The California Coastal Commission is trying to prevent Encinitas oceanfront homeowners from protecting their home by building a sea wall. They also want to prevent those owners from being able to access the beach with their staircase. Even if they issue a permit to allow coastal owners to rebuild their seawalls or staircases, they try to limit the "permit" to 20 years. That way, after 20 years, the Commission can try again to extract additional concessions from the owners. There are many individual homeowners along the coastline. There are also many condominium complexes with homeowner associations who are also struggling to protect their properties from rising seas and find they have to fight the Coastal Commission to do so.
This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission) has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile: Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals. A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this. It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.
I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians. I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline. Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for the part-time commissioners to change.
It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access. The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive. Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day. Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.
The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public. It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.
This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission) has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile: Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals. A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this. It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.
I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians. I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline. Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for the part-time commissioners to change.
It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access. The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive. Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day. Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.
The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public. It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment