Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile

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.

If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times

This op-ed by Matthew Mitchell and Michael Farren in the Sunday Los Angeles Times shows that maybe history does repeat itself.  If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times:  It sounds like the resistance that ride-sharing services Uber, Lyft and Sidecar apps are getting is very similar to the resistance that the Jitney services received 100 years ago that killed off those services. --They were regulated out of existence!

Like the Jitney services, these ride-sharing services are popular with the users.  However the competition for those businesses used the government and regulation to kill off the competition so they could continue to have a monopoly.

The main opposition to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar is obviously coming from the cab companies who have a very tight relationship with most of the governing bodies.  They make huge donations to politicians who support them and spend heavy on lobbying.  They also arrange to pay extra taxes to the City, so eventually the cities depend upon that revenue.  Regulation of cab companies is also somewhat corrupt.  For example it appears that cabs get higher rates for pick-ups at airports, even though airport pickups are probably the easiest for them to do, since they have lots of drop-offs and pickups at the same spot.  The enlightened regulators also go out of their way to restrict competition at the airport to allow the cab companies to gouge even more.  It seems to me that regulators would try to force the companies to discount rates at airports so cab companies would work harder to provide service to less popular areas --but political graft and city profit generally cloud their judgment.



I sympathize with cab drivers situation.  Their job is difficult, lonely and frustrating.  However, because of monopoly pricing, their companies have not adopted the latest technology.  Because of that,  in general cabs and drivers are not employed in an optimally efficient manner.  Some cabbies can wait in cab lines for hours for a fare. A terrible waste of labor and equipment!   It appears that in just a few years, we may have "driverless cabs" so the issue may be moot.  Cab driver jobs may be phased out and allow that large section of the labor force to be redeployed to jobs that are more productive for society.  Of course that may require more education, training and opportunities.

Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com

I think the SCOTUS decisions on Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases are very bad precedent. This article in the Guardian makes a good argument against it.

Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com:

I'm afraid that this new "loophole" that the court has opened will become a larger "tear" in the fabric of our legal framework. We might have had a different result from the Supreme Court if the so-called religious 'freedom" they were protecting was a Muslim freedom rather than a supposed Christian principle. For example, will this decision now allow a corporation to require their employees to follow Sharia law?
Throughout history every time religion and politics get mixed together there have been problems such as Genocide, torture,or massive ignorance (Middle ages).The founders of the United States understood that, and tried very hard to keep religion separate from government.

Al Lewis (Al's Emporium Column) wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that was also published in the San Diego Union Tribune. 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/al-lewis-questions-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-1404606315 
 Al also believes that this latest ruling is a "slippery slope" and that corporations provide a shield behind which bad businessmen can hide.  Yes corporations can be fined, but, as he says, it is pretty hard to execute a corporation, or put one in jail. 

It is also not clear to me how either the Hobby Lobby or Citizen's United rulings affect international corporations or foreign corporations.  Can a foreign "closely held" corporation opt out of certain medical provisions?  Can an international corporation contribute funds to political campaigns?  

PINs, passwords and a feeling of high-tech disconnect - Los Angeles Times

Steve Lopez wrote a good column on Sunday complaining about the requirements for passwords.

PINs, passwords and a feeling of high-tech disconnect - Los Angeles Times:

I concur with Steve.  It does seem that there are far too many things now that require passwords.  There are some technological solutions when surfing the internet, such as using Roboform, keepass, last pass etc so you only need one password.  However that doesn't seem to solve all of the other password-protected situations, such as pins at banks, computer log-ons, voicemail services etc.  Because hackers can break simple codes, we are instructed to use very long complex passwords with upper/lower case, numbers, and symbols.  We're also told to use a different password for each occasion so that if one gets compromised all of our other accounts will still be protected. All of that makes it extremely difficult to keep track of.  The experts also suggest that we not write down the passwords because if someone finds the note, everything will be compromised.  To add insult to injury, many sites also require the passwords to be changed every 60 to 90 days.  Nobody has ever been able to explain the value of frequent password changes to me.

It seems to me that one of the best techniques is the "token" device (typically made by RSA) that generates a 6-digit code that is added (concatenated) to a fixed PIN when loggin on.  Several companies now use apps that run on smartphones that also generate 6-digit codes.  Google has their "authenticator" app, for example.

I would like to see ONE system become somewhat standard for all log-ons using some sort of a token or smartphone app.   I had hoped that RSA would have made their token technology free to all other applications, so that if someone had a token (such as from their company, or E-Trade), that they could then use that token when signing on to many other websites.  I even bought stock in RSA (which got bought out by another company).  However RSA refused to share tokens issued by one company with other companies -- so many users ended up having to carry multiple tokens on their keychain -- what a mess!  RSA also seemed to get "greedy" and began to gouge users on the price for their tokens.  They tried to emulate Gillette who famously: "Gave away razors and sold the blades." --They wanted to make a lot of money by charging high prices for a couple dollar token that needed to be replaced for new batteries every couple of years.

Because of RSA's marketing tactics, the token industry fragmented and there appears to be no really easy solution.

'

Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare

Michael Hiltzik had an excellent column in Sunday June 29th LA  Times Business section.

Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare - Los Angeles Times:

He points out how ridiculous it is that so many people seem to have a "knee jerk" negative reaction to the mention of Obamacare.  When people are asked for opinions about the various provisions of the act, they have positive responses, but when addressing the whole affordable care act they are negative.  From the statistics so far, it appears that the act has been successful.  We now have many of the people who previously were "freeloaders" now signed up and paying, at least a little bit, towards their own health care insurance.

It appears that Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch publications as well as Conservative talk radio has been able to brainwash people into not looking at the facts in the situation.  That same group still believes in the "death panel" rumors that the right-wingers started years ago --even though there is no truth to them.

The problem with communicating the success of the program to the public is that the statistics are difficult to assemble, complicated to understand and require some serious thought.  It doesn't fit into the "sound bite" way that most Americans seem to absorb their news.

Thank you Michael Hiltzik for pointing out this problem!

$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable - Los Angeles Times

David Willman (Pulitzer Prize winning journalist) wrote an excellent article about the problems with the US Missile Defense System.

$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable - Los Angeles Times:



It was interesting because just the day before, I read an editorial in a few month-old copy of the MOAA magazine that complained that the Government needed to make an even stronger commitment to fully funding the Missile Defense.

I understand that missile defense is a VERY difficult engineering job.  However the efforts to develop a system has been going on for decades with only limited success.   It seems crazy to start production of a system before the R&D effort can demonstrate that they have a system that will work.  However, most of the "long poles" in the typical development are site preparation, and production of the actual launch vehicles.  The complex and risky part of the development is in the hardware and software that sits on top of the missile.  That hardware and software can often be developed quickly once the problems are solved.  So from that sense, maybe the strategy makes sense.

However, my experience in dealing with engineers in that MDA organization is that they have a very strange "culture"  I've worked with Navy, the NRO, and Air Force space programs for almost 40 years, but MDA is very different!  I think their management and risk-management system may have evolved from the Army, which has less experience with space.  -- Even when dealing with fully cleared, need-to-know associates, they tend to play their cards close to their chest, and are not open to discussion or alternatives.  I've often wondered if their management style and "culture" is what has kept them from achieving success.

Private Data Brokers Know Too Much About You - WSJ

Al Lewis, columnist for Wall Street Journal, pointed out in this article that we should not trust owners of these huge databases.

Private Data Brokers Know Too Much About You - WSJ:



The Federal Trade commission just released their report on data brokers.  I agree with the recommendations completely -- they are a good first step.

I think that the law should be expanded to cover more than just data brokers like Axiom.  It should also include every company that maintains a database that holds personally identified data.  That data includes magazine subscriptions, loyalty cards, tolling data, credit card sales, library book borrowing etc.