CA: A radical bid to empower NIMBYs - Bill could bring development in state to a halt (AB 528)

OC Register ^ | 5/31/05 | Op/Ed

[NormsRevenge]

One of the most radical anti-growth, anti-housing, anti-road, anti-everything proposals possible is now winding its way through the California Assembly, being pushed ahead by environmental activists looking for the silver bullet to stop any project they don't like.

AB 528 would "authorize any person with a beneficial interest in the outcome to commence a civil action to enforce specified laws, including regulations ... that provide for the protection or enhancement of public health or the environment." It is sponsored by Assemblyman Dario Frommer, D-Los Angeles, and co-sponsored by Assemblyman Mike Gordon, D-El Segundo.

In simple terms, if you or any member of the community or an environmental group did not like any aspect of any proposed building project, you could file suit against that project, alleging some infraction ...

--snip--

Last year, voters passed Prop. 64, an initiative curtailing what became known as shakedown lawsuits.

--snip--

"It would be a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) person's dream come true," said John Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California in Sacramento, which championed Prop. 64. "What would that do for affordable housing? It would break new ground in stopping groundbreaking."

If AB 528 is enacted, even a nuisance would be grounds to try to stop any development project. The bill itself would allow such action for "anything that is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses." That's a wide-open field.

Attorneys could shake down builders for a settlement, or if a civil action is reached, the money would go into a state fund. Those dollars could be used, in part, to fund private environmental groups. No-growthers would have the incentive to find potential problems with every proposed construction project, as would attorneys who filed the suit, supposedly on behalf of the public's interest.

[Busywhiskers]

I wish I could agree but my experience, both in a brief stint as a principal on a development project and as a planning commissioner, argues otherwise. What you are seeing is not weak land use laws but the unintended consequences of what occurs when Govment steps in with centralized planning. Urban growth boundaries artificially limit the supply of buildable land leading to ever small lots and ever higher prices. In that sense the developers and folks like "1000 Friends of Oregon", (a misnamed organization if there ever was one), are in cahoots. The developers because they can get more per sf of developed residential land and the anti-development folks because they think they get "land use efficiency".

The other dirty little secret is that urban growth boundaries also guarantee that some of the best farmland in the state will be urbanized. Not that I lose sleep at night over that because we there isn't exactly a shortage of farm or forest in this state. There is a shortage of affordable housing.

Now can someone tell me again why we do this comprehensive land use planning thing.

[Thom Pain]

"anything that is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses."

More "extraordinary circumstances"???

[chimera]

Have a NIMBY/BANANA for a neighbor.

NIMBY
BANANA
NOPE
NOTE
LULU
NIMTOO

Did I forget any (we're not allowed to say B*F*, but that's what some of these people are)?

[OB1kNOb]

Just another example of Kaliphornia as the world's largest open air outdoor insane asylum.

[VeniVidiVici]

If it passes, ya'll can use it to sue every legislator involved in business development or trying to build their own house.