One of the biggest problems in our world of politics is voters' common refusal to accept the concept of tradeoffs. Author Robert Mulligan says it "is one of the most basic principles in economics, that in order to have more of one thing, you have to accept having less of something else." Likewise, economist Thomas Sowell noted, "There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs."
It's a basic idea that we all understand on a personal level. I've been thinking about trading my 15-year-old car for a new one, as it would be nice to have a vehicle with power windows and Bluetooth. But buying one means using money I could spend on other pleasures. Such is life.
Politics is funny, though. Politicians make promises where everyone gets everything their heart desires. We can have a single-payer healthcare system without any of the resulting shortages. We can have tariffs that don't drive inflation—or that wall Mexico pays for. It would be nice if lawmakers just leveled with us about the ups and downs of policy choices.
One initiative this election, Proposition 45, best epitomizes that tradeoff issue. It seeks to reform the state's "landmark" environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Do we want more building and the good it brings, or do we maintain the Byzantine regulatory process so we can stop construction of projects we don't like?
Complex regulations aren't best reformed at the ballot box, but since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the law in 1970, CEQA has entangled construction projects of every sort in a maze of hearings, Environmental Impact Reports, and litigation. CEQA was meant to assure developers mitigated any environmental damage. That sounds fine, but it has led to long delays, enormous costs, and special interests that use the process to stop projects or exact non-environmental demands (e.g., union wage concessions).
There's wide consensus in the Legislature that CEQA has exacerbated the state's housing crisis, halted business growth, and slowed our economy. The law even endangers the state's environmental priorities, as cynical actors have used it to derail parks, transit projects, infill housing, wildfire-fighting brush-clearance projects, you name it.
Lawmakers have exempted various projects from CEQA, but have done so on a piecemeal basis—and only those that fit a narrow scope. Sponsored by the level-headed California Chamber of Commerce, Proposition 45 attempts broad reform for any "essential" project. Per the measure, that includes housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, police and fire stations, brush clearance, broadband, education facilities, and transportation projects except for the bullet train.
As the Legislative Analyst's Office explains, Proposition 45 "creates more binding time limits for state and local governments to do both CEQA and permitting reviews. This includes time limits for determining if a project application is complete, finishing the EIR, and granting other types of approvals and permits." Some of the changes are deep in the weeds, but it's all meant to speed things up—and to limit what the courts can review.
"CEQA lawsuits, inclusive of appeals, typically take four to five years to resolve, stalling most approved projects and often deterring lenders, investors and grant-making agencies from funding them," explained a September report from the Holland & Knight law firm. Ask any knowledgeable person about why California is incapable of building anything efficiently and they will point to these CEQA impediments. If the state wants to reduce housing prices, it needs to fix this logjam.
As a voter, you must answer a simple question: Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Again, the downside is that in speeding up approval of projects that you like, it will also speed up the process for projects that you don't like. No wonder opponents are raising the arguable specter that Proposition 45 will help companies build data centers, given those centers are widely unpopular.
We need more housing, including suburban subdivisions. We need more businesses. We need better freeways. We need to speed the process for brush clearance to prevent devastating wildfires. So, yes, I eagerly support this measure. Will it likely mean I'll see the speedier construction of, say, underused light-rail lines and absurdly costly subsidized apartment buildings that annoy me? Probably. Oh well, some bad will come with the good, no matter what the campaigns tell you.
For instance, the "yes" side claims that Proposition 45 offers the "same strong protections." California's environmental protections will still be strong, but they obviously won't be the "same." And opponents claim CEQA needs reform, but this particular fix is the wrong way to go about it. That canard just reflects a myopic refusal to accept downsides inherent in any reform.
To me, Proposition 45 has far more pros than cons. You do you. But be an adult and recognize the tradeoffs. As sci-fi author Robert Heinlein wrote, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)."
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The move comes amid a federal dispute over election oversight and a court ruling blocking efforts to set aside more than 20,000 mail-in ballots.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he would deploy election lawyers and observers across the state to protect voters’ rights, escalating a confrontation with President Donald Trump’s administration over federal involvement in polling places ahead of the elections.
The legal teams will be sent to key districts with closely contested races, Newsom said, warning against unauthorized interference in the electoral process.
“A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots,” the Democratic governor wrote on social media platform X.
Newsom also approved legislation making the unlawful seizure of election ballots a felony, establishing criminal penalties for unauthorized interference with ballots.
A warning to Donald Trump:
I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote.
And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.
The measures follow the Trump administration’s announcement that it would deploy federal agents to polling places to prevent potential electoral irregularities. Trump has repeatedly accused California of failing to address alleged voter fraud.
Speaking Wednesday night on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Newsom criticized the administration’s approach, accusing the White House of trying to suppress votes and create grounds to challenge the election results.
He argued that the administration was seeking to create conditions that could later be used to question the outcome and allege fraud.
The dispute has also reached the courts. On Wednesday, a federal judge rejected a Justice Department request to set aside more than 20,000 mail-in ballots cast in California while authorities verified voters’ citizenship.
The judge warned that withholding the ballots would cause widespread disruption and interfere with an electoral process already underway.
California officials had also questioned the reliability of the voter list submitted by the federal government and rejected its request to verify voters’ citizenship before ballots were counted.
The Justice Department confirmed it would appeal the ruling, setting the stage for further legal disputes between federal and state authorities before the election process concludes.
"Una advertencia para Donald Trump: estoy desplegando abogados electorales en distritos clave de California —donde la contienda está muy reñida— para proteger cada voto", escribió Newsom a través de su cuenta en la red social X.
A federal judge rejected on Wednesday a Trump administration request to stop California from processing the ballots of up to 20,000 people over allegations they are likely noncitizens, warning it would "wreak havoc" on the midterm elections.
A dual U.S.-Salvadoran citizen from California accused of murdering a woman in front of their toddler son before abandoning the child near her remains has been extradited to El Salvador to face charges, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Thursday.
Michael Alejandro Castillo Murga, 27, of Beaumont, California, was handed over to Salvadoran authorities Wednesday to face charges of aggravated femicide and imperfect homicide in the 2019 killing.
The extradition marks the first time the U.S. has surrendered an American citizen to face prosecution for crimes committed in El Salvador, according to the DOJ.
Castillo Murga holds dual U.S. and Salvadoran citizenship.
Salvadoran authorities allege Castillo Murga picked up Melvi Fernanda Nájera Quezada, 23, and their son from her mother's home Jan. 31, 2019, supposedly to begin living together as a family.
Investigators allege he instead killed Nájera Quezada and abandoned their child near her body, which was discovered near a highway the next day.
An autopsy determined she died from severe bleeding caused by cuts to her neck and other wounds inflicted with a plastic knife, according to the DOJ.
Farmworkers discovered the boy, who was younger than 2, several days later in a rugged area near where his mother's body was found. He was severely dehydrated and starving with cuts on his face, insect bites and signs of abuse, authorities said.
Investigators linked Castillo Murga to the killing through cellphone location data and witness accounts. Authorities also said he sent his girlfriend a photograph showing bloodstains on his face and neck.
Prosecutors also accused Castillo Murga's grandmother and a lawyer of helping conceal evidence. According to the DOJ, the pair arranged for two people to clean blood from the interior and exterior of Castillo Murga's vehicle using water, car shampoo and vinegar, but they were unable to remove all the blood.
Castillo Murga escaped to Guatemala around Feb. 2, 2019, with assistance from his grandmother and lawyer before eventually entering the U.S., according to prosecutors.
U.S. Marshals arrested him in October 2024 in response to an extradition request from El Salvador.
Castillo Murga challenged his extradition in federal court, but a judge rejected his petition in November 2025 and denied a subsequent request to halt the transfer in September 2026.
Login
