The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was originally intended to safeguard the environment and ensure responsible development. Over the years, this powerful legislation has been misused and weaponized by unions, some local politicians, and even businesses to achieve goals that may have little to do with environmental concerns.

An example of CEQA misuse can be found in San Jose- Moe’s Stop gas station’s attempts to add three pumps became a legal quagmire lasting over three years, all thanks to a competing gas station across the street, Andy’s BP. Even after Mom’s Stop sent plans to the city for approval and subsequently earned such approval and building permits, Andy’s BP filed a lawsuit under CEQA, not because of genuine environmental concerns but seemingly as a tactic to deter their competitor’s development.

 San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed described this situation as “blatantly an anti-competitive action.” The intended purpose of CEQA—to protect the environment—was twisted in a way that ultimately hindered development, all in the name of competitive advantage.

Similarly, former Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza and his family filed a lawsuit against the city over a playground zip-line, citing CEQA violations due to noise complaints. Krovoza claimed an Environmental Impact Report was not filed when the town of Davis first, thus violating CEQA provisions. While addressing noise concerns is reasonable, we should consider the broader context.

CEQA abuse is not a new problem in California. The court system has criticized its misuse as a tool for “oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development.” While environmental safeguards are vital, CEQA’s abuse raises questions about how it can be exploited for purposes that deviate from its original intent.