Showing posts with label Coastal Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coastal Commission. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Who should pay fines if coastal commissioners are found guilty of breaking rules? Them or taxpayers?


Who should pay fines if coastal commissioners are found guilty of breaking rules? Them or taxpayers?



The California Coastal Commission listens to comments during a hearing to decide on the Newport Banning Ranch development at Newport City Hall on Sept. 7, 2016. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Steve Lopez



Just when you thought it might not be possible, the California Coastal Commission story has gotten a little more interesting.

As reported by my colleague Dan Weikel, five commissioners have been sued by a San Diego nonprofit called Spotlight on Coastal Corruption.



And people accuse us of never covering good news.

Slapped with a lawsuit were Commissioners Steve Kinsey, the chairman, Wendy Mitchell, Erik Howell, Martha McClure and Mark Vargas.


A forgotten mortgage stimulus program that was passed by Obama to help the middle class Americans reduce their monthly payments by as much as $4,264 each year.See More


They have been accused of collectively violating disclosure laws not a few times, nor a few dozen times.

But 590 times over the last two years.

F-I-V-E H-U-N-D-R-E-D N-I-N-E-T-Y.

Lawsuit seeks millions in fines from 5 coastal commissioners, alleging 590 transparency violations

According to the claim, the commissioners repeatedly failed to file complete, comprehensive, timely reports on their private conversations — known as ex parte communications — with developers and others before voting on projects.

And here’s where it gets really interesting.

The suit was not filed against the California Coastal Commission, which is made up of 12 politically appointed commissioners and more than 100 staff members. It was filed against individual commissioners. If the court rules that there were violations, each could be fined a small fortune, ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to more than $1 million.

This raises more than a few questions, among them:

Who should pay for commissioners’ legal defense, and if fines are levied against them, who should pick up the tab — the commissioners or the taxpayer-funded Coastal Commission?

Kathryn Burton is one of the San Diego coast watchers who formed Spotlight on Coastal Corruption earlier this year, and she didn’t hesitate for an instant when I put those questions to her Tuesday afternoon.

“Oh, absolutely, the commissioners,” she said. “The public shouldn’t be picking up their legal bills or their fines when they weren’t following the law.”

Burton, a retired city attorney, said there could be no greater deterrent to rule-breaking in the future than to have commissioners on notice that misdeeds will cost them. And if the sued commissioners are found liable, it’s the commission itself — understaffed and underfunded for years — that would receive the fines as dictated by the Coastal Act.

“It’s a win-win,” Burton said.


Let me be clear that no wrongdoing has been proved, and even if it is, civil fines are not mandatory. Weikel reported that commissioners either refused to comment on the lawsuit or could not be reached. A Coastal Commission spokesperson said the matter is being reviewed by the state attorney general’s office.

Burton told me that she has kept an eye on coastal protection issues for years, but stepped up her scrutiny in February. That’s when commissioners whacked Executive Director Charles Lester, a man whose many supporters saw him as a defender of coastal protection rather than a pushover for developers.

Then came the L.A. Times investigations suggesting that some commissioners did not appear to be following the rules on ex parte communications.

Many of their reports on those meetings were only a couple of sentences long, despite the required comprehensive accounts. In one case, Vargas filed the briefest of reports on a meeting with U2 guitarist David Evans in Dublin before voting in favor of Evans’ massive five-mansion compound in Malibu.

When I began asking Vargas for more details about his meeting, he didn’t just refuse to answer. He refused to acknowledge that I was standing two feet away from him, asking questions.

In some cases, rather than write their own reports, commissioners turned in accounts provided by lobbyists. And in other cases, they missed filing deadlines by up to eight months.

“It was pretty eye-opening. They were just not following the law,” said Burton, whose nonprofit hired San Diego lawyer Cory Briggs. He used Times data and additional research to come up with the tallies.
I think they somehow just think they’re bigger than life.— Kathryn Burton, San Diego coast watcher


The lawsuit alleges that Vargas violated reporting requirements 150 times, followed by Kinsey (140), Mitchell (120), Howell (96) and McClure (82).

And those numbers are all based on known meetings. It’s not known whether commissioners failed to report additional meetings, but if this case goes to trial, those kinds of questions are sure to be asked.

“There’s a certain arrogance to it,” Burton said of the commissioners. “I think they somehow just think they’re bigger than life.”

Some commissioners did follow the law, Burton noted. Others, in her opinion, tried to “circumvent the law.”

So Burton and some like-minded San Diegans, including Gerald Sodomka and Susan Turney, formed their nonprofit. The purpose, she said, is to do whatever is possible to bring more transparency to the commission and protect the coast for future generations.

“Corruption might be a strong word,” Burton said, “but if the shoe fits, wear it.”

This lawsuit follows four others that were filed to challenge projects that got approved despite disclosure violations. If the San Diego group prevails on its lawsuit, there’s no telling how many others might follow.


Meanwhile, a minor stir was created this week involving the search for a new executive director. Activists complained that a draft copy of the job posting — subject to change — did not adequately address the need for the new executive director to maintain staff independence from commissioners, so as to base decisions on science and law, not political pressure.

Coast watchers also took issue with a line about how the new boss should have the ability to “instill a culture of customer service within the organization.”

“This is highly objectionable,” former Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan wrote to the staff, arguing that the commission does not have “customers,” and the agency’s job is not to facilitate developers.

The mission, she said, is to make sure any development is consistent with the law, to represent the public’s interest and to protect the coast.


I couldn’t have said it any better.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

The New Coastal Plan for Marin County-Take away property rights from Farmers.




Imagine a farmer getting a permit for each time he changes crops.  In addition, the coastal plan severely limits the uses and buildings that a farmer can place on his property.   This some of the outrageous intervention in private property rights that everyone will face in the Coastal Plan. This is not freedom.  Ultimately this will undermind the business of agricultural in Marin County.  

It will be great for the "trust fund progressives" that do not depend on the land for their income.   They will get to live in  the most exclusive gated community in all of Marin.  

Who are the real NIMBYS?

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

California Coastal Commission seals the Fate of Land Use in West Marin on May 17, 2014


Coastal Commission Meeting with new Land Use Plan for West Marin.  Here is  the nearly 6 hours of the Coastal Commission meeting held on May 15, 2014 at the Inverness Yacht Club.  I did not attend nor did I watch the full video, yet.  Marin County, Community Development Agency, led by Brian Crawford, presented a plan for Land Use Planning changes to be consistent with the objectives of Plan Bay Area.
Brian Crawford, Marin County Community Development Agency
presented housing plans for West Marin.

The Marin IJ only reported on the fracking protest that I don't think was even covered inside the meeting.  The real crux of the issue, was Marin County radically altering property rights in the Ag. areas.

I listened briefly yesterday when one of the commissioners from Southern California was debating if homes could be occupied by non agricultural workers. Another commissioner wanted homes allowed to be built only if occupants were blood relatives.  Another request that "gentrified" agriculture like wine be disallowed and that "agritainment" like farm tours are banned.
 
Are you listening to the public, Steve Kinsey?
Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, is Chairman of the
California Coastal Commission and President of MTC
which along with ABAG is responsible
for Plan Bay Area that will radically urbanize Marin
and seize development rights everywhere.
Why should a politician from San Diego, have voting rights to decide the use of farmland in West Marin?  Shouldn't WE be deciding this?

The CCC is an agency whose mission now seems to encompass a mission far greater than coastal access and is embarking on social engineering .   They are an example of an administrative JPA who threatens the very concept of local democracy.

This Coastal Commission Plan is bullshit


Monday, January 12, 2015

The Heavy Hand of the California Coastal Commission.




If you think this is bad, just wait until the new Redevelopment Agencies come in to redevelop Marin!


We will Save Marin Again!


Highlights from the Video:


*a structure considered by the CCC appears to be as something as insignificant as a fence post.*a road repair seems to have been interpreted by the CCC as the construction of a road.
*the use of land appears to be generally micromanaged by CCC.
*the executive director of CCC appears to have no restraint in his influence over board members or how these CCC laws are administered.
*CCC is increasingly functioning as a one branch autonomous government agency conducting activity in legislative, executive and judicial areas using an appointed board.
*ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) apparently somehow was drawn AROUND a board members house and that house was not included.
*A racketeering case associated with a development in LA (the frying pan) was won by the land owners only to have them be thrown into the CCC fire.
*Without due process CCC levies daily fines and then will settle for a lesser amount or some land acquisition. These fines add up very quickly and in most (all?) cases are upheld by a judge crushing land owners spirit and ability to fight this abuse.
*For better or worse, these daily fees imposed by government agency are in part the reason the Clive Bundy stand off occurred. In Bundy's case: federal grazing fees and fines. As I understand it everyone else who owned land in this area gave up.
*A court document related to the inspection of private land stated video taping by the land owner was prohibited. Violation of the Bagley-Keene act and individual constitutional rights.
*The State AG is able to counter judicial action by land owners due to the vast resources of the State.
*Improving a structure becomes a life altering process.
*Judges in these cases are likely appointed by people closely associated with the Coastal Commission and beholden to them.
*Wildfire hazards appear to have increased as a result of CCC policy and activity. The State Fire Commission seems to view the CCC as having amended the state fire code contrary to their lack of authority to do so putting people, land and wildlife at unnecessary risk.
*there seem to be many extraneous, special purpose commissions, committees, boards and authorities that now compete with each other on a number of issues. Government competing with government has to be the biggest waste of time, energy and resources imaginable.
*Presumption of correctness in the court system makes government infallible (you may be thinking of the pope right now...).

I think it might be good to start with this last item. To deem our public servants infallible is a recipe for disaster and denies we the people any chance of equal justice under the law, not to mention our lack of ability to hold these agencies and public servants accountable. The other problem with CCC is that while the rule of law is supposed to provide certainty for we the people in our  affairs, the planning approach and its arbitrary and discretionary nature do not allow for this certainty. The law needs to be written, administered and complied with the same way for all, if we are to reach the founding fathers ideal of equal justice.



An arbitrary and capricious government moves people to find alternative ways to do what they want outside of the law. A corrupt government moves people to create black markets, smuggle and openly flout the law to accomplish their goals contributing to the breakdown of the rule of law.



An oppressive government creates a passive-aggressive behavior dynamic with people saying one thing while doing another. This lack of harmony of thought, feeling and action is a problem for people any society. If we are to remain a free people, we need to be able to trust each other and trust our government is acting in our best interest, representing us under law.



By making bad/unconstitutional law, the government creates criminals out of everyone and contributes to a growing reactive movement starting the slow march towards social unrest, a breakdown of society and its social order.  As you know, history is full of revolutions against tyranny. Government needs to extend the lightest possible hand over society, passing only those laws that are necessary to keep the peace and administer equal justice under those same laws.