Links - Beyond Annoyance

Does this bug you? I'm not touching you. [while actually punching you in the face]

Almost every single day, I seem to encounter at least one article that I find highly annoying. In many cases, it involves a bad government policy. And most of those bad policies are aimed at addressing very real problems, but the cost of the policy ends up exceeding the benefit.

That is how Scott Sumner begins this post where he goes on to relate his frustration with the knock-on effects of California’s environmental protection law, CEQA.

I too seem to come across something daily that I find highly annoying just like Sumner does. Ironically it was him pointing to this same issue that checked the box for me the day I read it. To be clear, I’m not annoyed at Sumner. And this was the second time the same information hit me with the bug of annoyance since I am a subscriber to the Reason newsletter, Rent Free, to which Sumner is referring.

From the original Reason piece:

An unintended consequence of CEQA is that anyone can file a lawsuit to wring concessions out of project sponsors, including concessions that have nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Because California’s strict zoning laws frequently require developers to seek some sort of discretionary government approval, this opens up a lot of opportunities for cynical actors to use CEQA to shake down builders.

Indeed, this practice is common enough to have a nickname: “greenmailing.”

…

For the past decade, the developer Relevant Group has been building hotels in the Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles. Time and again, after the city approved the company’s projects, another neighborhood developer filed petitions arguing that the city’s approval violated CEQA by studying traffic, noise, and other impacts enough.

The litigious developer in this case is Stephan Nourmand, principal of Sunset Landmark Development, which owns and operates the Hollywood Athletic Club near Relevant's projects.

Nourmand's company dropped its lawsuits challenging the approval of two of Relevant's hotel projects after the developer agreed to pay $5.5 million.

Also to be clear, the problem rests with CEQA itself. And also ironically, CEQA-driven lawsuits tend to hurt the environment. As Sumner points out:

Let’s say that you convinced me that I was wrong, and that the CEQA is actually a great policy. Assume that in the majority of cases where local governments reject projects on CEQA grounds, the total social costs of the projects exceeds the benefits. Even in that case, I’d oppose allowing people to sue over CEQA approved projects. When lawsuits occur in cases where the project has already been approved by regulators, the vast majority of the objections will be without merit.

Most lawsuits over CEQA decisions probably end up hurting the environment. Many of the lawsuits are fought over issues like “density” and “congestion”. But adding density to cities like Los Angeles is actually good for the environment.

This corrupting of CEQA to create a greenmailing opportunity is absolutely disgusting. Tony Soprano never had it so good.

Right on the heels of that, The Zvi goes and creates one of his typically superb compendia of articles/links. This one is a roundup on occupational licensing the content of which thoroughly infuriates me—I’m way past highly annoyed at this point.

I’m in complete agreement when he writes,

Seriously, burn it all to the ground. No occupational licenses for anything. Nuke from orbit. Only way to be sure. Replace with insurance requirements where it feels necessary. If we make a handful of mistakes that way? Well, that is a price I am willing to pay.

Go read the whole thing. Or don’t; it will just make you frustrated. . . or do; you need to get mad about this. We need to change this self-imposed, major obstruction.

Make no mistake about it. The economic evidence is very clear. Government licensure is NOT about consumer protection. It is about producer (wage) protection. From florist and barbers to doctors and lawyers, there are better ways to do all of the good things that government licensing claims to do. And these alternatives avoid nearly all of the bad things licensing actually does.

PS, For those scoring at home, both primary topics today (CEQA and occupational licensure) hit my beloved Bootleggers and Baptist problem. Is there another concept that better explains unintended consequences/corruption enabling in this world?