When Environmental Goals Collide

In San Diego, a legacy (grandfathered) industrial use fought against a downtown residential project because of fear that the new residents would use air quality regulations to limit the operations of their plant. No one contended that there was a real air quality issue. Rather, the plant owner was concerned that the future residents would use the regulations to harass them. This worry was enough to generate the plant owner's opposition. Ironically, this was the stereotypical case of NIMBY residents taken one level deeper. A NIMBY business motivated by fear of future NIMBY residents. The project was "saved" by substituting a hotel for the residential project. However, the goals of a better environment and better air quality through density and transit friendly development were defeated. Richard Opper, a San Diego environmental attorney specializing in brownfield development, writes about how environmental regulations are often used to defeat their own overriding objectives:

One policy of our Californian laws is designed to encourage infill – perhaps best exemplified by Government Code, section 65041.1 (…”to protect environmental…resources…and promote…efficient development….”) but that policy sometimes runs headlong into another set of our laws – those that regulate air quality.  We want people to build near mass transit stations, we even have a name for it – Transit Oriented Development – but in doing so we create potential for conflict between the new residents and the transit (or other urban activity) they came to be near.  Our laws on air regulation include a broad and powerful section – not unlike the California Civil Code – regulating “nuisance.”  Our Health & Safety Code, section 41700, relates a wide swath of circumstances that can lead to action by our regional air resources boards.  “Annoyance” by a number of people gets it going.

For more details, and Richard Opper's acerbic wit, please see source article.