to improve public access to city government, including releasing meeting agendas further in advance and scheduling committee meetings in the evenings when more people can attend.

But Quan expressed skepticism the council would make those changes.

Rodriguez noted that Measure EE also includes a measure to raise fines for city ethics violations, which she described as a cynical attempt to shift the focus away from the reduced requirement for meetings.

“My big problem with EE is that it’s a ruse of reform,” she said.

Referendum signatures increase

Amendment EE also would make it harder for voters to overturn City Council actions through the use of ballot referendums.

To qualify a referendum for the ballot, petitioners must collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election. Amendment EE would increase this threshold to 15% of ballots cast.

For example, 929,000 votes were cast in the 2022 mayoral general election — meaning referendums need about 93,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. With a 15% threshold, nearly 140,000 signatures would be needed.

McOsker said the change makes the number of signatures needed for referendums and voter initiatives consistent in the city charter. Both methods should have enough support from the public to make it to the ballot, he said.

“Measure EE seeks to make the ballot box powers equal to either overturn or to adopt legislation,” he said.

Quan took issue with that, noting that with ballot initiatives, organizers have four months to collect the required signatures. With a referendum, they have just 30 days.

“It is going to be functionally useless. There is going to be nobody that has the money to pull this off in 30 days,” he said.

The city’s most recent referendum effort came last year, when business groups sought to repeal the $30 minimum wage for tourism workers. The effort fell about 9,000 signatures short despite backing from Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, the American Hotel and Lodging Assn. and others.

More power to police and fire watchdogs

The L.A. Police Department inspector general and Fire Department independent assessor provide civilian oversight over their respective departments. Amendment EE would remove the ability for the police and fire commissions to stop an audit by their independent inspectors.

“As an independent entity, it is important for them to be able to proceed with the work that they deem appropriate,” McOsker said.

Quan said the reform is potentially helpful but said he knows of no instances in which commissions blocked an audit. Quan speculated that this was included — at the very top of the ballot measure — as a sweetener to help sell the less palatable provision to reduce the number of required council meetings. “It’s a really marginal reform,” he said.

Ethics commission changes

Amendment EE would increase civil fines — those imposed by a judge through the court system — to the same level as administrative fines levied by the ethics commission.

McOsker said the higher penalty should lead to fewer violations.

Quan said this was another marginal change, noting that under Charter Amendment ER, approved by voters in 2024, the ethics commission can impose fines of up to $15,000. Under EE, private citizens or others filing ethics suits in civil courts could seek fines of the same amount.

In addition, Amendment EE would ban ethics commissioners or the executive director from running for City Council or the LAUSD Board of Education for five years after they leave office.

McOsker acknowledged that there hasn’t been a precedent, but said “we need to anticipate the potential that someone could get on the commission and take a look at the seat they want and use their position to improve their chance of getting that office.”

A final change proposed by the amendment would clarify the definition of a “stakeholder” in the charter as it relates to who can sit on a neighborhood council, which makes recommendations to the City Council but lacks formal legislative power.

Stakeholders currently are defined as anyone who lives, works or owns real property within the neighborhood boundaries, or community organizations like chambers of commerce or nonprofits.

Kay Hartman, president of the Palms Neighborhood Council and chair of the L.A. Neighborhood Council Coalition’s subcommission on charter reform, said there was “no substantive change” to neighborhood councils in the amendment.

An alternative approach is to ensure that everyone who is eligible, based on their needs, should get state-funded personal care that is free at the point of use.

This would be provided free regardless of an individual’s means and whether it was received by an elderly person in their own house or a residential care home.

Scotland has implemented such a system.

However, it’s important to note that personal care takes in things like helping frail elderly people wash and dress and go to the toilet.

But it does not include accommodation, food and everyday living costs which are subject to means testing.

The Health Foundation think tank estimates that implementing a Scottish-style system in England would cost £7.5bn a year by 2036.

Like Scotland, Japan and Germany have systems which base entitlement to personal social care mainly on people’s care needs rather than their ability to pay.

Japan and Germany though have a mandatory long-term care insurance system which is funded through contributions from workers and employers.

Both countries also do not usually cover the full cost of personal care so individuals are responsible for some of the expenses.

Abuja, Nigeria – Africa’s long-running campaign for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council is back in focus at the 81st UN General Assembly, with leaders renewing calls to reform a body whose five permanent members have remained unchanged since 1945.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used his final address to the General Assembly on Tuesday to renew his call for Security Council reform, saying it must become more representative and better reflect today’s geopolitical realities.

Nigeria’s Vice President Kashim Shettima, delivering President Bola Tinubu’s national statement, called for at least two permanent seats for Africa, with veto powers for as long as the veto exists, as well as five non-permanent seats for the continent.

Ghana’s President John Mahama made a similar appeal: “Security Council reform is not a favour to Africa; it is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility and survival of the United Nations”.

The renewed calls highlight the scale of Africa’s demand. But translating them into an agreement that changes the Council’s structure remains a far more difficult task.

A reform process that has stalled

The Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

The five permanent members hold veto power, allowing any one of them to block a substantive Council resolution.

No African country has a permanent seat.

Yet Africa remains central to much of the Council’s work. In 2025, the Council adopted 44 resolutions, including 24 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which covers measures such as sanctions and authorisations for the use of force.

Eighteen of those 24 Chapter VII resolutions concerned Africa.

For Professor Ibrahim Gambari, a former Nigerian foreign minister and former Nigerian permanent representative to the UN, the issue is not simply one of geography.

“The status quo is not really interested in change,” he told Al Jazeera. “In the appointment of the Secretary-General, you cannot be a candidate unless each of the five permanent members agrees. Therefore, we have the privilege of the unelected P5, which they don’t want to relinquish.”

Gambari said Africa’s absence was difficult to justify given the continent’s size and the amount of Security Council business involving it.

“In the case of Africa, we have a whole continent that has the largest single bloc, yet has no permanent seat on the Security Council,” he said.

The General Assembly launched the intergovernmental negotiations process on Security Council reform in 2008. The talks cover the Council’s size, membership categories, regional representation and the veto, and have continued through successive General Assembly sessions without agreement on the core questions.

Changing the Council’s permanent membership would also require an amendment to the UN Charter. Under Article 108, that requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members.

That gives the existing permanent members a formal role in any change to the system that grants them permanent membership and veto power.

Nigeria wants a permanent seat

Which African countries would eventually occupy any new permanent seats is another unresolved issue.

Nigeria has consistently presented itself as a country prepared to take on such a role. At this year’s General Assembly, the country renewed its call for at least two permanent African seats with all the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including the veto for as long as it exists.

Dr Fola Aina, a political scientist and international security expert at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, told Al Jazeera the issue also carried particular significance for Nigeria.

“Securing this position would essentially elevate Nigeria’s global diplomatic influence, give Africa a continuous voice in international security decisions and grant Nigeria the power to consolidate its position as a regional hegemon and middle power,” he said.

“The timing of Nigeria’s push is particularly strategic given the current age of strategic competition.”

Nigeria is not alone in seeking a permanent role. Egypt and South Africa have also pursued permanent representation, while other African states have expressed interest.

The African Union, however, has not selected specific countries to occupy the proposed seats. Its common position calls for at least two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Council, with the AU determining which countries should represent the continent.

The veto question

Even if agreement could be reached on who should represent Africa, another obstacle would remain: the veto.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for any permanent African members to have the same rights and privileges as the existing permanent members, including veto power for as long as the veto remains part of the Council’s system.

African governments have therefore argued that adding permanent seats without equivalent powers would not fully address the imbalance they are seeking to correct.

That leaves two separate questions: whether the Council should expand and what powers any new permanent members would receive.

A question of influence

Gambari argues that Africa’s absence also affects the Council’s day-to-day work.

“All these peacekeeping missions in Africa are based on the mandate of the Security Council,” he said.

“The P5 assign themselves the role of penholders, which hardly allows elected non-permanent African countries to initiate draft resolutions affecting their region.”

He said the imbalance was also visible in the way Security Council missions operate on the continent.

“Even Security Council missions to Africa are not led by Africans nowadays. How can the parties in dispute have confidence in such a team?” he said.

“Even for the Security Council’s continued relevance, it has to be reformed so that Africa can have representatives in the permanent seat category.”

For Favour Aniezi, a Nigerian creative and youth advocate, the issue is also about who has influence over decisions affecting the continent.

“Beyond representation, Africa’s absence from the permanent seats of the UN Security Council is a question of whose voice gets to shape decisions that affect the continent,” she told Al Jazeera.

“As a young Nigerian woman, I think it matters that Africa is not only present when global institutions discuss our challenges but has a meaningful role in deciding how those challenges are addressed. We should not simply be represented at the table, Africa should have a voice with the weight to influence what happens at it.”

For now, the core questions remain unresolved: how many new permanent members there should be, which African countries would take the seats, whether they would receive veto power and whether the existing permanent members would accept the changes.

“As long as they keep sticking to this anachronistic formula, reforms will be hard to attain,” Gambari said.