Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the Ontario government muzzled its Greenbelt Council

News Feed
Thursday, March 16, 2023

By Emma McIntosh Over the past two years, the Ontario government moved to muzzle the council that advises it about the Greenbelt as it shuffled its work behind closed doors, documents show Ever since, as the government moved toward its contentious decision to remove land from the protected area, the council saw constant turnover in its members, whose numbers have now shrunk to just a handful.  The Greenbelt Council exists to give advice to the provincial government about issues related to the Greenbelt, a protected area of farmland, forests and waterways ringing around the Greater Toronto Area. For years, the council sent its recommendations through letters to the minister of municipal affairs, currently Steve Clark, that were made public several times per year. But the council abruptly went quiet in late 2020 when more than half of its members resigned in protest of Premier Doug Ford’s environmental policies.  Since then, the council has only piped up once, when its last chair supported the government’s 2022 removal of 7,400 acres from the protected area to build homes — a departure from the council’s longtime support for maintaining the Greenbelt in its entirety.  Documents obtained by The Narwhal explain the silence: after the mass resignations, the government changed the rules of the Greenbelt Council to make its advice confidential, and to restrict its members’ ability to talk to journalists. We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism. The new rules were first laid out in a “media relations protocol” document for the council in March 2021, three months after the resignations, which was obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request. Though the chair of the Greenbelt Council used to be able to freely share the group’s advice publicly and answer questions from reporters, the new protocol says the chair can only answer questions about the council’s mandate and processes. The other members of the panel can answer questions about their roles and professional backgrounds but are bound to “keep council deliberations confidential.” “Refer other questions to the [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing] communications branch],” the protocol reads. “Council’s advice to the minister is considered confidential unless the minister approves its release.” A document obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request shows the media protocol the Ontario government gave the Greenbelt Council in March 2021, months after half its members resigned en masse. The new version instructed members to keep their advice confidential and to direct media requests to the government. Greenbelt Council rules changed in 2022: documents The new confidentiality requirements were also codified a year later, in March 2022 terms of reference for the Greenbelt Council obtained by The Narwhal through the same freedom of information request. The Narwhal compared the 2022 terms of reference, which are still in effect now, with the previous terms of reference from 2018, which were provided by a source.  Other revisions in the 2022 version alter the Greenbelt Council’s function in subtler ways.  Previous councils gave the minister advice when asked, but also had the freedom to give advice unprompted, on any issues the members decided were important. Now, the topics must be “determined through consultation between the minister and chair.” The 2022 terms of reference removed a paragraph from the old version specifying the point of the Greenbelt is to “manage growth, build complete communities, curb sprawl and protect the natural environment.”  The new terms of reference also tweaked the description of who members of the council should be.  The 2018 version said members “shall be drawn from various sectors or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt.” It also recommended members could come from conservation authorities — watershed management agencies, whose powers the current Ontario government has repeatedly cut — that work in support of the Greenbelt. Ontario’s Greenbelt is a ring of protected land on the edges of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, encompassing farmland, forests and watersheds. Development has mostly been forbidden there since it was created in 2005, but last year, the provincial government removed 7,400 acres from it in what it said was a bid to build more housing. Photos: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal The new version removed the reference to conservation authorities. Now, members should come from a “diverse range of various sectors (e.g. municipal, academia, agricultural, development, environmental, housing, business/economic development, infrastructure, transportation) or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt to provide a balanced representation.” Clark’s office and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing didn’t acknowledge repeated emails from The Narwhal with a list of detailed questions about the intent of the media protocol and edits to the terms of reference. The government also didn’t answer when asked whether the changes were intended to help lay the groundwork for its removals of land from the Greenbelt in late 2022.  Taken together, the government’s changes to the Greenbelt Council over the past two years keep the public in the dark, Tim Gray, the executive director of the advocacy organization Environmental Defence, said in an interview. “It’s what you’d do if you wanted to make sure that [the Greenbelt Council] was a lot less effective and didn’t give information to the public and didn’t advocate for the Greenbelt,” Gray said. “It would definitely ensure that the minister wouldn’t have to be nervous about a Greenbelt Council saying anything publicly about the attack on the Greenbelt, because it effectively cut off its ability to release public reports or speak to the media directly.” A comparison of the 2018 and 2022 versions of the Greenbelt Council’s terms of reference. Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal Turnover has quietly continued on Ontario’s Greenbelt Council since 2020  It’s not uncommon for government advisory panels to be bound by confidentiality. But it is unusual for the Greenbelt Council. Prior to the 2020 resignations, the council spoke up about a variety of land use issues in southern Ontario. In the months leading up to the resignations, the council had pushed the government to drop a plan to allow quarries to be built in endangered species habitat, and asked the province to reconsider plans to build Highway 413 through the Greenbelt.  The first rumbling of trouble, however, came when one member of the council resigned in November 2020 over the province’s decision to fast-track development on the Lower Duffins Creek wetland east of Toronto. “I cannot in all conscience continue to sit on the Greenbelt Council which has provided you with its best advice … which seems to me to have not been given due consideration,” Linda Pim, an environmental biologist and land use planner, said in her resignation letter. The tension erupted a month later when the council was rocked by a mass exodus in protest of a 2020 move to disempower conservation authorities. First, it was the chair at the time, David Crombie, a former Progressive Conservative MP and mayor of Toronto, who said the changes were “disastrous” and “high-level bombing” that “needs to be resisted.” Six more members followed his lead the next day and quit.  The backlash continued when the Ontario government appointed Crombie’s replacement, Norm Sterling, a former Progressive Conservative environment minister who voted against the creation of the Greenbelt in 2005.  Although the council hasn’t said much publicly since, turnover has continued to keep its numbers in flux.  Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark is oversees the Greenbelt and the Greenbelt Council. Photo: Government of Ontario / Flickr Before the high-profile resignations in December 2020, the Greenbelt Council had 13 members. Afterwards, it lost even more members and was gradually whittled down to four in 2021. Over time, the government gradually appointed more, reaching nine members in mid-2022, according to archived versions of its member list. But in the months leading up to the government’s decision to remove land from the Greenbelt, the council’s numbers began to dwindle again — five have departed since last summer.  Two members — Michael Williams of the charity Ducks Unlimited Canada and retired lawyer Michael Fowler — left after their terms expired in summer 2022. Williams did not respond to an email from The Narwhal. Fowler declined to comment on his time with the Greenbelt Council. Others left before their terms were up. Sterling led the council when the new terms of reference were authored in March 2022, but left later that year, before the government publicly proposed cutting into the Greenbelt. Sterling didn’t answer emailed questions from The Narwhal about why he exited the job when his appointment still had more than a year left. In roughly the same span of time, two other members also left early: Peel Regional Councillor Johanna Downey and Patrick Molloy, the former mayor of the town of Uxbridge. Downey did not answer an email and Molloy did not respond to a request sent via LinkedIn. A sixth member, former Ontario finance minister Charles Sousa, was briefly appointed to the council in October 2022 but left after about three weeks to run for a federal seat — Sousa is now a Liberal MP. In an email, Sousa said he never sat in an official Greenbelt Council meeting so he couldn’t comment on changes to the terms of reference and media protocol, but he believes it’s possible to increase housing supply without cutting into green space. Ontario’s Greenbelt Council used to make its letters to the government public and weigh in on a variety of land use issues. But since the Ford government penned new rules for the council, it has rarely spoken publicly. Photos: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal “To protect the Greenbelt we need smart growth: a proper balance between competing demands for housing, economic growth and environmental sustainability,” Sousa said. “I felt that I could make a positive impact and make appropriate recommendations in finding that right balance.” Sousa added he had already put in his resignation when the changes to the Greenbelt were announced: “I was prepared to do my best to work with the group and ensure this tremendous area is preserved for generations to come. Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute in the way I had hoped.” Former Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion was appointed in October 2022 to replace Sterling, but died in January and hasn’t yet been replaced.  The Greenbelt Council now has just four members: Heather French, a co-owner and operator of a grain farm in Caledon, Ont., Toronto Metropolitan University urban planning professor David Amborski, Bradford West Gwillimbury town Councillor Jonathan Scott and environmental consultant Jo-Anne Lane.  In an email to The Narwhal, Amborski declined to answer questions but said it’s not unusual for members of government panels to be unable to speak to media about their work. French and Scott did not respond to emails from The Narwhal. Lane did not answer a message sent via LinkedIn.  The previous chair of the Greenbelt Council publicly supported the province’s plan to cut into the Greenbelt, contradicting the council’s longstanding opposition to development there — as well as the government’s own report that zoning, not land availability, is the root of the housing crisis. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing did not answer when asked when it plans to appoint more members to the Greenbelt Council, or whether the panel is able to function with just four members.  In the past, the Greenbelt Council’s mandate made it an advocate for the Greenbelt and for good land use planning in southern Ontario, Gray said. Without that, it appears the government has turned it into something else.  “Their ability both to choose things that come their way and do reports about them and then release them to the public keeps those issues in the public mind,” Gray said.  “Anything that silences their ability to work on issues that come their way obviously reduces their effectiveness.”

By Emma McIntosh Documents show that a shrunken, ever-changing council was forbidden from speaking freely, as development encroaches on the once-protected area

A photo illustration containing a historic image of men in a boardroom with red blotches covering their mouths

Over the past two years, the Ontario government moved to muzzle the council that advises it about the Greenbelt as it shuffled its work behind closed doors, documents show

Ever since, as the government moved toward its contentious decision to remove land from the protected area, the council saw constant turnover in its members, whose numbers have now shrunk to just a handful. 

The Greenbelt Council exists to give advice to the provincial government about issues related to the Greenbelt, a protected area of farmland, forests and waterways ringing around the Greater Toronto Area. For years, the council sent its recommendations through letters to the minister of municipal affairs, currently Steve Clark, that were made public several times per year. But the council abruptly went quiet in late 2020 when more than half of its members resigned in protest of Premier Doug Ford’s environmental policies. 

Since then, the council has only piped up once, when its last chair supported the government’s 2022 removal of 7,400 acres from the protected area to build homes — a departure from the council’s longtime support for maintaining the Greenbelt in its entirety. 

Documents obtained by The Narwhal explain the silence: after the mass resignations, the government changed the rules of the Greenbelt Council to make its advice confidential, and to restrict its members’ ability to talk to journalists.

We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts
The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism.
We’re investigating Ontario’s environmental cuts
The Narwhal’s Ontario bureau is telling stories you won’t find anywhere else. Keep up with the latest scoops by signing up for a weekly dose of our independent journalism.

The new rules were first laid out in a “media relations protocol” document for the council in March 2021, three months after the resignations, which was obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request.

Though the chair of the Greenbelt Council used to be able to freely share the group’s advice publicly and answer questions from reporters, the new protocol says the chair can only answer questions about the council’s mandate and processes. The other members of the panel can answer questions about their roles and professional backgrounds but are bound to “keep council deliberations confidential.”

“Refer other questions to the [Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing] communications branch],” the protocol reads.

“Council’s advice to the minister is considered confidential unless the minister approves its release.”

A document reading: March 7, 2021 MEDIA RELATIONS PROTOCOL - GREENBELT COUNCIL The purpose of this protocol is to establish a clear, consistent approach to media relations for members of the Greenbelt Council. Media Queries All media inquiries and requests for the Chair shall be administered through the MMAH Communications Branch. Council members may answer media questions about their respective roles on the Council and professional backgrounds. Members are expected to keep Council deliberations confidential. As spokesperson, the Council Chair may address questions about the Council's mandate - i.e., its purpose and processes. Refer other questions to the MMAH Communications Branch (416-585-7066 or MMA.Media@ontario.ca) for the Minister or ministry staff to answer. Council's advice to the Minister is considered confidential unless the Minister approves its release. The Chair shall notify the MMAH Communications Branch in advance of all interviews and responses to media in a timely manner (email preferred). The Council shall advise the MMAH Communications Branch, through the Council's Ministry staff liaison representatives, in advance of upcoming events likely to generate media or community interest, and, where possible, in advance of emerging issues likely to attract media attention.
A document obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request shows the media protocol the Ontario government gave the Greenbelt Council in March 2021, months after half its members resigned en masse. The new version instructed members to keep their advice confidential and to direct media requests to the government.

Greenbelt Council rules changed in 2022: documents

The new confidentiality requirements were also codified a year later, in March 2022 terms of reference for the Greenbelt Council obtained by The Narwhal through the same freedom of information request. The Narwhal compared the 2022 terms of reference, which are still in effect now, with the previous terms of reference from 2018, which were provided by a source. 

Other revisions in the 2022 version alter the Greenbelt Council’s function in subtler ways. 

Previous councils gave the minister advice when asked, but also had the freedom to give advice unprompted, on any issues the members decided were important. Now, the topics must be “determined through consultation between the minister and chair.” The 2022 terms of reference removed a paragraph from the old version specifying the point of the Greenbelt is to “manage growth, build complete communities, curb sprawl and protect the natural environment.” 

The new terms of reference also tweaked the description of who members of the council should be. 

The 2018 version said members “shall be drawn from various sectors or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt.” It also recommended members could come from conservation authorities — watershed management agencies, whose powers the current Ontario government has repeatedly cut — that work in support of the Greenbelt.

The new version removed the reference to conservation authorities. Now, members should come from a “diverse range of various sectors (e.g. municipal, academia, agricultural, development, environmental, housing, business/economic development, infrastructure, transportation) or individuals that support the objectives of the Greenbelt to provide a balanced representation.”

Clark’s office and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing didn’t acknowledge repeated emails from The Narwhal with a list of detailed questions about the intent of the media protocol and edits to the terms of reference. The government also didn’t answer when asked whether the changes were intended to help lay the groundwork for its removals of land from the Greenbelt in late 2022. 

Taken together, the government’s changes to the Greenbelt Council over the past two years keep the public in the dark, Tim Gray, the executive director of the advocacy organization Environmental Defence, said in an interview.

“It’s what you’d do if you wanted to make sure that [the Greenbelt Council] was a lot less effective and didn’t give information to the public and didn’t advocate for the Greenbelt,” Gray said.

“It would definitely ensure that the minister wouldn’t have to be nervous about a Greenbelt Council saying anything publicly about the attack on the Greenbelt, because it effectively cut off its ability to release public reports or speak to the media directly.”

n 2018, the Greenbelt Council’s terms of reference included an introduction outlining the environmental importance of the land it stewards, and the need to put limits on sprawl. In the 2022 version, most of that language is missing. Instead, the terms of reference emphasizes the need for communities to expand economic opportunities.
A comparison of the 2018 and 2022 versions of the Greenbelt Council’s terms of reference. Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Turnover has quietly continued on Ontario’s Greenbelt Council since 2020 

It’s not uncommon for government advisory panels to be bound by confidentiality. But it is unusual for the Greenbelt Council. Prior to the 2020 resignations, the council spoke up about a variety of land use issues in southern Ontario. In the months leading up to the resignations, the council had pushed the government to drop a plan to allow quarries to be built in endangered species habitat, and asked the province to reconsider plans to build Highway 413 through the Greenbelt. 

The first rumbling of trouble, however, came when one member of the council resigned in November 2020 over the province’s decision to fast-track development on the Lower Duffins Creek wetland east of Toronto. “I cannot in all conscience continue to sit on the Greenbelt Council which has provided you with its best advice … which seems to me to have not been given due consideration,” Linda Pim, an environmental biologist and land use planner, said in her resignation letter.

The tension erupted a month later when the council was rocked by a mass exodus in protest of a 2020 move to disempower conservation authorities. First, it was the chair at the time, David Crombie, a former Progressive Conservative MP and mayor of Toronto, who said the changes were “disastrous” and “high-level bombing” that “needs to be resisted.” Six more members followed his lead the next day and quit. 

The backlash continued when the Ontario government appointed Crombie’s replacement, Norm Sterling, a former Progressive Conservative environment minister who voted against the creation of the Greenbelt in 2005. 

Although the council hasn’t said much publicly since, turnover has continued to keep its numbers in flux. 

Ontario's integrity commissioner will investigate whether Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark breached rules that bar MPPs from making decisions or using insider information improperly, in regards to his government's decision to open long-protected Greenbelt land to development.
Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark is oversees the Greenbelt and the Greenbelt Council. Photo: Government of Ontario / Flickr

Before the high-profile resignations in December 2020, the Greenbelt Council had 13 members. Afterwards, it lost even more members and was gradually whittled down to four in 2021. Over time, the government gradually appointed more, reaching nine members in mid-2022, according to archived versions of its member list. But in the months leading up to the government’s decision to remove land from the Greenbelt, the council’s numbers began to dwindle again — five have departed since last summer. 

Two members — Michael Williams of the charity Ducks Unlimited Canada and retired lawyer Michael Fowler — left after their terms expired in summer 2022. Williams did not respond to an email from The Narwhal. Fowler declined to comment on his time with the Greenbelt Council.

Others left before their terms were up. Sterling led the council when the new terms of reference were authored in March 2022, but left later that year, before the government publicly proposed cutting into the Greenbelt. Sterling didn’t answer emailed questions from The Narwhal about why he exited the job when his appointment still had more than a year left.

In roughly the same span of time, two other members also left early: Peel Regional Councillor Johanna Downey and Patrick Molloy, the former mayor of the town of Uxbridge. Downey did not answer an email and Molloy did not respond to a request sent via LinkedIn.

A sixth member, former Ontario finance minister Charles Sousa, was briefly appointed to the council in October 2022 but left after about three weeks to run for a federal seat — Sousa is now a Liberal MP. In an email, Sousa said he never sat in an official Greenbelt Council meeting so he couldn’t comment on changes to the terms of reference and media protocol, but he believes it’s possible to increase housing supply without cutting into green space.

“To protect the Greenbelt we need smart growth: a proper balance between competing demands for housing, economic growth and environmental sustainability,” Sousa said. “I felt that I could make a positive impact and make appropriate recommendations in finding that right balance.”

Sousa added he had already put in his resignation when the changes to the Greenbelt were announced: “I was prepared to do my best to work with the group and ensure this tremendous area is preserved for generations to come. Unfortunately, I was not able to contribute in the way I had hoped.”

Former Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion was appointed in October 2022 to replace Sterling, but died in January and hasn’t yet been replaced. 

The Greenbelt Council now has just four members: Heather French, a co-owner and operator of a grain farm in Caledon, Ont., Toronto Metropolitan University urban planning professor David Amborski, Bradford West Gwillimbury town Councillor Jonathan Scott and environmental consultant Jo-Anne Lane. 

In an email to The Narwhal, Amborski declined to answer questions but said it’s not unusual for members of government panels to be unable to speak to media about their work. French and Scott did not respond to emails from The Narwhal. Lane did not answer a message sent via LinkedIn. 

Housing development outside of Milton, Ont.
The previous chair of the Greenbelt Council publicly supported the province’s plan to cut into the Greenbelt, contradicting the council’s longstanding opposition to development there — as well as the government’s own report that zoning, not land availability, is the root of the housing crisis. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing did not answer when asked when it plans to appoint more members to the Greenbelt Council, or whether the panel is able to function with just four members. 

In the past, the Greenbelt Council’s mandate made it an advocate for the Greenbelt and for good land use planning in southern Ontario, Gray said. Without that, it appears the government has turned it into something else. 

“Their ability both to choose things that come their way and do reports about them and then release them to the public keeps those issues in the public mind,” Gray said. 

“Anything that silences their ability to work on issues that come their way obviously reduces their effectiveness.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Container deposit schemes reduce rubbish on our beaches. Here’s how we proved it

Volunteers have been collecting and sorting washed-up rubbish on the beach for years. Thanks to their efforts, we have data on whether container deposit schemes help the issue.

ShutterstockOur beaches are in trouble. Limited recycling programs and a society that throws away so much have resulted in more than 3 million tonnes of plastic polluting the oceans. An estimated 1.5–1.9% of this rubbish ends up on beaches. So can waste-management strategies such as container deposit schemes make a difference to this 50,000–60,000 tonnes of beach rubbish? The Queensland government started a container deposit scheme in 2019. We wanted to know if it reduced the rubbish that washed up on beaches in a tourist hotspot, the Whitsundays region. To find out, our study, the first of its kind, used data from a community volunteer group through the Australian Marine Debris Initiative Database. It turned out that for the types of rubbish included in the scheme – plastic bottles and aluminium cans – the answer was an emphatic yes. Read more: Spotting plastic waste from space and counting the fish in the seas: here's how AI can help protect the oceans Container deposit schemes work After the scheme began, there were fewer plastic bottles and aluminium cans on Whitsundays beaches. Volunteer clean-up workers collected an average of about 120 containers per beach visit before the scheme began in 2019. This number fell to 77 in 2020. Not only that, but those numbers stayed down year after year. This means people continued to take part in the scheme for years. Rubbish that wasn’t part of the scheme still found its way to the beaches. However, more types of rubbish such as larger glass bottles are being added to the four-year-old Queensland scheme. Other states and territories have had schemes like this for many years, the oldest in South Australia since 1971. But we didn’t have access to beach data from before and after those schemes started. So our findings are great news, especially as some of these other schemes are set to expand too. The evidence also supports the creation of new schemes in Victoria this November and Tasmania next year. These developments give reason to hope we will see further reductions in beach litter. Read more: Spin the bottle: the fraught politics of container deposit schemes The data came from the community To find out whether the scheme has reduced specific sorts of rubbish on beaches we needed a large amount of data from before and after it began. The unsung heroes of this study are the diligent volunteers who provided us with these data. They have been recording the types and amounts of rubbish found during their cleanups at Whitsundays beaches for years. Eco Barge Clean Seas Inc has been doing this work since 2009. In taking that extra step of counting and sorting the rubbish, they may not have known it at the time, but they were creating a data gold mine. We would eventually use their data to prove the container deposit scheme works. The rubbish clean-ups are continuing. This means we’ll be able to see how adding more rubbish types to the scheme will further reduce rubbish on beaches. The long-term perspective we can gain from such data is testament to this sustained community effort. Read more: Local efforts have cut plastic waste on Australia's beaches by almost 30% in 6 years There’s still more work to do So if we recycle our plastics, why do we still get beaches covered in rubbish? The reality is that most plastics aren’t recycled. This is mainly due to two problems: technological limitations on the sorting needed to avoid contamination of waste streams inadequate incentives for people to reduce contamination by properly sorting their waste, and ultimately to use products made from recycled waste. Our findings show we can create more sustainable practices and a cleaner environment when individuals are given incentives to recycle. However, container deposit schemes don’t just provide a financial reward. Getting people directly involved in recycling fosters a sense of responsibility for the environment. This connection between people’s actions and outcomes is a key to such schemes’ success. Read more: The new 100% recyclable packaging target is no use if our waste isn't actually recycled Our study also shows how invaluable community-driven clean-up projects are. Not only do they reduce environmental harm and improve our experiences on beaches, but they can also provide scientists like us with the data we need to show how waste-management policies affect the environment. Waste management is a concern for communities, policymakers and environmentalists around the world. The lessons from our study apply not only in Australia but anywhere that communities can work with scientists and governments to solve environmental problems. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

How California lawmakers greenlit ‘any flavor of affordable housing you could possibly want’

A patchwork of bills are giving housing developers and local governments more options to reduce red tape for housing projects.

In summary A patchwork of bills are giving housing developers and local governments more options to reduce red tape for housing projects. You may not have seen the headlines (there weren’t any). You may have missed the raucous debate (there wasn’t much of one). But with the end of the legislative session last week, California is now on the verge of laying down a welcome mat for most major affordable housing projects across the state. That’s not because of a single bill, but a patchwork of current and former legislation that, taken together, “basically covers any flavor of affordable housing you could possibly want to build,” said Linda Mandolini, president of Eden Housing, an affordable housing development nonprofit. Homes designated for low-income occupants, like all housing projects, face a gauntlet of potential challenges and hold-ups that add to the already exorbitant cost of affordable housing in California. Those hurdles include lawsuits filed under the wide-ranging California Environmental Quality Act, extensive public hearings and other forms of opposition from local government. Now, affordable housing projects — in most places and most of the time — may soon be exempt from all that, fitted out in a suit of procedural armor made up of some half a dozen bills and laws. A bill now sitting on the governor’s desk would cover up one of the last chinks in that armor. Assembly Bill 1449, authored by two Democratic Assemblymembers, David Alvarez of San Diego and Buffy Wicks of Oakland, would exempt certain affordable apartment developments from review under CEQA. To qualify, projects would have to be located in dense urban areas, set aside each unit for someone earning less than 80% the area median income and abide by stricter labor standards, among other requirements.  Though modest and technical-sounding, that’s unusually broad for new construction in California.  “I do think it’s gonna be very consequential but it’s kind of flown under the radar,” Alvarez said. His explanation why: “The politics of where Californians are and certainly where the Legislature is — we want to see results. We want to see housing being produced.” Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story D David Alvarez State Assembly, District 80 (Chula Vista) Expand for more about this legislator D David Alvarez State Assembly, District 80 (Chula Vista) Time in office 2022—present Background Small Business Owner Contact Email Legislator How he voted 2021-2022 Liberal Conservative District 80 Demographics Voter Registration Dem 47% GOP 20% No party 26% Campaign Contributions Asm. David Alvarez has taken at least $192,000 from the Finance, Insurance & Real Estate sector since he was elected to the legislature. That represents 9% of his total campaign contributions. Taken together with a handful of other bills and current laws, said Mark Stivers, a lobbyist with the California Housing Partnership, which co-sponsored AB 1449, the new legislation “effectively make it possible for affordable housing providers to develop nearly all viable sites in California by-right and exempt from CEQA review.” Speeding up approval for these projects comes with a trade-off. Environmental justice organizations, labor unions and various opponents of new development see CEQA as a vital tool to weigh in and on what gets built, where and and under what terms.  “Our communities rely heavily on CEQA to be able to get more information about proposed developments that might be contributing to further pollution,” said Grecia Orozco, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.  Local activists also often flood the public meetings of city councils and planning boards to pressure elected officials to block unpopular projects or extract concessions from developers.  Whether AB 1449 and a handful of similar bills become law is now up to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Supporters have reason to be optimistic. The Newsom administration is pushing local governments to approve an unprecedented 2.5 million additional homes by 2030, he called the CEQA process “broken” and in the spring he rolled out a package of bills aimed at speeding up environmental challenges to projects — though housing was not included.  He has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto the bills now sitting on his desk. A patchwork of carve-outs  The Alvarez-Wicks bill isn’t the first legislative effort to grease the skids for new affordable housing.  Two others, both authored by San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, would force local governments to automatically approve apartment buildings in housing-strapped parts of the state and most affordable housing projects on the properties of houses of worship and nonprofit colleges, so long as they comply with a list zoning, affordability and labor requirements.  A third piece of legislation by San Jose Democratic Sen. Dave Cortese exempts the decision by local governments to fund affordable housing projects from environmental challenges, too. Newsom already signed it. “We want to see housing being produced.”Assemblymember David alvarez, democrat, chula vista Still awaiting the governor’s pen are a handful of bills that make it more difficult to stall housing projects though environmental lawsuits in general. That includes a bill by Sen. Nancy Skinner, a Berkeley Democrat, that would make it easier for courts to toss out environmental challenges they deem “frivolous” or “solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Another by Assemblymember Phil Ting, a San Francisco Democrat, would give local officials a deadline by which to approve or deny a project’s environmental review. The Ting proposal was fiercely opposed by many environmental activists and the State Building and Construction Trades Council, an umbrella group that represents many unionized construction workers. The bill would also make it more difficult for courts to award legal fees to groups that sue to block projects through CEQA. J.P. Rose, a staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which regularly brings such suits, called that provision “the largest weakening of CEQA in recent history.” The fact that this long list of bills passed the Legislature — some by healthy margins — amounts to a notable political shift, said Christopher Elmendorf, a law professor at UC Davis who advised Ting on the bill. “I think it illustrates that a sea change is underfoot in how people are starting to think about these environmental review laws,” he said, though he noted that the shift in California is still modest compared to those underway in other states.  Earlier this year, the Washington legislature nearly unanimously passed a law to exempt virtually all new urban housing from that state’s environmental protection law. The grand bargain continued Many of the California bills build on a law passed last year that streamlines affordable housing construction along commercial corridors.  In cobbling together the law, its author, Wicks, struck a compromise: In exempting certain housing projects from environmental challenge and other local hurdles, developers would pay workers a higher minimum wage, provide them with health care benefits and abide by other stricter labor standards. That trade was the key to winning the support of the state carpenters’ union and breaking up a legislative logjam that had stymied housing production bills for years.  It also provided a template for Wiener’s two streamlining bills this year, along with the Alvarez-Wicks CEQA exemption proposal.  “That really laid the foundation for those of us who did work in the housing space this year,” said Alvarez. “Our communities rely heavily on CEQA to be able to get more information about proposed developments that might be contributing to further pollution.”Grecia Orozco, staff attorney, the nonprofit Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment Not every pro-housing advocate or CEQA critic is so content with the bargain. “A lot of these bills help a little,” said Jennifer Hernandez, a land use attorney at the law firm Holland & Knight, who has catalogued CEQA challenges to housing projects for years. But she notes that swapping out the threat of environmental litigation with higher payroll expenses just replaces one cost with another.  In practice, she said, these exemptions are only likely to clear the way for substantial new housing construction in higher cost areas where developers can make up the difference by charging higher rents to non-subsidized residents. “You really need premium rentals to pay for those higher labor standards,” she said. But for many affordable housing developers, it’s still a trade worth making. “You’ve got really strong laws, clear exemptions, and an attorney general who’s willing to step up and say you got to build it,” said Mandolini with Eden Housing, who has been working on housing in the state for more than two decades. “This is the best it has been in California…If this had all existed 20 years ago, we might have built a lot more housing a lot faster.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.