Proposition 45 is on the statewide ballot, proposing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up housing construction and other essential projects. While supporters say the measure will clear the way for more homes, pro-housing advocates across California are divided, primarily over concerns about where new development would occur.
The central point of disagreement among these groups is whether to prioritize building within existing urban areas, known as infill development, or to enable more low-density housing at the edge of metro areas, which is often termed sprawl. Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat and a consistent advocate for housing development, supports Proposition 45. She has stated she is an “all of the above” person when it comes to housing, indicating support for diverse housing types. The majority of the building industry, including both for-profit and non-profit developers, also backs the measure.
Conversely, some organizations that typically align with Assemblymember Wicks, such as Bay Area housing advocates Eastbay for Everyone and the Greenbelt Alliance, are strongly opposed to Proposition 45. Max Dubler of California YIMBY, whose organization has adopted a neutral stance, raised concerns about the measure potentially making it easier to construct “car-dependent sprawl housing and the freeways and water infrastructure necessary to serve that sprawl.” While acknowledging that some exurban growth is necessary to address the housing shortage, he emphasized the importance of considering the nature of such development.
Many key pro-housing organizations, including Abundant Housing Los Angeles, SPUR, and the primary advocacy groups California YIMBY and YIMBY Action, have taken neutral positions on the proposition. Ali Sapirman, an advocacy manager at the Housing Action Coalition, which supports the measure, observed that "The housing community has been a little bit fractured" by the campaign. This division is not over the need for more housing but rather the fundamental question of its location.
For nearly a decade, the Legislature has passed numerous bills designed to streamline the regulatory approval process for new construction. Most of these laws have focused specifically on projects in areas where existing homes and infrastructure are already present, emphasizing infill development. This approach successfully brought together a coalition of developers, construction labor unions, and a variety of Democratic-leaning advocates. These included climate activists seeking reduced commuter traffic, transit and pedestrian advocates desiring more public transportation users and walkers, and urbanists aiming for denser urban environments. Proposition 45, by extending its scope to include projects at the metropolitan fringe, is creating a split within this established coalition.
Jordan Grimes, legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance, which opposes the measure, described Proposition 45 as “a doubling down on essentially 75 years of land-use patterns that we know haven’t worked.” He characterized it as a “return to the sprawl era.”
Proposition 45 would not exempt projects from environmental review. Instead, for projects designated as “essential,” it would narrow the scope of these reviews and mandate their completion within 365 business days. Any resulting lawsuits would also face a deadline, requiring judges to resolve them within 270 business days, and these lawsuits would be made harder to sustain in court. Beyond housing, essential projects encompass roads, hospitals, schools, clean energy initiatives, and water and broadband infrastructure. The Yes on 45 campaign has highlighted support from affordable housing developers and advocates, linking the measure to efforts to improve housing affordability.
Proponents argue that CEQA, which requires public agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of their decisions, allows project opponents to easily cause delays. Linda Mandolini of Eden Housing, an affordable housing developer, noted that under current rules, “The clock is endless and the number of people and entities who can challenge you are also endless.”
However, opponents argue that recent legislative actions have already addressed many of CEQA’s challenges for urban housing projects. They cite Assembly Bill 130, authored by Assemblymember Wicks and enacted last year, which exempted most infill housing from CEQA. Since its implementation in July 2025, this measure has led to the entitlement of 17,913 housing units, according to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, a state agency. Grimes contends that for urban housing, “When you look at what’s left to do on urban housing, there are absolutely still barriers… CEQA just isn’t one of them” anymore. He stated that the No on 45 campaign aims to persuade voters that the issue of CEQA delays for urban housing has largely been resolved.
Many developers and affordable housing advocates, including those operating in urban areas, dispute that CEQA is no longer a significant impediment. They point out that last year’s exemption does not apply to projects exceeding 20 acres, meaning larger urban redevelopment projects still undergo the older, more extensive review process. Additionally, Proposition 45 would introduce time limits for other permits issued later in the development process, which often contribute more to project delays than the initial environmental review. Mandolini stressed that imposing time limits on lawsuits could be crucial for a project’s success, preventing it from being “delayed to death.” She cited Eden Housing’s planned 130-unit affordable housing project in the Bay Area suburb of Livermore, which has been stalled since 2018 due to a lawsuit.
Environmental justice groups and their allies also oppose Proposition 45. They reject the premise that CEQA requires fixing, even though the measure aims to shorten and restrict the review process rather than granting outright exemptions. These groups have long countered the argument that CEQA is a primary cause of the state’s housing challenges.
The debate surrounding Proposition 45 has escalated a regional disagreement over development patterns into a statewide discussion, echoing earlier divisions concerning large-scale projects like a proposed new city on Solano County farmland.
