CalWatchdog predicted CEQA arena exemption

April 26, 2013

By Katy Grimes

This is one of those “I told ya so” moments.


On March 30 I contacted Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and asked if he planned on authoring legislation to streamline or bypass the required environmental process for the proposed Sacramento arena.

Steinberg’s office denied any plan to do this. But the reason I wrote the story and asked about this was I knew this was the next step in scamming the public with the publicly subsidized arena. The need to bypass California’s absurdly strict environmental guidelines and restrictions prevent most large scale projects from ever taking place without legislative intervention. And Sacramento officials have shoved this latest arena deal through at breakneck speed for a reason.

But this week, after previously denying this, Steinberg announced this is exactly what he is doing.

Oh my. Did Steinberg’s office not tell me the truth?

Similar to bills AB 900 and SB 292, which were passed last year for CEQA exemptions on Los Angeles-area sports stadiums, Steinberg has authored SB 731 would  to “accelerate the pace at which a Downtown Sacramento sports and entertainment complex would proceed through the environmental planning process.”

AB 900 was a general bill and expires on Jan. 1, 2015.  But SB 292 specifically was targeted at the $1.2 billion stadium for downtown Los Angeles being sponsored by the Anschutz Entertainment Group.

“It will be up to the government to decide if the project falls under the AB 900 criteria,” said Rhys Williams, Steinberg’s spokesman, when I called in March asking if Steinberg planned on similar legislation.

But in a later phone call, Williams said, “No plan was in place to fast track the stadium through CEQA, unless the project meets AB 900 criteria.” Williams also noted that Steinberg authored AB 900.

Deferring to the government to decide if the project falls under the AB 900 criteria would be laughable if Williams wasn’t serious.

Steinberg, D-Sacramento announced Thursday his legislation to make changes to California’s Environmental Quality Act, including provisions to greatly help  Sacramento’s proposed downtown arena.

SB 731 would “accelerate the pace at which a Downtown Sacramento sports and entertainment complex would proceed through the environmental planning process,” a statement from Steinberg’s office said.

But as cover from the obfuscation, the Sacramento Bee,  a cheerleader for the publicly subsidized arena project, reported:

Steinberg, a supporter of Sacramento’s proposed downtown arena project, issued a press statement indicating he has been working on statewide environmental reform for some time, but that his bill is applicable specifically to the Sacramento arena.

“I introduced these concepts in this bill before the question of the Sacramento Kings’ future returned to news headlines,” said Steinberg. “Nonetheless, the story of economic development, planning laws and the Sacramento Kings are inseparable because a Downtown Sacramento Arena meets the very definition of an ‘urban infill’ project, which California has historically been very serious about promoting. It is my intent to continue that tradition with these far-reaching reforms to California’s environmental planning laws.”

Don’t let Steinberg’s claim of pursuing CEQA reform prior to the arena deal fool you. Sacramento has spent 13 years trying to build a publicly funded sports arena. And Steinberg has been involved every step of the way.
“Many say given how Sacramento officials have already rammed through the term sheet approval in record time, they will also try to ram the development process through, without giving residents and businesses the standard allotted time to question the process and project,” I wrote March 30.  “And given the California Legislature’s recent history working around CEQA regulations for politically favored projects, could city officials already be working to ensure this project also is exempted from the state’s strict environmental guidelines?”

Arena opponents are concerned that Sacramento is opening itself up to risk it cannot afford. Eye on Sacramento, a public policy watchdog group, compared Sacramento to Stockton, which filed for bankruptcy protection after spending tens of millions of dollars on an arena and other publicly financed facilities.

Others are concerned about the increasing number of government projects which will continue to be exempted from California’s unusually strict environmental regulations — regulations which have killed many private sector projects.


Write a comment
  1. Chase everett
    Chase everett 26 April, 2013, 23:00

    You are a terrible person, you realize that if this arena plan and everything doesn’t go to sacramentos side, you will be hated by sooooo many people… You have your own opinion but your so close minded to the fact that this is more than basketball, downtown sacramento is dead with nothing there, with this arena there there will be so much money being made its ridiculous, in 2019 were supposed the all star weekend here in sac and that will bring in a TON of money… So try to look at the other side…

    Reply this comment
  2. Hondo
    Hondo 27 April, 2013, 16:41

    This sport arena deal is a dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t .
    If you support it you are piling on idiotic amounts of dept that Sac town has no way of paying back. By pouring money into a sports arena, schools and health care and fixing potholes in the streets are likely to be at risk. There is only so much tax money to go around. $250 million on a sports arena that is unlikely to make money, is that much taken away from needed govt services.
    On the other hand, Sac town has already spent taxes they would get from the players and owners, many years down the road. If they don’t get the team, they are in a gigantic tax hole with no way to pay for services.
    The bottom line is that the city is in a horrible financial state. Their finances have been run into a ditch long ago and they have idiotic amounts of unfunded debt liabilities. They have no business getting into a bidding war for a sports arena that won’t pay for itself.

    Reply this comment
  3. Jack sample
    Jack sample 10 October, 2014, 18:27


    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

State game wardens oppose lead ammo ban

There are more than a dozen gun-control bills sitting on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk, awaiting his signature or veto. Brown

CMA both for and against expanding non-physicians’ role

The California Medical Association is both for and against allowing non-physicians to expand the kind of medical procedures they are

Resolution on TV loudness!

Steven Greenhut: The Senate is now voting on Assembly Joint Resolution 43, which urges Congress and the president to pass