The proposition would amend the state’s landmark environmental review law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to expedite specific “essential” projects, including housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational buildings, internet access and clean energy projects. It would set a 365-day time limit on these environmental reviews and require courts to rule on CEQA-related lawsuits within 270 days. There is debate as to whether its language could be construed to include data centers.
Yes Argument
California’s system for approving housing, water, clean energy, roads, schools, hospitals and wildfire prevention is too slow, bureaucratic and costly. Proposition 45 would set enforceable timelines for project approvals, streamline legal challenges and reduce frivolous lawsuits. Projects would still undergo environmental review and cities and counties could still approve or deny them. The proposition excludes Delta conveyance, nuclear power and high-speed rail projects.
No Argument
Proposition 45 limits the environmental review of major development projects and the public’s right to be heard. It reduces public agency requirements to consider public comments on proposed projects — comments that often expose potential contamination of air and water or damage to our coast, rivers and wildlife. It was written by a business group and financed by gas and electric utilities and corporate PACs.
Key Supporters
In Support
- Buffy Wicks, California Assembly member
- California Chamber of Commerce
- California Council on Affordable Housing
- California Hospital Association
- California Water Association
In Opposition
- California Democratic Party
- California Environmental Justice Alliance
- California Environmental Voters
- Communities for a Better Environment
- State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
More Statewide Propositions
Should California issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing, homebuying opportunities and veterans and homelessness programs?
Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?
Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?
Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?
Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?
Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?
Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?
Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?
Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?
Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?