Who are these people authoring these glowing letters and full-page advertisements extolling the virtues of an ill-informed and uncredentialed appointed body who, from the beginning have insulted the intelligence of the voter? This includes those of us who foolishly thought that a group of appointees could execute a mandate in a fair and unbiased manner without personal agendas. I would suggest that before you appear any more foolish that you consider the following and stand in the shoes of the very large group of property owners whose rights have been severely abridged.
From the beginning the commission has abused the rights of voters and property owners. The paragraph in the original coastal ordinance which described the inland limits of coastal jurisdiction as “the first mountain range, 1,000 yards or in the event of an estuarine habitat, up to five miles” was not adhered to. The only area that is an estuarine habitat is the Malibu Lagoon and that is not five miles inland. The ordinance took effect January 1977 and it was not until some time in 1979 that the five mile limit was changed to remove the “estuarine habitat” requirement and thousands of Topanga and Santa Monica Mountain property owners continued to be denied their rights and suffered a diminution of property value. Voters had voted for the original description and were not allowed to address the arbitrary change “slipped through” by the unscrupulous commission and legislators who chose to ignore the voter’s and property owner’s constitutional rights.
During one public hearing at the Torrance coastal commission facility, a belabored applicant for a residence on a 17-acre parcel that straddled the five mile line, received a negative vote from one commissioner based on her opinion that the culvert he planned to install in a dry creek “would deny plants water.” This was so ludicrous that the Santa Monica Evening Outlook published it on the front page.
As for the diminution of value to certain properties, the standard request to a real estate agent has been, “Don’t show me land involving the Coastal Commission”.
Before you minimize the impact of beach access to the property owners of beach properties, stand at your patio window, look out at your patio and imagine the posterior of a beachgoer relieving himself or herself on your patio. Imagine them coming into you patio and use your water faucet. Step to your door and find someone in the buff changing clothes. Observe them as they look on helplessly as someone is caught in the undertow and there is no lifeguard that could have warned them or rushed to their aid. Go to your garage and discover that someone has “just stopped for a moment to pick someone up.” And finally in this age of ‘follow-home attacks,” consider a pathway the full length of your side yard totally eliminating the integrity of your security plan.
Stand in the shoes of the many property owners who were held hostage when they needed permits for critical repairs during the storm surf of the eighties. Coastal withheld permits until these property owners agreed to “give” the public side yard access. How many of you are willing to “give” a strip of your property, without compensation, to obtain something you are entitled to?
More recently, coastal has seen fit to deny permits for needed sea walls on some beachfront properties. Where is the mandate that allows coastal to make judgements on engineering and construction or use subterfuge to prevent the use of one’s property?
These are only a few of the abuses. Not fiction or opinion, but facts witnessed or experienced by many of us, so get off your goody goody soapbox and watch as coastal installs their visitor enhancing proposals to your rural community. You are going to think that somehow you have been time-warped to Coney Island.
L. Jarrett