Chris Elmendorf
@cselmendorf.bsky.social
The law prof at UC Davis. Dad. Denizen of San Francisco. Patron of Amtrak. Tweets are my own, not statements of UC. (he/him)
Driving to Davis to teach a Saturday morning class is not my idea of a good time, but it was so fun welcoming prospective
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social students today w/ the story of California's builder's remedy.
Especially b/c I got to feature my former students Jordan Wright & Marissa Fuentes!
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social students today w/ the story of California's builder's remedy.
Especially b/c I got to feature my former students Jordan Wright & Marissa Fuentes!
November 1, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Driving to Davis to teach a Saturday morning class is not my idea of a good time, but it was so fun welcoming prospective
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social students today w/ the story of California's builder's remedy.
Especially b/c I got to feature my former students Jordan Wright & Marissa Fuentes!
@ucdavislaw.bsky.social students today w/ the story of California's builder's remedy.
Especially b/c I got to feature my former students Jordan Wright & Marissa Fuentes!
October 30, 2025 at 7:55 PM
Relaying a message from the mayor.
October 23, 2025 at 4:00 AM
Relaying a message from the mayor.
I thought the lookback rule was only for sites w/ > 2 units of housing. Did I miss something?
October 13, 2025 at 11:47 PM
I thought the lookback rule was only for sites w/ > 2 units of housing. Did I miss something?
Exciting job opportunity, courtesy of @ssrc.org & @arnoldventures.bsky.social: Come build the "Abundance Academic Network" (name is still TBD) as the inaugural Program Director!
job-boards.greenhouse.io/socialscienc...
1/2
job-boards.greenhouse.io/socialscienc...
1/2
October 8, 2025 at 8:31 PM
Exciting job opportunity, courtesy of @ssrc.org & @arnoldventures.bsky.social: Come build the "Abundance Academic Network" (name is still TBD) as the inaugural Program Director!
job-boards.greenhouse.io/socialscienc...
1/2
job-boards.greenhouse.io/socialscienc...
1/2
See screenshots. FWIW, another paper using data from German cities finds similar price effects across all market segments, eprints.lse.ac.uk/118645/1/Pap....
@vincent-rollet.bsky.social
@vincent-rollet.bsky.social
July 25, 2025 at 3:12 PM
See screenshots. FWIW, another paper using data from German cities finds similar price effects across all market segments, eprints.lse.ac.uk/118645/1/Pap....
@vincent-rollet.bsky.social
@vincent-rollet.bsky.social
Sorry for the phrasing. The progressive demand in CA has been to exempt such tracts from any statewide upzoning or ministerial permitting law.
July 22, 2025 at 10:22 PM
Sorry for the phrasing. The progressive demand in CA has been to exempt such tracts from any statewide upzoning or ministerial permitting law.
Should there be any limit on how low cities can set rents? How about capping rents at $100/year? Or requiring real rents to fall by 10% annually? What would be your limiting principle?
(If there's no limits, cities that don't want apartments well set rents at $0.)
(If there's no limits, cities that don't want apartments well set rents at $0.)
July 22, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Should there be any limit on how low cities can set rents? How about capping rents at $100/year? Or requiring real rents to fall by 10% annually? What would be your limiting principle?
(If there's no limits, cities that don't want apartments well set rents at $0.)
(If there's no limits, cities that don't want apartments well set rents at $0.)
Not concerned about immediate rent regulation deterring developers from building?
July 22, 2025 at 10:17 PM
Not concerned about immediate rent regulation deterring developers from building?
Agreed! But the main "progressive" defense of applying environmental review laws to infill housing is that it gives more leverage to labor unions (and anyone else) to extract concessions from developers.
July 22, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Agreed! But the main "progressive" defense of applying environmental review laws to infill housing is that it gives more leverage to labor unions (and anyone else) to extract concessions from developers.
2A is the actual policy of most CA upzoning laws
2B is a plausible alternative, building on idea of a rent registry and addressing concerns about asymmetric info b/t landlords & tenants (it also polls well)
2B is a plausible alternative, building on idea of a rent registry and addressing concerns about asymmetric info b/t landlords & tenants (it also polls well)
July 22, 2025 at 10:11 PM
2A is the actual policy of most CA upzoning laws
2B is a plausible alternative, building on idea of a rent registry and addressing concerns about asymmetric info b/t landlords & tenants (it also polls well)
2B is a plausible alternative, building on idea of a rent registry and addressing concerns about asymmetric info b/t landlords & tenants (it also polls well)
Curious @michaelwara.bsky.social what you think about the SB 131 exemption for wildlife-risk treatments.
Too limited to geographically small projects to be of much use? Or genuinely helpful?
Too limited to geographically small projects to be of much use? Or genuinely helpful?
July 2, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Curious @michaelwara.bsky.social what you think about the SB 131 exemption for wildlife-risk treatments.
Too limited to geographically small projects to be of much use? Or genuinely helpful?
Too limited to geographically small projects to be of much use? Or genuinely helpful?
This from Dave Rand is also very good.
June 25, 2025 at 7:55 PM
This from Dave Rand is also very good.
Aside: I chortled when Dave recalled a "letter" with "one of the craziest paragraphs I've ever read" questioning whether building dense market-rate housing near transit would reduce GHG emissions.
That paragraph was actually in the official bill analysis of Sen. Wiener's...
That paragraph was actually in the official bill analysis of Sen. Wiener's...
June 25, 2025 at 7:41 PM
Aside: I chortled when Dave recalled a "letter" with "one of the craziest paragraphs I've ever read" questioning whether building dense market-rate housing near transit would reduce GHG emissions.
That paragraph was actually in the official bill analysis of Sen. Wiener's...
That paragraph was actually in the official bill analysis of Sen. Wiener's...
What timing!
@volts.wtf interviews @scottwiener.bsky.social & @buffywicks.bsky.social on CEQA reform.
This is a must-listen for anyone who considers themselves an enviro or a progressive. Dave is as green & progressive as they come and he asks all the right questions.
(link in next post)
@volts.wtf interviews @scottwiener.bsky.social & @buffywicks.bsky.social on CEQA reform.
This is a must-listen for anyone who considers themselves an enviro or a progressive. Dave is as green & progressive as they come and he asks all the right questions.
(link in next post)
June 25, 2025 at 7:41 PM
What timing!
@volts.wtf interviews @scottwiener.bsky.social & @buffywicks.bsky.social on CEQA reform.
This is a must-listen for anyone who considers themselves an enviro or a progressive. Dave is as green & progressive as they come and he asks all the right questions.
(link in next post)
@volts.wtf interviews @scottwiener.bsky.social & @buffywicks.bsky.social on CEQA reform.
This is a must-listen for anyone who considers themselves an enviro or a progressive. Dave is as green & progressive as they come and he asks all the right questions.
(link in next post)
I imagine there will be further tweaks to the wording of the EIR and neg dec standards.
And even if they're left as-is, I would be pretty surprised if a court read the terms "will" (in PRC 21064) and "more likely than not" (in PRC 21064.1) as referring to probabilities of impact.
/end
And even if they're left as-is, I would be pretty surprised if a court read the terms "will" (in PRC 21064) and "more likely than not" (in PRC 21064.1) as referring to probabilities of impact.
/end
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
I imagine there will be further tweaks to the wording of the EIR and neg dec standards.
And even if they're left as-is, I would be pretty surprised if a court read the terms "will" (in PRC 21064) and "more likely than not" (in PRC 21064.1) as referring to probabilities of impact.
/end
And even if they're left as-is, I would be pretty surprised if a court read the terms "will" (in PRC 21064) and "more likely than not" (in PRC 21064.1) as referring to probabilities of impact.
/end
A literalist could likewise construe SB 607 as authorizing a negative declaration only if a reasonable person could be *certain* that the project won't have any environmental impact, no matter how small, i.e, P(impact) = 0.
That's clearly not the author's intent either.
/11
That's clearly not the author's intent either.
/11
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
A literalist could likewise construe SB 607 as authorizing a negative declaration only if a reasonable person could be *certain* that the project won't have any environmental impact, no matter how small, i.e, P(impact) = 0.
That's clearly not the author's intent either.
/11
That's clearly not the author's intent either.
/11
I think that's the intent of SB 607, but, as drafted, it could be construed to require an EIR only if the lead agency determines that P(impact) > 0.5, even if EV(impact) is very high.
(because it says, “may have a significant effect on the environment” means ... more likely than not ...")
/9
(because it says, “may have a significant effect on the environment” means ... more likely than not ...")
/9
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
I think that's the intent of SB 607, but, as drafted, it could be construed to require an EIR only if the lead agency determines that P(impact) > 0.5, even if EV(impact) is very high.
(because it says, “may have a significant effect on the environment” means ... more likely than not ...")
/9
(because it says, “may have a significant effect on the environment” means ... more likely than not ...")
/9
A challenge for NEPA and SB 607 is that environmental effects are almost always probabilistic.
Their "significance" should be cashed out in expected-value terms: EV(impact) = P(impact) * V(impact), w/ P() representing probability and V(), value.
/7
Their "significance" should be cashed out in expected-value terms: EV(impact) = P(impact) * V(impact), w/ P() representing probability and V(), value.
/7
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
A challenge for NEPA and SB 607 is that environmental effects are almost always probabilistic.
Their "significance" should be cashed out in expected-value terms: EV(impact) = P(impact) * V(impact), w/ P() representing probability and V(), value.
/7
Their "significance" should be cashed out in expected-value terms: EV(impact) = P(impact) * V(impact), w/ P() representing probability and V(), value.
/7
This in a nutshell is what Wiener is trying to bring to CEQA.
Under his bill, a neg dec would just require a finding based on substantial evidence that the proposed project "will not have a significant effect on the env't and does not require preparation of an EIR."
/6
Under his bill, a neg dec would just require a finding based on substantial evidence that the proposed project "will not have a significant effect on the env't and does not require preparation of an EIR."
/6
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
This in a nutshell is what Wiener is trying to bring to CEQA.
Under his bill, a neg dec would just require a finding based on substantial evidence that the proposed project "will not have a significant effect on the env't and does not require preparation of an EIR."
/6
Under his bill, a neg dec would just require a finding based on substantial evidence that the proposed project "will not have a significant effect on the env't and does not require preparation of an EIR."
/6
This is very different from NEPA, under which courts must uphold an agency's negative declaration if there is "substantial evidence" in the record supporting the agency's determination that project won't "significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment."
/3
/3
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
This is very different from NEPA, under which courts must uphold an agency's negative declaration if there is "substantial evidence" in the record supporting the agency's determination that project won't "significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment."
/3
/3
Ethan faults SB 607 (as proposed by @scottwiener.bsky.social) for it's "new, untested ... preponderance of the evidence" standard for when an EIR is required.
I was initially dismissive of his concern, but on reflection I think there's something to it. Fortunately, there's an easy fix.
🧵/17
I was initially dismissive of his concern, but on reflection I think there's something to it. Fortunately, there's an easy fix.
🧵/17
June 5, 2025 at 5:12 PM
Ethan faults SB 607 (as proposed by @scottwiener.bsky.social) for it's "new, untested ... preponderance of the evidence" standard for when an EIR is required.
I was initially dismissive of his concern, but on reflection I think there's something to it. Fortunately, there's an easy fix.
🧵/17
I was initially dismissive of his concern, but on reflection I think there's something to it. Fortunately, there's an easy fix.
🧵/17
He also endorses CA state senator @scottwiener.bsky.social's idea (embodied in now-pending SB 607) that once you've done CEQA review for a general plan update, you shouldn't have to do it again for individual projects.
2/3
2/3
May 29, 2025 at 9:46 PM
He also endorses CA state senator @scottwiener.bsky.social's idea (embodied in now-pending SB 607) that once you've done CEQA review for a general plan update, you shouldn't have to do it again for individual projects.
2/3
2/3
Happy to hear former Deputy Secretary of Treasury Wally Adeyemo "completely agree" with my proposal to condition federal LIHTC funding on big cities' opting into a strong, pro-market-rate-housing regulatory regime.
And he would go further!
1/3
And he would go further!
1/3
May 29, 2025 at 9:46 PM
Happy to hear former Deputy Secretary of Treasury Wally Adeyemo "completely agree" with my proposal to condition federal LIHTC funding on big cities' opting into a strong, pro-market-rate-housing regulatory regime.
And he would go further!
1/3
And he would go further!
1/3
Next-level NIMBYism: "Sure, an elastic housing supply helps to keep Austin and Houston affordable, but if we made housing supply more elastic *in my city*, rents would shoot through the roof!"
1/2
1/2
May 18, 2025 at 2:20 AM
Next-level NIMBYism: "Sure, an elastic housing supply helps to keep Austin and Houston affordable, but if we made housing supply more elastic *in my city*, rents would shoot through the roof!"
1/2
1/2