October 19, 2026
California’s Prop. 45 tests if progressives believe their new slogan.
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.
Renewable energy lobbies, affordable housing groups and California’s local NAACP support the initiative. Yet the greens, building unions and plaintiff law firms oppose it because it could reduce their leverage to shake down developers. Never mind that it would create construction jobs and boost renewable power. Our sources say trade unions had planned to stay neutral, but their plaintiff attorney allies prodded them to come out against it.
The “no” campaign is funded by actress Jane Fonda and Wendy Schmidt, wife of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. They have the luxury to oppose projects that reduce the state’s stratospheric cost of living. The Schmidts last year purchased a 56,500-square-foot home in Los Angeles for $110 million. Can’t Ms. Schmidt muster sympathy for plebeians renting a studio for $3,000?
Opponents say Prop. 45 would ease the way for data centers and warehouses, but, alas, neither are included as “essential” in the initiative. A recent Public Policy Institute of California survey found voters split on the measure. It leads by a large margin among those making less than $100,000 and renters, while trailing among the affluent and homeowners.
Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t taken a position, which is no profile in courage. If he believes the liberal gospel of abundance that he preaches, he’d endorse it.
Correction: An earlier version misstated Eric Schmidt’s role at Google.