Probably not, but there will be more threats to California's independent power, and the Administration will likely do everything it can to undermine that power.
His mission was to help people understand the underlying economics of public goods and services. Parking was simply the vehicle, one might say, that he chose to do so.
Probably not. Residents typically want to rebuild what they had before -- even if replicating the existing land use pattern creates significant wildfire risk.
State law has lots of definitions of infill and transit-oriented locations. As local governments increasingly use the infill exemption to get around environmental review, this is becoming a problem.
The second Trump Administration is likely to back off of zoning reform, environmental protection, and transit funding. Will the state's own laws and policies serve as a firewall against these changes?
Fallout from Supreme Court case on is still unclear, but there's no question that cities and counties will have to make "individualized determinations" more often, bulletproof their nexus studies, and allow more appeals.
The governor has a new infill housing initiative that includes a proposal to use housing as CEQA mitigation. But this play is only partly about housing. It's mostly about getting transportation projects adequately mitigated under SB 743.
Patterns since the beginning of the pandemic suggest that there might be a slight rebalancing of population and housing in California. But persisently high prices seem to show that other factors are at work.
The U.S. Supreme Court's exactions ruling left a lot of things up in the air. Most important: Does California's typical "fair share" methodology for general plan-level exactions meet the court's "rough proportionality" rule?
Recent rulings from the high-profile cities of Berkeley and Beverly Hills got a lot of publicity. But less publicized settlement agreements from Davis and Clovis show just how scared cities are getting about housing litigation.
