Proposition 45State law · Citizen initiative
Faster reviews for essential projects
Explain it like I'm 5
Certain housing, water, transportation, energy, and public-safety projects would get deadlines for government reviews and public comments. It is like setting a timer for checking a big building plan, while still allowing people to speak up.
Yes vote
Qualifying projects could use specified deadlines and procedures for agency review, public comment, and court challenges.
No vote
Current review timelines and court procedures would continue.
The question to ask yourself
Are faster approvals worth the possibility of less time for environmental review and public participation?
The case for
- Deadlines could speed construction of housing and needed infrastructure.
- More predictable reviews could reduce delay and project costs.
- Supporters say public comment and environmental review would continue within a schedule.
Backed by: California Children’s Hospital Association, California Water Association, California Council for Affordable Housing, California Building Industry Association
The case against
- Short deadlines could reduce time to study environmental and neighborhood effects.
- Limits on court challenges could make harmful projects harder to contest.
- Broad eligibility could allow projects with significant impacts to receive expedited treatment.
Opposed by: Coalition for Clean Air, California Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club California
- Money
- Initial government costs are estimated in the high tens of millions of dollars and could exceed $100 million annually, partly covered by fees. [Official analysis](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/45/analysis.htm)
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to say the measure ends environmental review because it changes the timing and court procedures for qualifying projects rather than eliminating review altogether.