Banned in California

What the site is arguing

• Claims that many core industrial processes (auto paint shops, refineries, fabs, anodizing, shipbuilding, etc.) are “banned” or “effectively impossible” to start new in California.
• Frames this as de‑industrialization driven by environmental permitting, pushing manufacturing (and its pollution) to other states and countries while Californians still consume the outputs.

Disputes over accuracy and framing

• Multiple commenters note that many cited activities do exist in California: auto body paint shops, CNC machining, anodizing, semiconductor fabs, battery production, new hospitals, etc.
• Criticism that the site conflates “no recent new facilities” or “hard to permit in the Bay Area” with “banned statewide.”
• “Grandfathered in” maps are called misleading: they highlight a few old plants while ignoring many others.
• Lack of citations, regulatory references, or concrete legal text leads some to label it propaganda or astroturf rather than an information resource.

Environmental health vs industry

• Several commenters point to California’s history of Superfund sites, solvent plumes, refineries, and naval yards as justification for strict rules.
• Argument: many of these processes can be done safely, but industry often chooses cheaper, dirtier methods if allowed.
• Others counter that current regulation sometimes makes even safe, well‑controlled facilities impractical, and that this came as an overreaction to past abuses.

NIMBYism and exporting externalities

• Strong debate over moral consistency: is it acceptable to ban dirty industry locally while importing products made in dirtier jurisdictions?
• Some explicitly accept this as “live and let live”; others call it “poison outsourcing” and a core pathology of Western neoliberalism.
• Tension between “if it’s too harmful for us, it’s too harmful for anyone” vs “other communities can choose different trade‑offs, especially if the alternative is poverty.”

Economics, labor, and security

• Concerns that overregulation hollows out manufacturing, destroys stable union jobs, and contributes to political radicalization.
• Others note that high labor and land costs, not just environmental rules, already push industry elsewhere.
• Some advocate tariffs/carbon border adjustments and harmonized standards so cleaner domestic production can compete.

Permitting, litigation, and alternatives

• Broad agreement that California’s permitting is slow, adversarial, and litigation‑heavy; disagreement over whether that’s necessary protection or self‑inflicted economic damage.
• Suggestions include shifting more to ex‑post enforcement (inspections, lawsuits) rather than multi‑year upfront fights, though that risks more corner‑cutting.

Meta‑reactions

• Many see the site as ideologically anti‑regulation and rhetorically loose with “banned,” which undermines its case.
• Others say even if overstated, it highlights a real structural problem: it’s far easier to build polluting (and even non‑polluting) facilities almost anywhere but California.