There's a strange story unfolding in Berkeley, Calif.. That may present as a tautology, but bear with me. This one provides a window into a problem that endangers us all.
An organization called Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods, led by a former investment banker, sued the University of California, Berkeley, for adding too many students, too quickly, without careful enough consideration of how bad students are for the environment.
If the number of students at UC Berkeley seems of questionable environmental relevance, well, I'd say you're right. If this sounds to you like a bunch of homeowners who don't want more college kids partying nearby, I'd probably agree. But before the California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped in early this week with a remedy, the courts had sided with Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods and had frozen the university's enrollment at last year's levels, forcing the prospect of rescinding admission to thousands of students and ordering it to conduct a deeper assessment of the harm that students could inflict (more trash, more noise, more homelessness and more traffic were all mentioned in the court case, if you're curious about the specifics).
This kind of NIMBYISM is noxious. The way to ease homelessness in Berkeley is to build more homes for everyone, not keep out a bunch of kids looking to better their lives. And if there's too much trash, maybe nearby homeowners, who've seen their property values rise to astonishing levels in large part because of UC Berkeley's gleam, should pay higher property taxes for more frequent pickup. But on its own, it's hard to get too exercised about this suit. The world has bigger problems than the size of Cal's incoming class.
Zoom out from the specifics, though, and look at what it reveals about how government, even in the bluest of blue communities, actually works. Why was it so easy for a few local homeowners to block UC Berkeley's plans, over the opposition of not just the powerful UC system but also the mayor of Berkeley and the governor of California? The answer, in this case, was the California Environmental Quality Act — a bill proposed by environmentalists and signed into law in 1970 by Gov. Ronald Reagan that demands rigorous environmental impact reviews for public projects, and that has become an all-purpose weapon for anyone who wants to stymie a new public project or one that requires public approval.
There are laws like this in many states, and there's a federal version, too — the National Environmental Policy Act. They're part of a broader set of checks on development that have done a lot of good over the years but are doing a lot of harm now. When they were first designed, these bills were radical reforms to an intolerable status quo. Now they are, too often, powerful allies of an intolerable status quo, rendering government plodding and ineffectual and making it almost impossible to build green infrastructure at the speed we need.
A bit of history is useful here. The environmentalism movement as we know it today was built around the risks posed by humans acting too fast, without sufficient consideration of consequences. Government was, in this era, part of the problem. A big part. This is a story that Paul Sabin, a historian at Yale, tells in "Public Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism." In it, Sabin questions the received wisdom that it was a revolt on the right that got Americans to see government as an incompetent foe rather than a powerful friend. The most potent attacks, as he sees it, came from inside the Democrats' house.
These attacks were mounted for good reason. America's major cities were choked with smog. Developers paid little heed to the presence of precious ecosystems or rare habitats. An explosion of industrial innovation led to an explosion of industrial runoff, and novel chemicals and byproducts were dumped into waterways, poisoning people and wildlife alike. America was growing, and the government was trying to sustain and support that growth. The environment was an afterthought, if that.