There is an old political adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Apparently, it’s as true today as whenever the author first wrote that phrase.
Exhibit A is the California Coastal Commission and its version of the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan it just put together for Malibu. To call it a plan is really a misnomer. It’s not a plan; it’s a mandate. It’s the mandate of Peter Douglas, the executive director of the commission, his staff and also, I suspect, a majority of the Coastal Commission led by Malibu’s own Sara Wan.
I suspect the pitch they gave the governor, Speaker Robert M. Hertzberg and Sen. John Burton, to get the original legislation passed was that Malibu would never pass an LCP on their own. The Coastal Commission would have to spend the next century refereeing battles between neighbors in Malibu, which the leaders were very sick of hearing about.
So foolishly, perhaps naively, perhaps cynically, they went along and said, OK. The bill that passed gave the Coastal Commission the power to write the Malibu LCP.
One of the things our leaders were told (I heard this from several sources) was that the Coastal Commission would consult with the city, and essentially hammer out a consensus, which the city allegedly was incapable of doing by itself.
Last Friday, the Coastal Commission presented its draft LCP for Malibu to the city. If there is one thing that everyone agrees on (except, I’m sure, the Coastal Commission), it is that the city had zero, nothing, nada, ne rien to say about anything in the LCP. What they got was Peter Douglas’ vision.
How is Douglas’ vision different than Malibu’s vision?
Well, some feel he wants to turn Malibu into Coney Island. The truth is, I like Coney Island, but I think it’s best left in Brooklyn. Those who make the Coney Island charge are probably overstating the case a bit. However, it would be fairer to say what Douglas wants is another Laguna Beach. If this plan becomes law, that’s what he’ll get, plus a bit of an opportunity to get even with Malibu, which has been a pain in his anatomy for some time.
Here’s a brief overview of what Douglas has in mind.
- There will probably be some hotels, motels and low-cost accommodations. If you don’t like the low cost, “no problem,” just kick into the special government-approved slush fund.
- One of those hotels is going to be up at Bluffs Park, so any deal to retain or replace those ball fields up there can be kissed off.
- There will be a lot more public beach access. It The LCP indicates there will be one about every 1,000 feet, (every 20 houses or so). To go along with the increased access, the commission wants street parking just about everywhere, and particularly up on Point Dume.
- For new buildings, including renovations of more than 10 percent of original square footage, a toll–maybe an exchange of land, or granting beach access, or maybe just money–will be charged, because without it, permits will simply not be issued.
In other words, the commission has put back in everything it ever had to give up in a court fight or as a compromise.
I’m sorry to say that the governor, the speaker and the president pro tem, in seeking to rid themselves of a recurring sticky problem, instead, succeeded in starting a battle.
About 90 percent of matters the Malibu City Council deals with concerns land use. This Coastal Commission-mandated LCP pretty much takes all the control away from our elected representatives and turns it over to Douglas, the consummate bureaucrat. The council is frothing, and pretty much justifiably so. It is ready to do battle, and lawyers are gleefully cranking up their meters. But there are some genuine legal questions.
Can the Legislature just write a special law for one town, namely Malibu, and exempt the rest of the state?
Can it take the power over land use planning away from an elected body and turn it over to an unelected body, namely the Coastal Commissio?
There is a case before the Court of Appeals right now about whether the Coastal Commission is an illegal delegation of executive power to a legislative/administrative body.
I think Malibu is going to want to file an amicus brief, and I’m guessing it is not going to be alone. This move by the Coastal Commission is going to scare the stuffing out of a bunch of other coastal cities and counties, that just might be persuaded to join in asking the court to abolish the Coastal Commission as currently constituted.
But there is another much more dangerous consequence, and that is telephone government. It seems a very powerful and prominent individual, building a house on the beach in Malibu, was required to put in a view shed, which is a space in the middle of the building so people driving by could see through to the ocean. That opening was then covered with clouded glass or plastic so it was impossible to see through. A very highly placed Coastal Commission executive director-type personally called the city just to let it know this was perfectly OK with the Coastal Commission and the city needn’t worry about it.
So take heart, because the system does work, provided of course you’re very tight with some very powerful executive director type people. But if you happen to be just a lowly millionaire, or, God forbid, just merely affluent, you probably can look forward to a vigorous enforcement of all the Coastal Commission rules. Unless you’re willing to pay into the official sanctioned slush fund, or whatever the commission decides to call it.
P.S. What’s happening to Malibu is an application of the law of unintended consequences, which happens all the time in politics. The reason the Coastal Commission is so brazen is that its environmental coffers are full. When we pass bond acts, one of the things it does is earmark money for specific piggy banks, controlled directly and indirectly by certain agencies and entities. These entities, therefore, no longer have to compete for budgets with other agencies, so the oversight drops off. These agencies and entities can then do whatever they want without fear of consequences.
We have recently voted for some monumentally large state bonds and a lot of what they do is good. However, we have also created a Frankenstein of easy money and for just this reason, I, for one, intend to look long and hard at all these allegedly good guy bonds coming up on future ballots.