Please turn on JavaScript

Brooks Wilson's Economics Blog: Drouillard Defends the California Coastal Commission

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Drouillard Defends the California Coastal Commission

Frank Drouillard, made an interesting response to my post, "The California Coastal Commission and Property Rights."  He is a resident of the California coast and a design engineer for a San Francisco based company that has built bridges along the California coast, implying that professionally and personally he has knowledge of the California Coastal Commission.  He blogs at "MendonomaBlogspot."  Drouillard wrties

Norris and Gilder built a road on their property without the necessary permits. Instead of working with the Coastal Commission to resolve the violation, they took the advice of an attorney that sees everything through the lens of Nollan v. CCC and sued the Commission and their neighbors instead. That suit was thrown out of court last month. Nowhere in California can you build roads without a permit, especially in mountainous zones. Why should it be any different in Topanga Canyon? 

As for the filming, CCC staff initially agreed to the filming on the condition that they too be allowed to film. Norris and Gilder refused to reciprocate, which tells me their intend all along was to mischaracterize the CCC's enforcement efforts. 

Kathleen Kenney (and her estate) also failed to obtain the necessary coastal development permit for her 741 sf building.

A fair and uniform enforcement of the Coastal Act requires that all development activity within the Coastal Zone be subjected to review for conformance to the Coastal Act. The Kenney estate is subject to daily fines until Coastal Act violations are corrected, which the estate (Starz) has chosen not to do.

There's nothing arbitrary about the Commission taking enforcement action against Wildcrew's Playground or Kenney's old chicken coop.

Richard Oshen is attempting to make heroes out of scofflaws. He's also unjustly blaming the CCC for everything from wildfires to bad hair days.

It doesn't take that much of a journalist effort to get the other side of the story and get the facts straight. (Unless you're an attorney that relies on ignorance of the Coastal Act to make a living, in which case you may want to spread that ignorance around.)
BTW, the Coastal Zone has shrunk since the passage of Prop 20 and the subsequent Coastal Act of 1976. A quick review of any of the Coastal Zone maps readily available from local governments with certified LCPs or the Commission's website will show that the Coastal Zone extends inland far less that 5 miles for most of the California coast.

The purpose of the Coastal Commission is to make sure that development within the Coastal Zone is consistent with the Coastal Act. Unless your intent is to destroy ESHA or to block access to the coast, it isn't that difficult to develop in a manner that suits the site and is in full compliance with the Coastal Act.

1 comment:

  1. Mr. Drouillard is never rational, nor honest, when attempting to lambast anyone who does not support the CCC. He is often vituperative, and never accurate in his details. You can see what I mean if you read his comment to Kegan, that he posted as 'Cara". 'Darling', it is not. Another good place to catch his bad vibe is at the Half Moon Bay Review. Why would an entire city loathe the CCC? Could it be that 'for the public good' when in the hands of the CCC, is not so good? Mr. Drouillard calls the members of that town 'whiners'.
    Land rights are an important stick in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Without them, we have nothing.