(The following letter was addressed to Assemblymember Fran Pavley) I live in Malibu and have voted for you. My wife and I have resided in the same small house on the beach for over 25 years and raised our daughter there. I consider myself an environmentalist and am a member of several environmental organizations. I also believe in fairness.
I am very opposed to AB947. I understand it will be in the appropriations committee on May 7. The reasons for my opposition are as follows: This bill is unfair. Our house and seawall were originally built pursuant to all applicable codes. It is unfair for the State to now, by seeking to limit our ability to repair our seawall to negate the governmental permission that was relied upon in good faith when our house was built.
I voted for the Coastal Act, which expressly provides that one can maintain and repair their seawall to protect their house. AB 947 would violate the trust upon which I and many others based our vote.
Most coastal protective devices not only protect the structure, but also protect the septic system of the structure. By allowing for “managed retreat,” the State is setting the stage for multiple environmental disasters as seawalls eventually fail and septic systems are washed out to sea.
This cannot be justified environmentally.
All of us want to be good stewards of the beaches we live upon, but beach erosion is a complex problem, not subject to one simple answer. The sledge hammer approach to beach erosion is wrong. The science is not clear and each beach must be managed individually. There will be a dramatic impact to the value of houses, and thus the property tax base, if the State suddenly limits the life of houses on the beach. No property will be as valuable if it has a mandated limited life.
This bill will unfairly reduce the value of the primary asset of most families. In addition, if the tax base for the houses on the beach is reduced, additional revenue to the State and local governments will be reduced at a time when such governments are in severe economic trouble. The bill is an unconstitutional taking, no matter what people say. Failure of the State to allow one to protect one’s house after previously allowing them to do so is a “taking” without compensation. The resulting litigation will be extensive and expensive for all concerned. The State could clearly be liable for the value of the houses up and down the coast of California. Ms. Pavley, in all things there must be balance. All of us want to protect our beaches, and most of us want to do whatever is reasonably necessary to do so. But the rights of all people must be balanced and protected. I ask that you act courageously and vote against this bill.
E. Barry Haldeman