California Coastal Commission Dreaming
June 4 – California Coast
The following opinion piece by J. David
Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation appeared in the Monterey
Herald in late May:
“Whose Ocean View? Coastal Commission
Bars Homes to Benefit Boaters.
“Ban houses so boaters can have pristine views of the coast? Incredible
as it sounds, the California Coastal Commission is actively implementing
this policy in the name of protecting ‘scenic resources.’ Seems
the Commission got fired up about the idea after a boat owner
complained about seeing homes along the coast on a recent voyage.
So last month, the Commission’s Executive Director,
Peter Douglas, issued a memorandum expressing his determination
to help the poor boaters by restricting any development that
might break up offshore views of the coast. Douglas put on his
poet’s hat to justify his latest regulatory squeeze on coastal
property owners. ‘People who come…to be on the water are a
community of users whose enjoyment of the coast for recreation,
to find solace and inspiration, or to be with wild nature is
also deserving of careful stewardship,’ he lyricized. To protect
the quality of the spiritual ‘sojourn’ at sea, Douglas vowed
to preserve seascapes ‘by minimizing the intrusion of human works,
particularly along rugged reaches of rural coast.’
“Translation: If your home can be
seen from the sea, it’s probably not going to be built at all.
“Sound crazy? Not when you look at
other Commission rules. The Commission already bars coastal landowners
from building a home near a stream or on a slope, or between
a stream and a slope. There can be no building if your home looks
different than your neighbors’ or different than the surrounding
natural setting. No permit if your land contains common plants,
like coastal chaparral, which the Commission calls an ‘environmentally
sensitive area’. And no permit if your home might be seen from
a public trail or, if shielded from the trail, it could be seen
from cars traveling on Highway One.
“And now, no permit if a boater might
see your home while sailing along the coast.
“Nothing in the Coastal Act authorizes
such a rule. The Commission might as well ban homes that can
be seen by a skydiver. Or why not ban yachts so homeowners can
have a pristine ocean view? This is just as legal as banning
homes to benefit boaters. The difference is that a no-boat rule
would require the Commission to consider the perspectives of
coastal landowners, something the Commission finds exceedingly
hard to do.
“The Commission was created to ensure
the balanced and environmentally sound use of land, while respecting
property rights. But Douglas’ Commission continues to demonstrate
a bias against landowners. Homes for people are out; protecting
the ‘quality of a sojourn’ for a ‘community of users’ (which
somehow does not include landowners) is in.
“For such utopian goals, the Commissioners
increasingly restrict building; the supply of new homes and hotel
rooms keeps dwindling, and the price of living or vacationing
near the beach keeps getting higher. In the end, the Commission
will put the California dream out of reach for all but the most
wealthy.
“But at least the fishermen will have
a nice view.”
In our opinion, the California Coastal
Commission has done a tremendous amount of good over the years
– but sometimes doesn’t know when it goes over the line of common
sense. And this is crossing the line. Imagine if a home on the
coast could be banned because some guy burning 30 gallons/hour
of diesel in a big stinkpot wants to deny somebody – maybe a
disliked neighbor – their dream house. And what would be next,
banning houses everywhere in California because they destroy
a ‘scenic resource’ for recreational pilots?
Sometimes environmentalists run off the
rails. For example, Executive Director Douglas, who has been
with the Coastal Commission from the beginning, which we think
is way too long – told us he’s against creating fish habitats!
This despite the fact that 90% of the fish habitats along the
California coast have been destroyed. Not only that, but out
of what seems like a blinding hatred of oil companies, he seeks
to destroy rather than save some of the rich marine habitats
the oil companies have inadvertently created. We’d prefer to
see environmentalists in power whose love for the environment
isn’t eclipsed by their hatred of other things, lest they cut
off their environmental nose to spite their face.
As a boat owner, do you think that you
and other boatowners ought to have the power to prevent others
from building a house on the coast, in a properly zoned area,
solely because it would destroy your scenic view from the water?
And if so, how many miles back from the coast should the ban
on houses be in effect? We say ‘not in our name’ – but what do
you think?
|
