In an ideal YIMBY world, the government would just give a clear checklist of what can be built (based on safety and environmental requirements) and as long as your project follows that, no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
What we have instead is arbitrary impact studies that anyone can throw to a developer and snooze the project indefinitely.
> as long as your project follows [the planning and building codes], no one should be able to delay or oppose your building.
That is how the regulations are designed in Christchurch, New Zealand: automatic consent if you stick within the codes. You require consent if you need to do something outside of the default rules, and NIMBYs can affect that consent process, so the default rules really really matter.
Housing prices were fairly insane levels[1] but are now reducing[2] (although interest rates are also affecting that).
[1] March 22: Auckland is eighth least affordable city for housing in new rankings https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1280272...
[2] Sept 22: NZ tumbles down international house price growth ranks https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/real-estate/1298444...
[3] New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2022/01/24/new-zea...
I suppose the middle ground would be automatic green light for developers who can tick off every box on the overgeneral checklist + impact studies for people who want exceptions.
The endpoints suggested by the comment I responded to were "impact study" (with risks of indefinite timeline) and "greenlight checklist."
I responded with this suggestion: greenlight checklist, with the option for impact study to justify exceptions to that checklist. Would-be builders get a choice between the two.
The reasoning is that any greenlight checklist that's sufficient to do the job of custom impact studies will probably need to impose requirements that may not be practically necessary for every project. So, let people choose to check all the boxes (even some that might not be strictly necessary in order to avoid negative impacts) OR have a custom impact study done in order to receive specific exceptions.
How is that not middle ground in between either set of endpoints?
Such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist. One of the (many) purposes of environmental impact studies is to stop (for example) a new golf course from destroying a bunch of wetlands habitat for endangered species. If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it. These projects need to be studied in detail, on a case by case basis, to determine what impact they’ll have on the environment. There are whole fields of engineering that deal with this subject.
Individual parcels of land that are especially exceptional within such areas can be marked as such (think historical landmark designations, though that process is a whole separate can of worms).
Yet currently San Francisco has some of the kafka-esque building requirements for the most common types of buildings AND 4 private golf courses on what would most certainly be classified as protected wetlands today. So clearly today's CEQA isn't even working by your own scenario.
In addition, in the crazy red state I now live, people are slowly filling anything that could be considered wetlands on their property to proactively protect their property rights. So this consideration is now RESPONSIBLE for active wetland destruction and a hostile attitude by many towards wetlands on their property.
Golf courses generally underpay property tax and services, so you could try and tax them out of existence, the ones which aren't municipal at least. Progressive water bills is an option for the dryer parts of the country.
This would be a quick education in the role which golf actually plays in society, I expect.
> If the species can only be found in one small area then there’s no rubber-stamp process that will protect it.
So don't zone that area for housing. Problem solved.