The progressive “abundance” movement is getting an election test in California, where the climate lobby and unions have come out swinging against Prop. 45, a ballot initiative that would accelerate permitting for housing, green energy and public works. Here is a snapshot of why life in California is so expensive.
The 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the bane of businesses and anyone who wants to build in the state. Localities often take years to complete environmental reviews for small projects, which are then subject to lengthy public comment and hearings. Opponents weaponize the law to delay or kill projects.
Homeowners challenge environmental reviews for nearby housing projects they fear could hurt their property values or increase traffic. Building unions threaten litigation to block projects if developers don’t accept prevailing wage mandates. The green left opposes water storage and energy projects, and most everything else.
A gas station owner last decade sued to block a competing gas station across the street from adding several new pumps. Even progressive favorites like bike lanes, food banks and solar farms are ensnared by CEQA. The result: A shortage of housing, water and energy—and inevitably higher prices.
Enter Prop. 45, which would expedite permitting for, and limit litigation against, “essential” projects, including housing, transportation, water, broadband, renewable energy, schools, healthcare facilities and wildfire mitigation. Local governments would have to specify all information that developers must submit at the outset of environmental reviews. That means bureaucrats couldn’t change review standards mid-review. Opponents would have 45 days to submit public comments on draft environmental impact statements.
If a project is approved, opponents would have 30 days to file a lawsuit. Judicial review would be limited to “whether the approval or authorization complies with objective existing laws.” Courts would have 270 days to rule. If judges find fault with a particular aspect of an environmental review, they couldn’t block the projects en toto.
The California Building Industry Association estimates Prop. 45 would decrease the cost of building a new home by $75,000 on average. It would likewise reduce costs for critical infrastructure projects, saving taxpayers billions of dollars and potentially lowering utility bills. Another bonus: Less gridlock on jammed roads.
As dangerous is the attitude Proposition 40 embodies. Its premise is that any and all private wealth constitutes an illegitimate diversion of resources away from the state. Despite the initial application to fortunes only above $1 billion, one discerns in the academic literature behind Proposition 40 no limiting principle.
This is foreign to America’s political tradition, in which property rights are a foundation of our liberty. The tax is entirely redistributive and punitive, and in this regard its philosophical radicalness is underappreciated. Probably because the danger it poses to the economy is so distracting.
That’s where the French come in. It’s notable that the key academic advocates of Proposition 40, and wealth taxes in general, are French. Emmanuel Saez, an economist who teaches at University of California, Berkeley, is credited as one of the authors of Proposition 40. His frequent collaborator Gabriel Zucman is a vocal proponent. Between them they have done more than any other economists to provide an intellectual veneer to the case for introducing wealth taxes in America.
Messrs. Saez and Zucman derive their conclusions from Thomas Piketty, also French, whose 2014 book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” revived academic and popular interest in inequality. Mr. Piketty’s political influence has proved more durable than his book’s methodological credibility, and debate still rages about whether any of these people can accurately measure “wealth” at all.
This isn’t a knock on the French, who can be lovely people when they aren’t rioting. But the French origins of Proposition 40 are significant. For one, these economists come from a political-economy tradition very different from America’s.
More to the point, they come from a country that is broke. France has just wrapped up another week of rioting over its government’s lack of money. This time students are demanding more cash for schools. At various other times it was government employees, retirees and farmers. With a nearly 120% ratio of government debt to gross domestic product and fiscal deficits above 5% of GDP each year, there’s no money to give them.
This has encouraged the spread of the convenient fantasy that France—and, by extension, Europe’s other bankrupt states—would have enough money to spend if only the wealthy could be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. Most of the global tax debate of the past decade traces back to this myth.
The problem is that France already tried a wealth tax of its own. It was a flop. The levy consistently generated less revenue than predicted, and President Emmanuel Macron scrapped it in 2018. French economists managed to avoid learning anything about incentives, prosperity or fiscal sustainability from this experience. But they do think they know how to make a wealth tax work better.
Paul McDonnold tells of how the American south is enriched by free enterprise.
We show that cross-border learning is an important feature of modern semiconductor manufacturing and that several important channels – such as knowledge sharing along global supply chains, the movement of engineers within multinational firms, and foreign direct investment – operate through market mechanisms rather than anonymous technological spillovers. These findings have significant policy implications. When cross-border learning is mediated by purposeful economic relationships, access to frontier knowledge is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Firms and governments can facilitate – or restrict – the international diffusion of technology, implying that policies to foster domestic technological upgrading are likely to be most effective when coupled with continued access to global sources of frontier knowledge.
“US steel prices climb to four-year high as Trump’s tariffs bite.” (HT Scott Lincicome)
