Public Comment

I have recently read many complaints in local newspapers about “NIMBYs” using the California Environmental Quality Act to prevent the University of California from building housing on People’s Park. These complaints are just the latest in an ongoing attack on the California Environmental Quality Act.

Those who want less planning and regulation of development are fond of asserting that CEQA is “abused” by those who use it to prevent or modify destructive projects. They claim that CEQA was never intended to apply to private development, or that CEQA should only protect the natural environment, not urban neighborhoods. Both claims are refuted by the intent, language, and specifics of the law. (Read the broad legislative intent at www.sharonhudson.com/urbanrights.) California’s citizens who value quality of life should hold CEQA tight, because it is their only weapon against environmental degradation.

Some are surprised when courts actually enforce CEQA, much to the chagrin of developers pushing for rapid and unexamined urban densification. But courts do not (and should not) bend the law for those with “altruistic” goals, nor do courts have to answer to public demands for housing and sports stadiums. But politicians do respond to public opinion and so they have occasionally carved out exemptions to CEQA. Careful, limited exemptions for some small projects may be justified, but exemptions for large, potentially highly damaging projects are not.

Some outraged commentators also have a Polyanna-ish view of the University of California, which they view as a noble and benign entity, doing its darnedest on its shoestring budget, to educate deserving young Californians. Outsiders may believe this, but, as they say, “familiarity breeds contempt.” Most of UC’s near neighbors are sadly familiar with the brutal side of Cal. UC Berkeley has a history of broken promises, profit-maximizing, housing destruction, and freeloading off the resources of the City of Berkeley. And anyone who believes that universities are benevolent institutions primarily committed to education should read the 2005 book “University, Inc.” by Jennifer Washburn. 

Before CEQA, there was California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. This popular plan, which had statewide scope and acceptance, fully took into account California’s population increases and addressed anticipated density impacts of host cities. In spite of a shortage of campuses at the time, it aimed for UC campuses to top out at 27,500 students, in deference to the needs of students, faculty, and host communities. 

How would UC do this? Under the Master Plan, UC enrollment would be limited by (1) making better use of the state college and community college systems; (2) tightening UC admissions standards; and (3) distributing students to other (new) UC campuses (note: Berkeley’s population density is more than twice as high as most UC host cities). Under CEQA, these options, along with the use of any local potential development sites, are called “alternatives,” and must be explored as means to prevent unnecessary damage to environmental “goods” like open space, quiet, and historical resources. CEQA is the only law that requires this. 

UC Berkeley had 28,525 students in 1970. Then a student could hoof it around town for a few days before school started, and find an ample apartment for a reasonable price. In 1990 UC Berkeley had over 30,000 students, but promised to lower its enrollment; instead, by 2000 it had 31,267 enrolled. In 2005 UCB said its enrollment would be around 33,000 by 2020, but in 2010 it was 35,833, and in 2020, 42,327. The City of Berkeley and neighbors relied on those promises and projections when deciding on policies related to the university. Now UCB’s student body is 45,307—with thousands not even Californians. This—and the accompanying housing shortage—can’t be blamed on CEQA or NIMBYs. 

A city of less than 120,000 can’t support 45,000 young, short-term residents and “visitors,” not to mention ballooning non-academic institutional uses (where housing used to be), without paying a high price. The neighborhoods directly around the campus bear 90% of the livability burden. Under CEQA, adding 20,000 residents is called “cumulative impact.” CEQA is the only law that requires decision-makers to question it and/or plan for it. 

Some Californians who live far away from any likely development view people who try to protect their neighborhoods as deep-pocketed NIMBYs who are afraid of poor people. This idea is happily promoted by developers. In fact, the people impacted most by new developments are poor people. It is a godsend to them when a wealthier person volunteers time and/or money to help them protect their environs. So thank you to those who have sued to hold UC to its promised enrollment figures, and to maintain People’s Park as much-needed open, public, and historic space in the densest part of a dense city. 

Many view People’s Park as a dump because, for fifty years, UC has made sure it remains unusable and unlovable. Occasionally they test to see whether park neighbors are fed up enough with the problems there to support replacing the “park” with (more) student barracks. They have even held fake “community input” processes, in which unwitting neighbors waste their time proffering ideas to improve the park. But all this is yet more UC deceit; their goal has always been to build on People’s Park just like they bulldozed and built all over the rest of Southside—as soon as nobody is looking. 

So far People’s Park has been saved by people committed to one of more of its symbolic values: its long, unlikely, contested, anti-institutional history; its being a “free space” for the unfortunate and unhoused; and its potential value as a public park. Historically, People’s Park is the single surviving piece of open space, preserved for use by “the people,” in the neighborhood with the most actual people in Berkeley, in the face of an all-devouring institution. Physically, it should be a public gathering place—a venue for music, performance, and public affairs—with greenery and open space, providing a little breathing room for the landmark Maybeck Christian Science church on one side and a busy business district on the other. But allowing People’s Park to be a community asset would defy both the imagination and moral fiber of UC Berkeley. CEQA is the only thing powerful enough to push UC in that direction.