Comments Every day I drive. Down Hwy1, I say Thank You CC! ! ! !. George, funny how last year you were the first to fun to the Coastal Commission when something happened, you didn't like, in your back yard. The CC.told you were wrong. The Review did a story on how you bellowed hot and cold with the CC.
Thankfully the Coastal Commission is being called to the carpet here. Corruption is very ugly from this close. I wonder if Commissioners Kruer and Caldwell even know where El Granada is. Here is the list of pending litigation from the April 2009 agenda (add this one to the list): CLOSED SESSION. At a convenient time during the meeting, the Commission (CCC) will have a closed session to discuss items of pending litigation, including: Coastal Law Enforcement Action Network et al. v. CCC (Malibu Valley Farms, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Friends of Temescal Pool et al. v. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy et al. Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Hines v. CCC et al. (Star, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). More Citizens for Safe Water et al. v. CCC et al. (Montara Water & Sanitary Dist., RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Security National Guaranty, Inc. v. State of California, CCC et al. Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Sheppard et al. v. Big Sur Land Trust, CCC Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Sierra Club v. CCC et al. (State Lands Commission et al., RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Strother et al. v. CCC (Alvarez et al., RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). TMO CA/NV, LLC v. CCC Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A). Revell v. CCC (Access for All, RPI) Govt. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A).
wada hypoCCrite is either demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge, or got his moniker by looking in a mirror (or both). I appealed to the Commission in November 2007, regarding the exclusive access to and from the new 32 unit development (Carnoustie) going in directly to my west. The entire project construction is to use RBR for ingress and egress. RBR is a non-conforming secondary beach access road, 14 & 1/2 feet wide; clearly too narrow for the volume of 10 and 1/2 foot wide trucks that will be accessing the project. I was fully within my rights to do so. The Commission denied my appeal, calling it "a temporary inconvenience". I'm over it. What would that have to do with the law suit described above? Yeah, nothing. Nice typical cheap and transparent attempt to attack the author of awareness in a weak attempt to hijack the thread and impugn one's character. Too bad you don't have a clue. What's worse is you clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge and pathetic bend. No wonder you prefer to be anonymous. If I posted something that completely off base and stupid, I wouldn't want anyone to know my name, either. Do you have anything productive to offer that's on topic? Have a nice day in your troubled little world.
This is another example of too few people monopolizing influence, all for the benefit of the minority. Y'all need to get more involved in your own community and stop letting the few run your beautiful community into the ground.
Its unfortunate but this abuse property owners are continually subjected to will continue until cities and organizations get hit with more staggering Beachwood type judgments. Small cities will take notice of what happened here and perhaps tone down their approach to their citizens. The CCC is a much bigger organization with very deep pockets so they will need to get hit hard several more times till things change. With money for appeals,I think you are looking at many more years of the abuse mentioned above with this family and others.
We've seen you grace our pages before, Light Bulb, from afar; Web Link I guess the community you live in is shining brightly from the light you provide. Better check your filament, lb. Looks to me like you're burned out.
"wada" sez: "Every day I drive. Down Hwy1, I say Thank You CC!" For exactly what? If you want ALL the land to be open space then put your money where your mouth is and buy it.
If one considers western San Mateo County (west of Skyline) and counts all the open space, today we are at over 109,769 acres out of 140,540 or over 78% (not even counting the small pieces of open space like Quarry Park, Mirada surf, moss beach park and many others.) If one were to go back 30 years that open space percentage was 24%. What is the target number for open space? How will we taxpayers make up for all the lost tax revenue since non-profits and the government pay not taxes on open space? In tough times these are serious questions. Look around rural SMC. When can we say, OK, this is enough open space.
The target number for open space depends on how much money is donated or tax breaks organizations like POST can dangle in front of property owners. With the recession now and donations down, they will probably be cutting back on their acquistions.
Elizabeth Tyler says it all. "If you want ALL the land to be open space then put your money where your mouth is and buy it." We could add one thing to that comment; "or go home". How hard is it to comprehend? If you want something, buy it or shut up.
That argument doesn't seem to work here. Its much easier and cheaper to throw endless inexpensive time-consuming appealing road blocks in front of projects thereby delaying them for years or even decades. Look at the torture that family on Terrace Ave went through and now the other one mentioned in the Review this week that wants to build an 1800 sqft single story home. Like I said, a few more big Beachwood lawsuits will start having a sobering impact on these organizations. Look what HMB had to just do to make themselves look better financially to borrow money. It seems people have to learn the hard way with our money.
Steve, again you make good points, but there's a rub. The people that initiated the Beachwood theft have not, yet, been held accountable. It will come, but in the meantime, it's the other 12,500 people that get stuck with the bill for theft. Several individuals commit the crime and walk away while the rest of us have to carry the water for their ill deeds. Until the individuals that cause the harm are personally punished for their crimes there is zero incentive to stop.
I don't know how you hold elected officials responsible for bad decisions other than not re-electing them. They can't be sued. And if they could, who would take these thankless low paying jobs? You would only get people who are broke or so rich they don't care and it would be most likely the former. What will eventually stop this endless stalling tactics and legal nightmare for property owners is several more Beachwood judgments. The bigger the city, the more they will need to realize that this is a loosing and expensive strategy. Too bad for us we didn't because this was avoidable to many of us 10 years ago.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Steve Hyman and George Muteff and Terry Gossett have written clearly concerning the general points of this important matter. But only the generality. I ask of these gentlemen two things.
You do realize (do you?) that Pacific Legal Foundation is working a setup for free here and charging the plaintiff, probably, ZERO $$ for expensive legal services. Pacific Legal Foundation may even have induced the plaintiff couple to sue. If so, that would be dealt with by the court and it would be found out.
So, that is one concern of mine... a kind of question to you inviting your comment, please. My second concern is that none of you three has revealed WHERE? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? In other words, please politely tell us the location of this farmland which is the present zoning.
And being clear with us, be clear, fellows.... tell us what it is you, or the plaintiff couple, want to build there. Would you include applicable website address. etc., but without that brief information being your total answer to me?
OK, gentlemen? Thanks. Describe a type of project you'd like to match with the land. Something all of us know is far more than one house to replace a mobile home.
Coastal Commission seems to be doing a wonderful job from where I sit.
"Pacific Legal Foundation may even have induced the plaintiff couple to sue." Why say that Larry if you have no basis for saying so? February 5th CC mtg "Coastal Commission seems to be doing a wonderful job from where I sit. " wonderful job of extortion and coercion, perhaps.
The Sterlings own a 150+ acre parcel back in El Granada. As far as what this family wants to build on their property with their money is their business. Considering the large size of this parcel, they could build any size structure they want since there won't be any lot coverage or setback issues. Its really an outrage to restrict people's rights without any compensation. I've complained about this zoning abuse for years. I don't know the Sterlings but I wish them and their lawyer all the best in the pursuit of their dreams. The CCC interferes too much in too many areas that they shouldn't be involved in. That's especially true when the properties are a few miles in from the ocean. Maybe 4-5 Beachwood losses may have them rethink these delaying tactics.
Hi Larry. Always good to hear from you. I hope all is well. Regarding your post, you may be missing the point entirely. Taking your writing one paragraph at a time, maybe I can add some clarity. First of all, the point of the suit, and the point I try to recognize are one in the same. You'll find it in the very first paragraph of the PLF News Release: "The California Coastal Commission is violating the U.S. Constitution by demanding that a family surrender most of its property to state control, for farming or other agricultural purposes, as the price of getting a permit to build a family house." Whether PLF has taken the case for free, or has asked for the Sterling's first born is irrelevant. The point is the Commission action(s) leading to the suit, not the legal representation. As far as I'm concerned, it could be Breemer or Perry Mason; no matter. Further, neither you nor I know what the compensation arrangement is between the two parties. Any discussion in that regard would simply be speculation, and you know me better than that. The property is in El Granada. I thought I made that clear. It’s a wedge located between Corral de Tierra and the El Granada hills. You make a mistake, whether carelessly or not, of calling it farmland. According to the release, "The Coastal Commission is making this demand even though the property has never been used for farming, and only a few acres are now used for cattle grazing." Looking at the picture in the release, I'll step out on a limb and say it doesn't look like beachfront property to me. How about you? I have not looked up the zoning, but I will now. As to your closing points, no, I do not think I'll play. Perhaps one of the others you mention might. I won't play because it's a ridiculous exercise, Larry. What my dreams or fantasies regarding that piece of ground are or might be is also irrelevant and speculation. I don't own that ground, so why waste my time hypothesizing. Again Larry, you miss the point I attempt to make entirely. Either my writing skills have dropped substantially (which is possible. I'm not getting any younger), or you need to take a closer look at what I've provided. Rather than ask me, or anyone else to play the games you ask, I'd ask you; how could you, or anyone else, defend a "Taking" that is so blatant and wrong? This is not a new practice of the Commission. I personally know locals here that had the very same actions performed on them by the Commission going back 20 years plus. It's wrong.
Larry, 1--Have you read Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5? It states--"1021.5. Upon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest..." Larry, Do you not realize that the PLF has a Very good chance of winning this lawsuit and will be remunerated by the court?, and this case IS about principles and the law being violated? Do you think that George or I or Steve are reaping any benefits from expressing our principles? Larry, I have only met you twice and respect you, but how could you assert--"Pacific Legal Foundation may even have induced the plaintiff couple to sue. " You are a better man than that to simply make up wild accusations, Larry. 2--I do not know precisely where the land is located but believe it to be in the vicinity of Corral de Tierra and the EG highlands. 3- I believe that we all have certain rights that go with the land that we pay taxes on, and to do nothing when those rights are taken away arbitrarily and capriciously by anyone is wrong, not only for ourselves but for all other people in the community that will also ultimately suffer the same fate. A zoning of RM or R-1 or COSC or PAD means just that, so when an agency like the Coastal Commission arbitrarily changes those zoning provisions, and does something so egregious as they are trying to do with the Sterlings, I am a supporter of the Sterlings, even having never met them. 4-Regarding what is being sought by the Sterlings-- let me quote the lawsuit-- "WHEREFORE, Petitioners and Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Respondent and Defendant California Coastal Commission as follows: 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Commission to issue a permit without the subject agricultural easement condition. 2. That the Court declare the agricultural easement to be unconstitutional without provision of just compensation and that the Commission may not impose the easement condition without providing such compensation. 3. Attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 4. For such other relief that the Court deems just and proper. AND Finally, Larry, I think Steve and George and I have answered your questions. Here is one question I have for you. What specifically bothers you about the Sterling case or the comments by Steve and George and me? Here is what bothers me-- Sara Wan and Steve Blank have no problem with their own building in the coastal zone and they have NO ESHA issues, or AG issues, or ANY other issues with their own projects, BUT the rest of us are plagued with ISSUES & Conditions or Their making. Why is that Larry? Are there two standards, one for us, and one for Commissioners? Something smells, big time. IMHO.
Oh yes, something does smell here folks. Actually, I would say it stinks to high heaven. But really it's the stench of the property-rights extremists who think they can do anything they want on "their land," regardless of the zoning. Suppose you have a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood. How about putting up a gas station or (god forbid) a chicken joint there? "Why not" says Mr. Terry Gossett, after all, "its our land." Suppose you have a vacant lot in an agricultural district. How about putting up a monster house there that has nothing to do with agriculture? "Why not" says Mr. Terry Gossett, after all, "its our land." That, ladies and gentlemen, is what this lawsuit is all about.
Imoan is letting his anger fog his analysis. The issue is not about getting to build a big house. The county approved the house. So did the commission, only with the condition that an ag easement extend over the land. That's what the issue is about.
Believe me, I know what this is about. My analysis is accurate. The land is zoned for agriculture. Agriculture has a rich heritage on the Coastside. That heritage is worthy of preservation. But some rich, exploitive, see-through contractor wishes to trash that heritage for his own superficial, monster-house, see-through gain. That is what this about.
Tell us what you know about farming, Imoan. What do you know about farming in the El Granada hills in particular. SHare with us the costs of farming, will you? While you're at it, would you also tell us how much ground is farmed on the coastside now versus ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, fifty years ago. Would you say farming has expanded or contracted over the last fifty years? Then tell us why. "Imoan is letting his anger fog his analysis. The issue is not about getting to build a big house. The county approved the house. So did the commission, only with the condition that an ag easement extend over the land. That's what the issue is about." I reason, a resident of El Granada, 7 hours ago He's right.
imoan, I have never suggested that any property owner do anything other than comply with the zoning that is applicable to the land. However, I am always saying that for gov agencies to seek or demand more than what is within the zoning codes is not appropriate and should be challenged. Next point, Why do not mrosd and post not have the conditions being applied to the Sterlings applied to them? Even though preservation of ag is in the mrosd mission statement, in April 2004, in a letter from mrosd to lafco, mrosd indicates that only 98 acres is in AG of their 50,000+ acres. IF the standard being applied to Sterlings were to be applied to mrosd then mrosd needs to have 99.8% in AG or 49,900 acres out of their 50,000 acres. imoan, Do you support double standards?
Being from NYC, I'll admit that I'm not knowledgeable about farming operations, equipment and labor requirements. To access this large parcel means driving through narrow El Granada streets. If the owners wanted to run a full fledged farming operation, I'm sure the moaners, bitchers, spankers and pitchers would be screaming the loudest about how these narrow residential streets can't handle all the cars and trucks and chemicals. Like Terry said, farming has become a shrinking industry on the Coast. When I first moved here, San Jose had many farms and now its Silicon Valley. Things change.
That's because farming doesn't pay. Wasn't imoan at the head of the line complaining about Wavecrest when it was farmed? What about when Ioccopi was farming at Big Wave? She was complaining about that too. The closest imoan has ever gotten to farming is Safeway, or maybe New Leaf. Mom and Pop farming has been shrinking for decades. There's a reason for that. This litigation is about the state taking someone's property without compensation, while still expecting the owner to maintain the property, including taxes. The commission's going down on this latest extortion attempt, and they should.
Imoan does not know which end of a rake to hold.
One of the points made in Oshen's documentary, Sins of Commission, was Prop 20, and all the specific language it contained. Part of that language held that the Coastal Zone would extend the entire length of our State, and would be contained to 1,000 yards inland. All of HMB, for example, is within the Coastal Zone now: well more than the 1,000 yards prescribed in Prop 20. One change that could/should be made is to revert back to the 1,000 yard CZ throughout the State. That would all but eliminate the Commission's influence in cases like this one, or the ones featured in Sins of Commission. It would also have changed the outcome of the Beachwood property, as well as many others throughout the State. Another benefit would be the severe reduction in Commission oversight which would increase the Commission's resources for their rightful cause. In other words, if the Coastal Zone were rescinded back to it's original state, and the resources the Commission currently has remains the same, they would then have more resources to focus on reduced oversight. I, for one, would wholeheartedly endorse the Coastal Zone within HMB reduced back to 1,000 yards. I feel the benefits and potential would be huge and multi-faceted for us, and the entire State. The Sterling's property is over one mile from the ocean.
Well, this is certainly an interesting twist on things, isn't it? I guess this is what the CCC refers to as 'taking' things "on a case by case basis", that way they can enforce a double standard, when really, one is pressed to find any standard at all. The new film, Sins of Commission, includes the story of a family who bought acreage BECAUSE it was zoned agricultural. All they wanted to do was put in a garden. The CCC said they cannot do that, and that 'gardening' is not agriculture, and even got Judge Yaffe of LA Superior to agree with them. Agriculture, you see, does not require a permit. The word for this is "exempt", and is considered a very, very dirty word by CCC staff, who have many tricks in their bag to circumvent the laws of this land. Here's a prediction for the Sterlings: accept the ag designation this year, and next year the CCC staff will designate this same property as ESHA, so that they can declare any ag undertakings require a permit. Presto-change-o! No longer exempt!
I can only agree with you on that, George. Pushing the CCC back to their original 1000 yard mandate may even net California one or two more beaches with a passing grade for pollution, not to mention the exponential increase in property tax revenues. Lord knows, the counties could use the money! The hidden resources that the CCC uses should be revealed: all of the legal challenges are handled by the Attorney General's office, for instance, and have been for many years. How much money are we talking about here? Why aren't we talking about this as a 'shadow' budget, come appropriations season, when Saint Peter of the Coast is crying poverty?
I like that idea of 1000 yards limit of authority for the Coastal Commission. I think I will go back and research how it came to be that us in San Mateo County LCPs have the deepest LCP in the State. Any ideas on that one? If you look at the maps of all the LCP throughout California, (Web Link ) and study them--it is amazing to see the variations in distance from the Ocean for the 126 Local Coastal Programs. It seems that HMB and Midcoast residents suffer more than any other place, except parts of LA and Malibu and San Diego where fire danger is hugely scary. Those poor folk got toasted the past few years. Remember the old days before we had the Coastal Commission. Before ESHA. and we used "firebreaks" to stop fires from devouring ESHA, animals, chapparal, deer, bobcats, butterflies, slugs, coastal prairie terrace grasses, red legged frogs, homes, and people. Ahh, those were the days. We were safe and dumb about what was about to befall us, and our children, and their children, and so on, Maybe when we demand to limit the Coastal Commission to 1000 yards we could also demand firebreaks?
I find it interesting that the CCC wants to mandate that the land be used for agriculture. If it's zoned agriculture the owners can certainly use it for agriculture (grazing is agriculture, as is farming). County zoning would certainly preclude building a gas station or "chicken place" (guess the poster who used that term meant a fast food, not a chicken farm?). Let's keep what agriculture we have something that is voluntary, not mandatory. Unless the CCC wants to rent the property and do it themselves... (Oh horrors, can you imagine that? What a movie that would make!)
George & XFarmer, Let this here humble hillbilly of a carpenter tell y'all about farming. Throw the seed and manure on ground, add water, and forgetta bout it! Heh, heh.......... Maybe that's why I'm a little light in the arse.... I will hold back from stepping into this ring until I see the arguments put forth from the enviers of wealth and the NIMBYist's. Then we'll smack 'em around abit with the Constitution. The funny thing here is, despots and tyrants always over reach. That old white guy, Lord Acton, was on to something. Yours in Liberty, JD the Federalist
I've dealt with properties 3 miles in from the ocean and it was in the CCC jurisdiction. None of these properties could even see the ocean. Why should they have a say in what the owner needs to do. This should be a county decision.
Some excellent comments here. Thanks, djn, JD, Terry, Aggie, Brian, Property Matters and the rest. Perhaps we should test the 'interpretation' of Coastal. Yes, just like the City of HMB aborted the true and correct, intended 'interpretation' of our Coastal Commission Certified LCP ‘wetland definition’ in 1999 & 2000, maybe a Statewide meeting of the minds could help us 'interpret' the definition of "Coastal". According to Webster's Dictionary, using the noun coast: 'kost\ the land near a shore: SEASHORE That's not much to go on because now we have to interpret 'near', and that is apparently a fairly subjective word. I wonder; if a piece of ground can not be seen from where the ocean meets land, would that qualify as "coastal"? It currently does to the Commission. Something's gotta change, and soon. As taxpayers, this Commission is costing us way too much in too many ways. It's past time for restructure. I also wonder; how much will this litigation cost us, the taxpayers? How many other cases just like this one has the Commission taken on in the past? How many, just like this are currently on their books? How many more can we take, as the people that foot the bill? Since the Commission is funded with our tax money, and uses our Attorney General (an elected position) for their counsel against us, maybe, like Beachwood, this is a job for the Feds. Apparently our State legislators are too susceptible to Special Interests to have a clear, definable understanding and interpretation of coastal. I also wonder; how many of our State legislators are parents? How many of those that are take their kids to the ‘coast’? Do you think their children would understand, after getting all excited about a day at the coast, when their parents park the car 5 miles inland and pull out the lawn chairs, sunscreen, pails and mini shovels and tell the kids to have fun building their castles in the ‘sand’? We'll need a better dictionary for this one.
Time to put away childish things, George. If you don't like development regulations now, just wait. Start boning up on SB 32, SB 275 and get ready for the state's climate change adaptation plan.
Abolishing the Coastal Commission, in my view, would be a mistake. I like Miami Beach, for example. It’s a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. Nobody that I know wants our CA coastline to resemble that of Miami Beach, or the rest of South Florida. I believe there should be oversight on and for our beautiful CA coastline. That is why I would support a restructure of what we have now. Restructuring the Commission, however, will not be easy and is long, long overdue. The reapportionment of power will produce fierce battles, particularly from those that currently hold that power and their comfortable Klingons. I thought I’d throw out a few specific ideas toward that goal. I would ask for feedback, but I suspect it’ll come. Any ideas are welcome. 1) Elect all positions, beginning with the Director's position. 2) Set term limits for all. Perhaps the Director's should be a little longer than the rest to maintain some continuity. Those limits should be staggered. 3) Since these positions are so critical throughout our state, perhaps compensation worthy of the position is warranted. 4) There should also be some sort of a process to appeal between the CCC decision and the courts, which, of course, would be completely independent of the commission. 5) Move the CZ back where it started, to 1,000 yards inland. That, alone, would reduce a lot of past, current and future conflict freeing up the commissioner's time as well as staff. 6) Once the changes have been made, yet another completely different board (small) should be responsible to report to either the Gov or the Legislature, once a year for accountability purposes; something similar to Bernanke's (Federal Reserve Chair) Congressional appearances would work. PS: Yes 'TIme to grow up', I saw your post under a different anonymous moniker here, Web Link just a few minutes ago. Another anonymous smoke blower, as far as I'm concerned, and not worth this recognition or response, let alone further validity; but thanks anyway.
George, I agree with all of your 6 points, but would like to see an expansion on a couple: #4- Great idea, but can be given real impact if this appeal board is not required to grant the CCC the use of the Substantial Evidence Rule and the automatic Presumption of Correctness. Of course, that would mean imposing standards upon the CCC that would level the playing field, but the trade-off would be that far fewer decisions will be appealed, as these new (REAL!) standards would impose an up-front curtailing of the CCC's staff's legendary abuse of their discretionary powers. #6-Would love to require a full accounting of costs, including those incurred by other state agencies on the CCC's behalf (AG's office, etc), and a comparative analysis of benefits, collateral damage, and so on; much like hearing an economist doing a cost/benefit analysis, while including projected 'multiplier' effects on each dollar spent, as well as a 'divider' effect as to how much the CCC's rulings are projected to cost the locales in lost/attenuated tax revenues. As for Miami Beach and South Florida, yes, I love it there, too, but have always found that comparing these places to California's coast is the ultimate non-sequitur. It was an alarmist play on people's emotions, since California has at least two major obstacles to any development like that ever happening: seismic uncertainty, and very cold water. I'd settle for a good old-fashioned beach fire, anytime, but don't know of anywhere that's legal anymore.
Just a reminder, Property includes Real property, Personal Property, Intellectual property and all the rights to those properties like water, mineral, air and space. For those of you never owning (and paying taxes) on any property, OR never having an Idea or Intellectual property, No Wonder you are pissed off. But, no problem, maybe you will be a beneficiary of the re-distribution program. Good luck with that. How is that working for you so far?
The redistribution problem? That's coming along quite nicely, thank you. We're calling it "Cap and Trade". Once that set of laws is passed, guess who owns the lion's share of the offset credits? Why, anyone with trees, for the most part, and the capacity for planting many, many more trees. A Conservancy, for instance, will reap a considerable windfall from their ability to 'sink' carbon. (The basic premise of the carbon tax is that those who produce carbon (all of us) will have to pay for someone to clean it up. Brilliant, no? Makes you want to get out and buy a wood lot...) The short and simple version is that, if we want to use electricity and cars, we'll have to give money to a pool that distributes it to large land holders; in the case of the Conservancies, that money will surely be redistributed to the deserving among us, at least, in theory. I wish I had seen this coming a few years ago. I'd have clawed my way to the top of the Conservancy heap and held on for dear life, and soon count myself among the wealthiest and most powerful people in this Brave New Economy! Instead, I'll be faced with paying property taxes on a place that I deeded away to a Conservancy, just so I could get a permit. Can they really claim those credits on MY land? Really?
As we watch the Sterling's case unfold, and to better understand why a restructure of the Coastal Commission is critical, and most likely imminent, let's look at some of the components of "Sins of Commission" (SoC), the Richard Oshen documentary mentioned above. Here’s the link to Gossett’s thread: Web Link It’s a good reference point as there is some excellent dialog there and it comes with a little heat. The movie starts out with video of some of the blazing, crippling fires that have hit S CA, along with comments from elected officials, Fire officials, ex-commissioners, and more as to why. The speakers speak to the Commission’s blind arrogance. They speak to the Commission’s complete lack of compromise, even at the risk of loss of life and property. They speak of the Commission’s over reaching authority and their use of all three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, with no checks or balances. Then, SoC starts discussing individual cases while blending in how the Commission started (history), starting with Proposition 20, in 1972, in detail, replete with interviews and documents. Proposition 20, a CA Constitutional Amendment ballot initiative that appeared in 1972, was the starting point of where we are today. Prop 20 would create a temporary commission that would develop a statewide plan to preserve, protect and insure public access to the coast. The commission would expire four years later. From Prop 20: “Act terminates after 1976. This measure appropriates five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the period 1973 to 1976”. Originally, the commission was limited to 1,000 yards inland (Coastal Zone) “…between the seaward limits of state jurisdiction and 1,000 yards landward…” (from Prop 20). Since then, the Commission has expanded their jurisdiction up to five miles. Peter Douglas felt it his job to broaden Prop 20 and make it permanent, and in 1976, with the passage of the Coastal Act, was successful. The Coastal Commission was established and Douglas was placed as Director. He’s held that position ever since (roughly 34 years!).
Continuing the film breakdown, and as posted on Gossett's thread, here's the next installment. One of the featured couples in the film, Peg and Dan, bought a 40 acre raw land parcel, zoned agricultural, in Topanga Canyon. They loved the splendor and wanted to build an organic garden on their newly purchased property, but … One of the reasons they bought it was because it had an existing road (asphalt) on it. It was “a bit slid over” and there were “a few blockages” on it (the road). They were in the process of clearing the road off when they got a letter from the Coastal Commission (11-09-06). It was a Notice of Violation of the Coastal Act. They sought advice. They were told they would need: 1) an oak tree plan 2) an oak tree report 3) a drainage erosion control plan 4) mitigation plan 5) restoration plan 6) biologist report, and more. When Dan asked who pays for this, he was told (as we all are) “you do”. Now remember, he was clearing an existing road (asphalt) – nothing more, nothing less. Little did they know what the cost would include.
Why doesn't the Coastal Commission require something good and worthwhile, like a firebreak plan? But then they would have to admit that everything is ESHA. That makes me wonder how they are able to put in "coastal trails" through all the ESHA, But not "firebreaks". Hey, maybe we could call firebreaks "trails" and then we won't have ESHA limitations. And I also have noticed that many "trails" are paved as "emergency access" and in accord with the ADA (American Disability Act). Whew, what a mess. I do often wonder how many buddies of the CCC are benefitting from all of the required Coastal buddy studies. Now, that would be a great study ! ! I keep hearing in the stimulus discussions that $1Billion puts 18,000 people to work.
Instead of trails, lets call them parks. That way the state itself will pay for them out of some fund or other and we won't have to worry about it. So it would go from firebreaks to coastal trails to parks. Yeah, u might be onto something here.
As expected, not a single one of the property wrongs crowd has the foggiest how coastal watersheds are tied closely to the shoreline and near-shore waters. One problem with California's coastal zone is that it does not extend to the ridgelines of coastal watersheds.
Continuing with comments on "Sins of Commission", the Richard Oshen documentary; Peter Douglas speaks from time to time. At one point, he speaks about ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat), stating that ESHA’s are “absolutely protected under the Coastal Act; a wetland, or a rare and endangered plant or species, so you have to delineate the wetland because our charge is to protect that resource. That’s what the Coastal Act was all about. That’s what the public wants; that’s what the law requires.” At face value, I support that. We all know, however, that there’s a lot more to it than that. Douglas has expanded his interpretation of ESHA to include all chaparrals, oak woodlands, native grasslands and much more. Unless it’s already developed, that covers just about everything, according to one of the speakers. Another speaker (former Mayor of Malibu) identifies a parking lot that is, according to the Commission, an ESHA, because he put trees on it. The Commission declared all chaparral, sage scrub throughout the Santa Monica Mountains as ESHA. The ex Mayor called it ESHA by airbrush. Sound familiar?
So, almost all the Santa Monica Mountains are now in the coastal zone, the area over which the Coastal Commision has authority? Pitiful how the plodding pushers of overdevelopment depend on the gross ignorance of others to gain them as supporters of environmental destruction for the cause of increasing the short-term wealth of a few.
NP, You say "One problem with California's coastal zone is that it does not extend to the ridgelines of coastal watersheds." As I recall in the 70's and 80's the Coastal Commission was pushing for "your" idea, and I believe the term they used at the time was "lands concave to the ocean". That does not sound too bad until one looks at topology and one quickly realizes that would include lands and watersheds going all the way back east to the Sierras. American river, Sacramento river delta, etc etc. But you gotta give those bureaucrats credit, they are always pushing for more power and control. In that case, they pushed one bridge too far. I think a more reasonable approach would be to limit the CCC to 1000 yards Maximum distance from the Pacific ocean. (That is why we call them the "Coastal Commission" and not the Watershed Commission.)
Just like a property wrongs type to imagine a purely artificial limit, such as 1,000 yards, would be appropriate for a primarily natural subject being degraded, such as a coastline. My message said "coastal watershed." Think about it with the modifier included.
No Pitching, the first thing we studied in law school was sodomy law. you might not realize it today, what with the parades and all, but there were serious consequences to being caught in flagrante with someone of the same gender. and what was the rationale? that "it's wrong, the law says it's wrong". ditto, interracial marriage. did you know that CA was the first state to okay that? 1949. so much for the permanence of laws and mores. the main reason for not granting the ccc the power to regulate all the way to the Sierras is to force them to negotiate fairly, and it remains a splendid idea. power corrupts, and the ccc is the cautionary poster child of that notion. it would be fitting and fair to force them back to 1000 yards inland, at least until they remembered the source of their power. BTW, do they teach that cute 'property wrongs' thing at green herring school?
Why use the current arbitrary 5 miles limit used by our Coastal Commission rather than the "original" limit of 1000 yards? Artificial?, you bet, that is our very own CCC ==> artificial==> obtuse==> and passe'.
Poor twaddle dumb, doomed to continuing ignorance by the state's cuts in remedial programs. Where do they get the uninformed property wrongs idiots that think the coastal zone should be defined as a set artificial distance from the ocean? Did they go to the same environmentally unconcerned law schools as the state legislators who wrote the original 30103 in Chapter 2, a section that served so poorly for the stated coverage and goals of the Coastal Act (to say nothing of the Prop. 20 that the legislators were trying to ease off and water down with the Coastal Act) that the zone "generally" 1,000 yards inland started to get amended for geographic and, sadly, political reasons as soon as the ink was dry on the original Act in 1976. 1,000 yards, or any other arbitrary distance, works for none of the coastal geologic, biologic, ecologic, and anthropomorphic phenomena and activities the Act tries to cover. Yes the zone needs to be improved to conform to the physical reality of the geographic features and coastal values it is supposed to protect from the runaway ravages of overdevelopment and other human foibles, but improvement can't come from blindered fools ignorant of the parameters involved and stuck on set numbers apropos of nothing. Using coastal watersheds for the areas to be covered by the Coastal Act would set ecologically defensible limits for much of the California coastline. What comes off those watersheds has a huge influence on the shoreline and near-shore waters, and the ocean, in turn, is critical to the overall material characteristics of the watersheds. For major geographic breaks in the watersheds, the extent of the zone could be set by some measure of the reach of direct marine influence over the land and over rivers flowing into the ocean from inland areas. (If California ever awakens from its water stupor and starts to pay attention to the actual resource for the benefit of its citizens rather than the industry and other special interest voices that now dominate, one thing to consider would be a "Freshwater Act" for the state on the scale of the Coastal Act. Most of the state's population is piled up within a couple of dozen miles of the coast, but there is, nevertheless, a substantial and rapidly growing inland population that is located largely according to water availability for its activities. The same naive disregard for freshwater sustainability prevails as for the sustainability of coastal values.)
"Yes the zone needs to be improved to conform to the physical reality of the geographic features and coastal values it is supposed to protect.." Now all we need is a good interpretation of "improved". A Coastal Zone that is 1,000 yards inland is my interpretation. Douglas, and all the ELF members that have their heads up his posterior would just as soon see the Coastal Zone extended to California's eastern borders and I'm sure will find some cockamamie excuse to pose as a reason. Fanatics; what are you going to do with them?
I always pity the ignorant who are not prepared for the slightest real-world complexity, have no desire to read background material (such as the sections of the Coastal Act that set forth its agenda and definitions), and must resort to entirely inappropriate, off-the-wall, simple-minded notions because that is all they can get their small, fuzzy thoughts around.
People-- If we could each focus on issues rather that any projected or perceived failings of our peers that would be, you know, just peachy. Beware some want to destroy this forum. Thank you Clay for keeping it functional. Subject: Midcoast LCP I love to take care of the issues one at a time, just like our own Supervisors tried to do with their county staff who tried to interact with the CCC staff for two years, to no avail, on 19 issues for the Midcoast LCP. Then, 10 days before a scheduled CCC meeting the CCC staff springs a 341 page "staff" report on the County. What is the county to do. Ask for a continuance. Now CCC staff is recommending a One Year delay. How can a bunch of anon TA folk compete with that process? Fact is stranger than fiction. We are in a world defunct. Pay attention. Attend a few meetings. OK, my question (for the 7th time). Why can no one individual in the Coastal Zone have a Fire Break to protect their home? Why cannot Cal Fire, with a mission to protect our homes and Forests Not have Firebreaks? Mind Boggling. Policies of the Coastal Commission Clearly Trump Forests, their Policies Trump homes in the Coastal Zone. I wonder, how many lives have been lost just in 2008 from flawed ESHA policies of our own California Coastal Commission. Where does it say in the state constitution or in our CA codes that the CCC Trumps Cal Fire? Is CCC responsible for the loss of life and property, with no doubt whatsoever.
Almost as pitiful as the totally uninformed are the property wrongs crowd who introduce a subject, this time the midcoast LCP update, mistate what it is about, then move on to their gripes about not being able to do whatever they please, and damn the consequences for others, on their sanctified private property--as if said gripes have anything to do with the LCP update, the role of the Coastal commission, or the price of eggs. Go to work for Swift if you want a job promoting baloney that pays.
NP, hoot, hoot. salami, pastrami, and alimony. hoot, hoot. My man, (woman?) NP.
Hi CC and wada, Perhaps you need to learn about a few more stories from people harmed by the Coastal Commission. Reform is in order.
I noticed that this Sterling issue is on the closed door agenda for the Coastal Commission on May 7th in San Francisco. I wonder, just what do the Commissioners say about these takings from other people, like the Sterlings, when talking among themselves in a room together. Then they go home. How do they sleep at night?
"I wonder, just what do the Commissioners say about these takings from other people, like the Sterlings, when talking among themselves in a room together." According to Peter Douglas, "take a number". That's where Ferreira got the term. "How do they sleep at night?" That would be a good question, if you were referring to a normal human(s), with a conscience and any compassion whatsoever. In this regard, this appointed clan have neither, and they are ambivalent to the resources exercised because they're our resources, not theirs. We pay their salaries, benefits, and expenses. We also supply them with a hand picked staff, along with all the tools they might need, office space up and down the State (nice ones, too) and don't forget the twelve meeting locations per year. On top of that, we provide them with our State Attorney General for legal counsel. How do they sleep? Just fine, I'm sure. How do they spend? Spare no expense; Sky's the limit!
Gol dang, the Coastal Commission went and "took" George's objectivity and perspective! Wonder if the PLF losers will be able to get it back for him?
Surprise, surprise, little nipper is chasing the field again, bringing her own version of "objectivity and perspective" to the table. Always on topic, well researched and clearly articulated. We're so lucky to have her. I wonder what nipper would do, or have us believe, in her magical world? Perhaps we'd just move CA's government to SF, relieving Sacramento of the burden. Maybe, if the stars lined up just right, she'd have us revamp the CA Constitution, releasing all elected officials of their titles and duties in favor of appointed legislators: oh, wait, we’re already half way there - between the Coastal Commissioners and their hand picked staff and our elected legislators bowing to their whims. Why not just cut to the chase and anoint Douglas CA's Governor? Perhaps we could just cede from the Union, creating the opportunity to make Douglas & co King & Knights of the Round Table. Aw, to heck with that; why not just make Douglas God, pretend that he's immortal, call all the Commissioners and staff Angels and be done with it. How's that stack up in your world, nipper?
Wow, it's like George ordered bitter melon at a Chinese restaurant without knowing what it is and is now going after everyone from the farmer who grew the thing to the waiter who served it. Maybe one of the PLF staff will sue for him on industry's dollar?
Well, and that is a very deep subject, "our" coastal commission is very mucked up, go to Web Link I would request others to post your own coastal horror stories when dealing with "our" Coastal commission. Whatever happened to LOCAL coastal programs? Actually, we really only have a Peter Douglas Program which dictates all that we must do along 1100 miles of CA Coast, why not so name it that? The Peter Douglas Coast Program. For 37 years that is what we have, the Peter Douglas Program. Why continue to delude anyone that lives in California with a name like " Local Coastal Program?" bs. We live under... The Peter Douglas Program. The Peter Douglas Program. Commissioners? Blank, Kram, Neely, Achadjian, Wan, Shallenberger, Miraimi, Clark, Burke, Kruer, Potter, Hueso...What a joke. Why not rename the CCC the Douglas Commission. When have the "commissars" not endorsed the Douglas AGENDA? What a joke.
I wonder if the folks who love driving down the highway know how much the view has cost other people in terms of their well-being, and their finances... or perhaps they just don't care as they gulp their expensive lattes enjoying the view of the waste dump on the hill seeping toxic waste into their vegetables - perhaps even yours. Bon appitite. In the very near future, driving down the coast in a state owned bus will be all you'll be allowed to do in coastal California. Soon you will waving to the home you used to own - just like the other people whom you show no sympathy for. Zero growth is death. Stasis. The end. Zero growth does not only mean no new homes nor business it also means no repair of infrastructure, no new schools, no new life, no new city revenue etc. No one at the other end of your 911 phone call if you need help. Someone mentioned hold[ing] elected officials responsible for bad decisions by not re-electing them. If that were the situation with the CCC, we might not be having this conversation. But they cunningly set themselves up 30+ years ago to be "free from the politics of politics". Sounds good - but they neglected to inform the people they bamboozled, that situation creates a parasitic relationship to the will and desires of their patron - not the people. That is not democracy. This is a key problem with CCC - no accountability. As far as the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area goes, please tell me how a swimming pool that is for young kids and elders to recreate in warranted an oral emergency permit by CCC to be filled in with dirt? The CCC and SMCC despise the people of Pacific Palisades so they capriciously closed a favorite local place so "their" people can picnic after a day hike through other people's property. If that isn't a prime example of absolute power corrupting absolutely, I don't know what is. Something is rotten in the state of California and the stink it is the stink of rotting decay... and it is everywhere. California, once the world's 5th largest economy, is kaput by design...partially caused by a greedy corrupt agency, exclusively protected by the Attorney General in lock-step with the courts. Their corruption, under the guise of environmental protection, has led to billion dollar fires, erosion of property tax base, destruction of families, millions of dollars in unnecessary litigation, destroyed infrastructure, and contributed handsomely to the bankruptcy of the state. To besmirch the PLF, who provide pro bono services and helps people defend against multi-million dollar governmental litigation by saying they [PLF], in effect, put the Sterling's up to it" degrades an organization who helps families save their homes - or are you one of the parasites, who enjoys the dirty, ill-gotten pleasure of other people's property as your own? Think about that too as you take your drive.
Oh golly, don't know how I can go on this evening while crying big crocodile tears over the terrible trials the coastal overgrowth and development psychos must endure and the inability of their erroneous propaganda and character assassinations to sway all those darn people who care about coastal protection and deal in facts.
OK, another runner on base. the bases are loaded. Keep pitching balls. How is that working for you so far? np. whatta gal.
|
