Half Moon Bay Review
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Coastal Commission Called to the Carpet

A bill has been introduced in the State Senate that in my opinion is long overdue. Senate Bill 1295 by Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (San Diego) would eliminate the Coastal Commission’s ability to appeal development permits granted by local governments up and down the coast.

To realize how important this is, one need go no further that Saso Gale. Ask him how it feels, and what this means.

This Bill is a big step toward clipping the wings of the most blatently over reaching government body in these United States.

If I may be bold enough here, I'd like to quote someone here;

"The reality is, these appeals are initiated by Coastal Commission staffers, and the Commissioners themselves "sign" them after they are written by the staffer. The same staffer is usually responsible for writing the staff report analyzing the appeal, and not surprisingly seems to always recommend upholding the appeal. And as you may know, the Commissioners usually follow the recommendations of staff, as they are rarely able to read, let alone absorb, the mountains of staff reports that they receive every month."

"In my opinion this process is broken. Coastal Commission staffers are neither elected nor appointed, yet they are the arresting officer, judge, jury and executioner on these matters."

I could not possibly put it better myself. It's about time.


George, thanks for bringing this forward. The Coastal Commission are such zealots and drunk with power that they have forgotten why they were formed. If they are ever elimated, then Mike F. and his group will NEVER be able to do what they have done to try to ruin the City of Half Moon Bay. Mike F., how can you sleep at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What can we do? Write? Phone? Fax? Where can we get contact info for our representatives?


You seem to be saying that Coastal Commission staff, who are simply State employees, have de facto power to shape local zoning and land use regulations. Could that really be the case?

the bill info is here.

Web Link

Set for hearing April 8.

contact the bill's sponsor and the Chair of the Committee hearing the bill:

Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee:

State Capitol, Room 4035

Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: (916) 323-2263

Web Link

Senator Denise Ducheny

State Capitol, Room 5035

Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: (916) 327-3522

Web Link

Thank you Brian. I have to admit to being one of those who would put off writing, phoning or faxing if I had to look up who to contact.

I am more likely to send off something now that you have done the footwork I see that the Steinberg and Ducheny links are to a form with a menu of bills to pick and "support" and "oppose" buttons to click. What could be easier! Unfortunately when I visited SB 1295 wasn't listed yet.

Lazy as I tend to be this is too important to procratinate over. I am going to sit down and send snail mail letters. I am going to copy my own state representatives.

If I can do it, so can anyone.

thanks for the info George and Brian. I don't think it stands a snowball's chance, the enviro-nazis will find a way to stop this. If only people would wise up to how much money the Coastal Commission costs the taxpayers in $$ (hint: a LOT less would be getting robbed from the Education budget), and how it strips local municipalities from self-governance. The commissioners don't earn much, but they are paid to travel, housed and fed well, feted, and don't think for a minute they aren't heavily courted by special interest groups. Probably explains why a former City Council member lusted after one of the positions. It's a flippin' joke. And the paid staff, forget it. One more layer of unnecessary government at taxpayer cost.


When I tried your link for the senators--it would not take my support input and requested I make input to my own senator--

so here is the Leland Yee link--(if that will do any godd?) Web Link

I totally agree with this bill. On a simple well project, the "usual

suspects" waited until SMCO approved everything, and then wrote a letter to

CCC, and without having to file any appeal paperwork, fees, or personally

showing up at the hearing, they stopped it cold. SMCO has recently raised

it's appeal fees and made it harder to appeal. These Obstructionists are

now using the CCC to further stop/slow the approval processes, and it is for

free. It's about time this appeals process was brought under control.

Greg Ward

Brian, the Coastal Commission has many powers that they should not. This blog doesn't allow enough space for my full comments and suggestions, but perhaps I can hit a few highlights.

My experience with the Coastal Commission is rather limited. I've been in front of them twice; got spanked both times. The reason I went was I'd hoped they'd listen. That is not the case.

Starting with Peter Douglas, the executive director, there's a problem. The only person I can think of that has run a State Agency as long as he has (over 30 years with another 10 in front of him) is Castro; and their style is similar.

One of the two times I went before them was in support of Saso Gail’s project. It was in July, last year. That is a case that this bill speaks directly to. Two Commissioners allegedly appealed HMB's approval. It was staff that appealed it, with the pre-signed forms of two of the commissioners; one of which actually chaired the meeting. Both defended themselves on this prior to their berating of the applicant (Gale).

When a person goes to the Commission website and pulls up an Agenda, one has to ask how the Commissioners do it. The staff reports regularly exceed 100 pages, and the Agendas are packed. There’s no way the Commissioners can be intimate with any of the Items in front of them, yet they get through the Agendas with remarkable speed and ease. The reason is because staff tells them what to do, complete with the language of what they’re response will be and how they should vote!

At this point I’d like to paste a link that speaks to this issue much more eloquently than I can, is more complete and easy to read than what I’d write, and covers most of the opinions I share on this. I would like to introduce Ronald Zumbrun and his monthly Viewpoint; Web Link

This link will take you to Zumbrun’s website. It is a chronological list of monthly pieces he writes and posts. I would to direct your attention to the October, 2007 link on that page. I would offer that writing as a good representation of my thoughts and opinions to this topic.

I have personally seen this appeal process in action, and I've seen how it affects people. I was shocked and dismayed when I found out that this is how our government works. I don't know the genesis of this bill, but I can tell you it's exactly what needs to happen. The power for citizens to appeal would remain, only the incestuous process described above would be eliminated.

Several people have told me that if they knew that this is how the Coastal Act would be implemented, they would not have voted for it.

As a wise man once said: " If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed; If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed". Fellows, do more diligent research....

A question for Paulie: Do you have any suggestions for more diligent research? Would this include attending CCC (far flung) meetings or reading through public documents?

As I have noted, I am basically lazy. But if prompted I will go and look things up. I just need a push in a direction (was going to say "right direction" but that might be misread.)

(I previously posted at Tom, but I am now using a last initial as I see there's another Tom posting here. Thanks for your input Tom Roman.)

Sorry i ever voted for the CCC knew it created another NO you cant do this you cant do that bureaucracy. Was just hoping it would preserve our beachs not tell us how much TP to use or how many times to flush the tiolet. Just gave the enviro nazis some place to whine to about everything.

If this passes, what would people like Kevin Lansing and Mike Ferreria do with their spare time ? Having had CCC staff in their pockets all these years has kept them quite busy.

Do you really want an answer to that question?

"so here is the Leland Yee link--(if that will do any godd?)"

Sure, tell Leland Yee what you think. I would have to guess that he would be in opposition to this because he tends to pander to "environmentalists," (whatever that term means) usually without regard to property owners rights.

That said, his votes usually follow a pattern - along the lines of "follow the money." Yee loves special interests (gambling, liquor, etc.), and specifically, those special interests that make substantial campaign donations to him.

In a perfect world people who appeal others projects would be made to put up a bond at the time of appeal.

If they won their appeal the money would be returned to them.

However, if their appeal was deemed to have no merit they would be required to pay compensation for time lost and other incurred expenses out of the bond money.

This would in essence force them to put their money where their mouth is, rather than put their mouth where the other person's money is.

The issues surrounding appeals are numerous, and here in HMB we've seen more than a few of the issues to which I refer. I know the grief that legitimate projects go through when some annonymous jackass decides to derail something that is not of their liking, just because they can. Yes, it's spiteful, and costly. That, however, is not what this bill addresses. Further, I do believe in our right to appeal. It's important to have that part of the process.

I have a very real problem with the current appeal rights of the Commission. Again, I'd encourage everyone to hit Zumbrun's link that I posted above ( Web Link ), to get a fairly good picture of how I feel about that aspect of appeals, and why. The knowledge that a staff member of the Commission has so much power and control over us is not only scary, but unethical and wrong. These people are not elected by, nor appointed by the public, yet the actions they take, and the Commission follows, are high handed, ill informed, and in my experience wrong. One example would be found in the staff report for Saso. The writer of that report has rain water turning toxic once it hits a manmade product (Saso's roof), then running off the roof, up a hill some 40', and delivering that 'toxic waste' to one of the many 'delineated wetlands' on Beachwood. What a crock! Goes against the grain of everything I know about the Laws of Physics, yet the Commission swallowed it all!

Yeah, the Commission needs a serious retooling, and staff generated appeals is a great place to start.

I was hoping I could cut and paste the weblink from the above piece I posted. Didn't work, so here's the link from Zumbrun's website again:

Web Link

This is a very good read explaining the process and what's wrong with it, as it relates to the current bill. I support Zumbrun's arguement and approach.

Here's a more objective link that describes the appeal process, one that is not written by a right wing lawyer like Zumbrun.

Web Link

For those who don't know, Zumbrun founded the Pacific Legal Foundation which is a right wing group that defends big tobacco firms and pushes for all kinds of anti-environmental legislation. Nice friends of the Coastside!

Web Link

I was wondering when the folks from "that other place" Web Link would get here.

You can use your real name here like George, Brian, Tom and Greg if you want.

Or be an anonymous sniper like me!

People can make up their own minds about your links. (The CCC FAQ on appeals was most likely written by...staff.)

I'm with Labels Labels Labels. Both moderates, cap and small, try attacking and yes, Labeling the messenger. I guess he/she does that because he/she can't argue the position. That attitude reminds me of the kids we never picked in our pick-up games.


Rather than have someone on this thread simply look at a reference site of "your" choosing to characterize someone or an organization...

How about having people look at the Pacific Legal site direct, and see what PLF has to say about themselves, the Coastal Commission, and look at their track record. See Web Link


Moderate, Are you saying that PLF are NOT friends of the coastside AND that the Coastal Commission IS?

Thank you George and Brian for raising attention on this bill. Too bad Leland Yee is the "representative" in charge. As Brian noted he is a special interest hound but it can't hurt to remind him that people are watching.

It would be interesting to see who is actually commenting here. I have no problem with anyone knowing who I am, and what my opinion is. The anonymous ones are the ones who can't stand the daylight. It is easy to sit in the shadows and accuse anyone with a differing opinion of being a "right wing group that defends big tobacco firms", and that explains it all. Typical Liberal Eco-Nazi Rhetoric.

Greg Ward

Ah, the time devoted to mental masturbation in Mayberry. It's a wonder some of the practitioners have enough time to count their money.

Significant is insight into a possibly new and contagious mental malady on TalkAbout. It might be called "voter dementia." No one ever voted directly for a coastal act or the California Coastal Commission. Do the research.

Another insightful entry that brings critical input to the topic.

Thanks Researcher. Awesome


Are you related to Myers and Nave? or Adam?

Your reasoning is beyond, way beyond.

George Ward. We are the whistle blowers that are afraid of losing our jobs. But we speak the truth.....

Thanks to you too, John. Another stellar contribution to the topic. You guys are great from an entertainment standpoint, but not too long on information. John, Researcher, both moderates, and Paulie. Total productive contribution = 0. Total BS = 100. Now there's something to be proud of.

Here We Go. It is what it is. There are so many times in history where people that have knowledge on a subject can't come forward. This media allows us to express our views without retaliation. Wow, I think there are examples of this in our own Country's history. What ever happened to freedom of speech?????

You Hijackers love to twist the TALK to a NEW direction.

This topic is about abuses of, and by, the Coastal Commission. and there are many. Especially the staffers.

Coastal people have been screwed by the Coastal Commission, and it is time to have the Commission follow the law. Coastal Commission Staffers and Peter Douglas are running amuck ..

They should be held accountable.

Topic...Right on!!!!

Oh good...just what we need. California's environmental standard set by an assembly person out of SAN DIEGO. What a wasteland they turned that place into. Check out her connections....who's lining her pockets.

Chai Hound. Btter than what we have now. Even the Federal Courts agree (Beachwwod) that the policies set by the Coastal Commission and City Councils are ot of wack. It all comes down to this. If you got it now, why let others come in (development). There are sufficient checks and balances now. The Coastal Commission doesn't respect property rights.

There is currently some discussion to this bill's actual change. I just tried to post the proposed language, but it doesn't allow an accurate reflection when cutting and pasting. The changes are shown with a line through language, just as we saw with the attempted LCP Update from the 2005 Council used. The line through doesn't come through when cutting and pasting, so I've used brackets to demonstrate the change below.

In the first paragraph, there is a line through where I've placed brackets, as follows;


SECTION 1. Section 30625 of the Public Resources Code is amended

to read:

30625. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in

[subdivision (a) of] Section 30602, any appealable action on

a coastal development permit or claim of exemption for any

development by a local government or port governing body may be

appealed to the commission by an applicant [, any]

or an aggrieved person [, or any two members of

the commission] . The commission may approve, modify, or

deny such proposed development, and if no action is taken within the

time limit specified in Sections 30621 and 30622, the decision of the

local government or port governing body, as the case may be, shall

become final, unless the time limit in Section 30621 or 30622 is

waived by the applicant.

I hope this helps.

Again, when you cut through all of the rhetoric and joking, this version of the CCC is a travesty of what it was originally intended to be. The "usual suspects" have turned it into a tool to further their agendas, and that is the bottom line. I think that the State Attorney General should be taking a very, very close look at this. You gonna' dance to the music, you gotta' pay the Piper.

Greg Ward

The Coastal Commission get so much power from further than Sacramento and, like all politicall branches, has been and can be, bought off by going to the "right person". Politics has turned into the most profitable business in the U.S. and is extending its arms to the mid East.

Greg Ward is on the right track but a few years too late I suspect. And the cut and paste work amounts to a pile of clam shells.

I believe that the test marketing for future land takeovers is being done right about here and south to Santa Barbara. More of the people involved now make headquarters in Newport Beach,Rancho de Cordoba, San Jose, Portland, Oregon and right here in Woodside CA.

They hate to be found out and change locations and phone numbers faster than a bullet train...wish we had one.30 years ago.

Greg Ward: Do you think the State Attorney General could/would take "a very, very close look" at the CCC?

I personally think it is high time for the AG or the State Legislature to examine this agency from top to bottom and it's practices. Whether or not you could get one State agency to have oversight over another, is a question. There is a network of the "local suspects", and although loosely organized, has good connections, and is very effective at using the system in such a way as to make us "Developers" look like amateurs. Their best ploy is to attack personalities, and excommunicate anyone who disagrees with them. Sort of like the Global Warming Hoax. (that ought to start something....(:-)).

Greg Ward

Greg, we are counsel for the CCC. Great job, benefits, and nobody can challenge us. We got it made. Not going to change a thing.

I hear that, and with tongue-in-cheek, I wouldn't either. You forgot to mention who pays for all of that job security........

Greg Ward

People of the land can stop anything--

When Politicians proposed a lax approach to Illegal Aliens--The People arose and stopped Amnesty...and Illegal Drivers Licenses..

If enough people speak up-- We can do anything--

We just need to educate ourselves, network, and communicate--- just like others have done..

This is America.

Stand up, Be proud.

So much rhetoric, so little fact. Right-wingers getting off. Not a pretty sight, but at least they are confined here to talking amongst themselves.


What facts would you like to add?

You usually come up a tad short in that department. No surprise that anonymity is your friend. Good thing you are confined to a room talking to yourself.

BG, getting crotchety in your old age.

Nice sentiment Bill, and I agree. My family has a long history of fighting for what's right in this Country. I do believe I will continue to so.


And as for "researcher", I've continued to ignore him/her/it? As usual, once they start slinging the idealogy, it's time to go have a smoke.


"What facts would you like to add?

"You usually come up a tad short in that department. No surprise that anonymity is your friend. Good thing you are confined to a room talking to yourself."

This from "Factmeister Ginna." The Researcher is amused.

Well, so we have learned two things:

1. "Researcher" is a flagrantly misleading pseudonym

2. When reading a dictionary, Researcher would find it difficult to contain his/her laughter.

Unfortunately, our newfound knowledge, like Researcher's contributions to this discussion, are valueless.

I kind of like "Factmeister Ginna." Thank you for the inspiration.

I would guess that the third response above would constitute "facts." Not sure, perhaps someone else can confirm for me. Greg - once you dispense with the eco-Nazis on that other site, please get on that.

Already have Ginna. As usual, I walk away grinning. Their arguements are so predictable, as to be ludicrous. Anything that threatens their status quo is immediate grounds for the Inquisition to convene. Problem is, their attitudes get expensive, ludicrous and time-consuming, and do nothing but give them something to crow about over their herbal tea, while walking down the Coastal trail in their Birkenstocks (tm). Us "Developers" follow the rules the way the local governments (LCP's) lay them out. These people want to impose their own personal rules on the rest of us, with no responsibility if their appeals turn out to be hot air. Hence "Eco-Nazis".

Greg Ward

It is very revealing when Mr. Parr questions your input and George's input, but no other comments are dissected. How strange.

Believe me, Mr. Parr welcomes your comments. If you and George had not posted, there would have probably been zero comments there.

To get my laugh of the day I read this Talkabout thread.

"Researcher" is branding itself a right winger when it posts here while commenting: "but at least they are confined here to talking amongst themselves" It is here talking amongst us so I guess it IS one of us. That we are "right wingers" is open to question. I don't think Researcher has done the research.

The trouble with these guys/gals/things is that they think we operate under the same code of morality that they do. Theirs includes say anything to get the point across, i.e., LIE. Repeat that lie, shout that label often enough and...

As Greg says, Us "Developers" follow the rules the way the local governments (LCP's) lay them out. These people want to impose their own personal rules on the rest of us". They have. They've infiltrated (or perhaps become!) the government and imposed these rules on the rest of us at any cost.

There's a publication called the North County Times, and they did an article on this bill (see link below). Senator Ducheny seems to have a very clear understanding of this problem.

Lots of other interesting quotes. It's always fun to read what the view-blocking-monster-home-owning, coastal-commissioner-overnight-visiting, Sierra-club-pseudo-lawyering, propaganda-slinging Mark Massara has to say about environmental protection!

Web Link

Am I out of touch or do we have a very local coastal commissioner right here on the coastside?

Wouldn't he know what problems we have with permits and CDPs etc, having built a home here on the southcoast? Wouldn't he be receptive to hearing of our plight? Do you think he could help us?

I won't mention his name here. I will just call him Mr. Blank.

Mark Massara is a complete waste of hot air. Have you seen how his view on Ocean Beach in San Francisco is among the most well-protected?

As for Mr. Blank - always remember which other board he serves on. Hint - it rhymes with "MOST."

Lest anyone think I have been swilling the Kool-aid™ I DO know which other board the unnamed Mr. Blank serves on.

Does anyone remember how much he donated and to whom? (Probably much I don't even know about. Do you?)

Let's get those cards and letters out to the state Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee...

Isn't it being heard tomorrow?

(The above questions are being directed to the public at large [or small] not to any particular reader of this topic.)

According to the article in the Web Link above:

"Ducheny's bill is scheduled for a hearing on March 25 before the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee."

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee members are listed on this page: Web Link

Senator Darrell Steinberg (Chair)

Senator Bob Margett (Vice Chair)

Senator Dave Cogdill

Senator Dennis Hollingsworth

Senator Christine Kehoe

Senator Sheila Kuehl

Senator Michael Machado

Senator Carole Migden

There are links to their web pages. I would recommend contacting them as well as your local elected members.

According to the Senate website, April 8th

Web Link

click "status" or go direct here: Web Link


MEASURE : S.B. No. 1295

AUTHOR(S) : Ducheny.

TOPIC : California Coastal Act of 1976: coastal development

permit: appeal.






Majority Vote Required

Non-State-Mandated Local Program


Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/19/2008

LAST HIST. ACTION : Set for hearing April 8.


HEARING DATE : 04/08/2008

TITLE : An act to amend Section 30625 of the Public Resources

Code, relating to coastal resources.

According to this:

Web Link

there was some sort of hearing last Wednesdday, March 19, but it's scheduled for a followup committee meeting on April 8.

The Researcher loves how the developer and so-called property rights advocates broadcast false premises and then massage them as they pass them along their local daisy chain. I'm amused at the circular nature of the discussions (reference to sea hare behavior here) but more happy I don't actually have to see their get-togethers. After all, they might be doing it in the mud.

Researcher a few of us have a pretty good idea of who you are, and pretending to be in Pacifica; how about all your gatherings in Highland Park ?

Any way of giving Mark Massara the boot is reason enough for me to vote for this bill; he is Mr. Obstructionist/Surfer Boy Dude.

I'm a veteran of MANY Coastal Commission meeting hearings. I traveled at my own expense and watched how the commissioners were wined and dined, and pretended to be impartial.

"I'm a veteran of MANY Coastal Commission meeting hearings. I traveled at my own expense and watched how the commissioners were wined and dined, and pretended to be impartial."

The Researcher says, "Bully for you." You are correct that the Coastal Commission is not objective. If you know how the commissioners are appointed and were paying attention at all those meetings, you know that the commission has been loaded with a right-wing majority for most of its existence. And that four of this majority get their marching orders from the right-wing governors we have had, leaving only the need for two appointed by the Assembly and Senate to be right-wing to control the commission with six to six votes. Which appointments the lobbyists make sure of most of the time.

But this thread is about the appeals process. I know this by doing my research and looking above. And I know the squeals from the daisy chain boys here are in ignorance or neglect of appeals by those on their side. They simply wish to further stack the deck in their favor by eliminating one form of appeal that gets in their way. So sad for them. But also transparent and laughable. So I continue to smile.


It appears your mind is made up before you begin.

So much for research. and for self-serving "analysis".


I think Commissioner Blank gave $1M to POST.

And what can we infer from Researcher's third person reference to "The Researcher"?

Now I know what's going on! The CCC is stacked with those fearsome right wingers so it's okay to have the staff come up with the appeals to, shall we say, level the playing field.

All's fair in love and war and the CCC.

Researcher appears to be fantasizing that he is a patron of some kind of strange zoo, watching the antics of caged animals...

...but, in his fantasy world, a parallel universe perhaps, a right wing politico serves as chairman of the audobon society and director of an open space group.

Truly something to smile at, Researcher...

...or, is he smiling because of his true underlying thoughts, betrayed by his numerous innuendos of the blue variety?

I'm not current on my psycho-babble term, but I recall something about people who refer to themselves in the third person, i.e. "The Researcher", as having dissociative personality disorder (break with reality).

The Researcher's mirth continues. You daisy-chainers are so preoccupied with your mutual massages you have no responses to the Researcher's facts about the Coastal Commission. Break the chain. Do the research. Sure your playmates will squeal, but they'll hook up again. The dose of reality might actually help you to come up with positive proposals for a better appeals process instead of wanting to throw away the involvement of the people working for the Coastal Commission who know the most, namely the staff.


Your will just continue to be mired in your mirth. Sure, you will squeal, but I am pretty durn close to hitting the ignore button. The third person thing is easily the most pompous, ponderous act I have seen here since Ken King stopped posting.

Please, enlighten us, and be specific (something you have avoided, probably because specific facts are something that the likes of Ken King had a problem with). Exactly who on the Commission is "right wing" and who is something other than "right wing?" What is "right wing?"

Steve Blank was appointed by Schwarzenegger. Does that make him "right wing?"

"Please, enlighten us, and be specific (something you have avoided, probably because specific facts are something that the likes of Ken King had a problem with). Exactly who on the Commission is "right wing" and who is something other than "right wing?" What is "right wing?"

"Steve Blank was appointed by Schwarzenegger. Does that make him 'right wing?'"

Factmeister Ginna,

It is the Researcher's goal to get you to do your own work in lieu of slinging misinformation and unfounded opinions around like wet plaster, hoping some of it will find a wall to stick to. The questions you ask are easily researched. You spell "right wing" correctly, though some may hyphenate the term. That means you can look it up. It need not be a matter of opinion.

I figured as much - your "goal" is simply another reason to admit you have no facts to add (just heaping more opinions on your pile of...)

forgot to add.

We certainly do know who you are...

Web Link

forgot to add.

We certainly do know who you are...

Gina, and others;

This is simply some nut case with the Liberal Mental Disease that we all know so well. Fact, reason, and compromise, mean nothing to people of this ilk, as witness his/her/it's hiding behind the anonymity that this forum affords. He/she/it gets off by stirring up the dirt at the bottom of the pond, and I for one won't go any further with this crap.

Greg Ward

Now I recognize who "Researcher" is! I dealt with this person in another forum! I regonize the accent and rhetoric. At that time I was using my real name.

It was great fun!

I especially remember the bit about wanting me to do the research.

Researcher's use of the third person reminds me of a self satisfied Windows error message.

One last request, pull his/her/it's covers for all of us, maybe it'll go away.

The Coastal Commission is the only thing standing between us and the wasteland and soul rotting consumerist culture of suburban sprawl. Thanks CCC.

Oh, give me a break! When's the last time you swept out your suburban sprawl tee pee?


There, there, dear tail-chasers. Here is a little something to help you ease your agitation and find reality-land.

Web Link

Wow. Researcher gave us some facts to chew on!

I admire the persistance it took to dig out that obscure document. Researcher must be a Web Expert!

I am in awe...

[I am also being sarcastic in case other tail chasing daisy chainers --or Researcher-- can't figure that out.]

Isn't it encouraging to hear from one so fresh to commenting that they don't yet know good sarcasm is stated so that it does not need to be identified?

Here's another wee favor to aid your touching effort to get up to snuff.

Web Link

Eureka!!! Now I know who it is!!


Sadly, researcher seems to be succeeding in dragging this thread off topic. Perhaps he can find another thread to demonstrate his Google skills, and post links to the California Code of Regulations, the US Constitution, War and Peace, whatever else he might stumble on.

For the rest of us, please keep your eyes on the ball. There is a Coastal Act change on the table regarding Commissioner appeals, sponsored by a brave Senator from San Diego. She is taking alot of flak from organizations like Sierra Club, CGF, etc, although they are simply fighting for status quo, not offering any alternative solutions, let alone recognition of the problem that exists.

The bill is early in its life, introduced in the Senate for the first time in February, and currently being worked in a subcommittee. Whatever comes out of the subcommittee will be voted on by the Senate. So there is still time to contact the Senators mentioned above.

You're absoutely right on the diversionary nature of this person's tactics, and it is typical. Bury the conversation in rhetoric, and everyone gets tired and goes home. Not going to happen here.


I will write to them. If each of us can get at least two more people to write maybe citizen input might counter balance the input from special interests groups.

Do you think?

Maybe sit out front of Safeway with a table? Anyone up for it?

The Researcher has ended his research. There is no more that the Researcher can add, other than to point out obvious reference materials for others to research. The Researcher is sad and angry that no further research could be completed. Or perhaps just sad.

City Councils for other coastal communities have taken or are considering a policy position on this bill. Perhaps our City Council should?

To Commission needs change; very good point. I'd love to see this Council support the bill. It would be a natural progression to do so, as it was a Commissioner appeal that stopped Saso's City approved project last July. Funny how things come full circle.

If the City hasn't initiated dialog in this regard by the next regular Council meeting (04-08-08), I would be happy to suggest it during Oral Communications.

I'll not soon forget standing in the hallway of the hotel that hosted the Commission meeting, after our interest had been buried (Saso), discussing what had happened and what options were available to counter. I'm quite sure those present at the time recall it as well.

In the meantime, I will send letters of support and would strongly encourage others to do the same.

"The Researcher has ended his research. There is no more that the Researcher can add, other than to point out obvious reference materials for others to research. The Researcher is sad and angry that no further research could be completed. Or perhaps just sad.

"Researcher, a resident of Pacifica, 4 hours ago"

Oh wow! A copycat Researcher. But coming from an addled daisy-chainer, I'm not sure it is the most sincere form of flattery.

"I will write to them. If each of us can get at least two more people to write maybe citizen input might counter balance the input from special interests groups.

"Do you think?

"Maybe sit out front of Safeway with a table? Anyone up for it?"

Sounds like a continuation of the daisy chain. Or multi-level marketing. Not unexpected. Much easier than doing the research.

Love the comments about diverting the topic. Look through the messages. The usual playmates with the short little attention spans and limited capacity for information divert themselves.

The Researcher's merde continues.

Merde is what one finds when researching the claims and opinions of simpleton believers in unresearched dogma.

The Researcher is thankful that work can be done on the Internet, where one does not have to smell their issue or view the lues on the pliant followers.

This guy (researcher)reminds me of someone I knew, who imbibed too much on Humboldt Homegrown. Cooked his brain.


You folks are a day late and a dollar short. The wwhole state has already weighed in. Your letters will be like the dribble of tobacco juice down a wad chewer's chin.

Sorry, not true "But Hey". Unless you consider pseudo-environmetal organizations like CGF "the whole state".

Here's another example of curtailing Coastal Commission abuse:


Ducheny takes on errant commission staff

Sunday, March 02, 2008

The arrogance of the California Coastal Commission staff knows no bounds. So, hats off to Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, for countering the staff's audacious interpretations of state law.

After six months of effort, Ducheny has forced Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas to halt his staff's abuse of a law that Ducheny authored four years ago.

When passed in 1976, the California Coastal Act required the commission to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide affordable housing. Five years later, responding to public anger about the commission's use of that authority, legislators assigned the regulation of affordable housing to local governments and their own coastal plans.

In 2003 the Legislature passed Coastal Act amendments authored by Ducheny to foster residential development, particularly affordable housing. The changes required local governments and the Coastal Commission to support development by approving the highest density their local zoning and state development laws allowed, unless substantial evidence showed unavoidable harm to coastal resources.

Omitting that exception in its report, the Coastal Commission staff advised that the commissioners oppose the bill unless amended to restore the commission's “ability to require affordable housing as a component of large development projects” in the coastal zone. That didn't happen. Yet the staff gleaned in the legislation bogus and self-serving authority to regulate affordable housing.

In September, Ducheny wrote Commission Chairman Pat Kruer to set the record straight. Writing to Douglas in January, Ducheny noted the staff's continued distortion of her legislation. In February, Douglas finally acknowledged that the commission “has no authority to require local coastal governments or permit applicants to provide or maintain affordable housing.” He ordered the correction of current staff reports claiming otherwise.

The staff's craftiness cost past applicants their projects, and the commission credibility. At some point commissioners must impose consequences, serious consequences, on such arrogant conduct.

SignonSanDiego.com - San Diego Union Tribune

What is your stance on the affordable housing imposed on the midcoast by San Mateo County in its current and in its draft for the revised Local Coastal Plan?

What is your stance on affordable housing quotas imposed on local governments, county and city, by ABAG?

I think that the affordable housing quotas are a good government policy, especially on the Coast. There are too many teachers, cops, firefighters, registered nurses, etc. that can't afford the price of housing on the Coast. These people do a critical job, and need this type of help. Additionally, by putting housing like this on the Coast, you take a lot of commute traffic off of the highways, because many of these people on this income level have to commute.

Greg Ward

Moss Bitcher : What is * YOUR * stance ???


Off the top of my head I can only think of two affordable housing projects around here.

One is on Main St. near the fire house and the other up the canyon where alves dairy used to be.

I note you are supportive of affordable housing because if provides low cost housing for police, firefighters, nurses, teachers, etc.

Excluding the etc., can you tell me how many of these other occupationed people actually live in these affordable housing projects?

That IS my stance. I believe that it is a good thing, if it's done well, and should be promoted.

As to how many actually live in these types of Projects, I wouldn't know, except I know plenty of people in those occupations who are paying high rents, and cannot afford the housing costs on the Coast, and many other areas around the Bay. Government should be addressing this "People" issue, a little more, and maybe a little less on Bucky-Eyed-Purple-Throated-Whang-Dang-Doodles.

Greg Ward

Affordable housing residents ?

In (both the projects) near your old Firehouse, it is almost exclusively for Mexican immigrants, primarily employed in the lowest wage sectors of the local truck-farming industry, * AND * the:

- Hospitality industry (Ritz, Holiday Inn, Ramada, etc.),

- Restaurants

- Construction

- Janitorial

- Landscaping

BTW, 1 of these is supposed to be only for farm-workers, but is in reality shared w/at least an equal amount (if not majority) of earners in the above-mentioned industries.

(nothing wrong w/that - I wholeheartedly support their illicit efforts to fulfill the needs of our hypocrisy-laden economy)

The reality of the "low income" police, firefighters, nurses is a very different picture.

Median LOWER-RANK (ttl) annual income for them are :

- Police : 72,000 +

- Firefighters : 90,000 +

- Nurses : 77,000 +

Middle-Ranks, &/or positions, avg. 20% *MORE*

In fact median income for San Mateo (2nd Highest in CA.) for a 2 income-earner houseshold is 89,000.

That means 44,500 income PER wage-earning Adult !!

That is about HALF of what the above 3 income categories are.

Again, nothing wrong w/that - Except for claims by others that these are low-income jobs. The reality is that Govt. jobs (including City/County mid-level staffing) are in the highest-paying category of the median.

- -

So, what is the ACTUAL, REAL *Low* income for (full-time) employees ?

26,000 to 48,000. And this includes a surprisingly high percentage of self-employed, & business owners. These are NOT 'McJobs'.

So, where is the Love for these hard-working members, the REAL BACKBONE - of our community ?

Because these hardworking people aren't 'glamourous', aren't 'heroes', and are treated as "also rans" by the media at large.

In short, they are a boring Non-story.

Basically, if one were to believe the Media, there are only 3 categories:

- The immigrant working poor (truly poor)

- The supposed "low income" Police/Firefighters/Nurses

- The High-income Hi-tech jobs.

All 3 provide for 'sexy' media slice-of-life stories, and make for great print.

But wait - that relegates to "irrelevant" status, OVER HALF of the community !

Affordable Housing is an important element in all communities, including ours. There's not enough available. It appears pretty much everyone agrees on that. There are many facets to Affordable Housing; some of which have been discussed above. It is an interesting topic and worthy of discussion.

I'm sure the coastal commission has probably self appealed an Affordable Housing project, but I don't follow them closely enough to identify one of those self induced appeals. Generally speaking, I only follow the CCC on issues that impact us here on the coast. I know, that's a shallow perspective, but I've got my hands full with what's going on here. There are only so many hours in a day.

That brings me to a question: is there a relationship between Ducheney's proposed bill to stop CCC appeals, and Affordable Housing? Or, is the Affordable Housing dialog just another sidebar to this thread's topic?

Yes, this thread has effectively been hi-jacked (from the VERY important topic of CCC appeals) - but it was already hijacked by Frank (if there's fingerpointing to be done :)

and, in fairness to him & others - YES, affordable housing DOES INDEED play a role in this move by Ducheny.

(Sorry, don't have the time to explain now - will do so later)

Ducheny is my favorite Democrat in our State Legislature.

She has a LONG history of protecting property rights, and equally important, she has real depth of understanding of the political quagmire & constant attempts at undermining (by other legislators & NGO's) of Bills aimed at protecting housing opportunity at all levels.

She is real champion of housing, and KNOWS how to play Ball - real hard, and real tough.

If only Jackie Speier were 1/10 of what she is.

Because I care about the well-being of all of you, even those who lack knowledge and are wayward with the truth, it is so sad to see those who would force everyone into their narrowly created, artificial, and mostly irrelevant channels accuse others of running away from their flawed premises. One much-praised general famous for bravely and blindly charging into losing battles does not even know the connection between affordable housing projects, the LCP's for Half Moon Bay and the unincorporated towns, and potential Coastal Commission involvement in making sure the projects conform to legal requirements.

Then we have those who get carried away playing patty-cake with their smattering of financially and politically motivated numbers, all quite without reference to local LCPs or the Coastal Act that causes and governs the local programs. They do not manage to state the most important earnings figures for individuals and households in a discussion on coastal affordable housing. I can see they are so absorbed in their usual play amongst themselves that I, the Researcher, must give them a big directive. Do the research. Look up the definition of affordable housing as covered in the local LCPs. Look up the income figures that define the several levels of people eligible for that affordable housing. The rest is babble until those legally dictated restrictions are changed.

Please do not blame the Researcher for your own sorry failures to pay attention or deal with meaningful information. I am trying to help you, even if some of your repeated and badly aimed slander indicates you may not be capable of learning. This is not at all unusual for those with lack of education on the matters at hand and perspective, so I will persevere with my good deeds by telling you one more thing you need to do. Those massaging each other in their playground games here would do well to take a break from their heavy breathing caused by tail-chasing and look up the affordable housing designations for the midcoast outside Half Moon Bay. Yes, my frenzied misled ones, there are more places than those in Half Moon Bay. They have a history of contention stretching over decades, including numerous qualms over aspects of conformity with coastal law. These sometimes have involved improper approvals that should be appealed. Because you obviously do not know anything about this topic, you are evidence for the value of appeals by experts at the Coastal Commission who can catch what local people have missed. How else would the mistakes be brought to light and corrected? I'll accept your thanks in advance for helping you to get back on track for the question at hand and telling you to do the research.

A quick correction--

The Researcher erred by not also stating that the Coastal Commission is DEVINE and immune from any possibility of error or mayhem in perpetuity.

Once again, "Researcher" manages to say, in about 1000 words or so, exactly ..... nothing.

Researcher, a little advice: if you bring actual facts to the table instead of typing mindless commentary, some folks might start to actually take you seriously.

What ARE you talking about ???

I know & participate in affordable housing implementation- its in my job description - I can cite from memory (& daily use) nearly every state Bill, & Federal as well as local legislation affecting it - including the history behind them.

You used a lot of words - but i'm left apoplectic as to where you're coming from.

I don't mind sweeping generalities (or their opposite), but I have no idea what you just said - other than you seem to be complaining about (?) *something* (?) about appeals to the CCC.

I cannot address with erudution, let alone specificity (what i'm able to shed light on) without knowing what is being sought

I rest my case, your honor.

Do not worry, my dear confused ones, those who are not merely sold out. I'm showing you a path. Not all will be able to take it because some are irreversibly entrained in petty thinking as a result of years of neglect. There is insufficient neural plasticity in the human brain for some to improve. The Researcher understands there are lost causes among you. But even with all that, I must try so as not to neglect those for whom there is hope. I don't expect all to understand but must try to help the able among you.

Indeed, some not willing to sit on their current ignorance and confusion may be looking up the appropriate definitions of affordable housing and qualifying income levels for affordable housing at this moment. They will then be able to apply this to what they can discover about the affordable housing sites designated in San Mateo County's current LCP and the multiple controversies over what has been tried on those sites over the decades. The nature of those controversies will send them to the appropriate governing sections of the LCP, illuminate the politics and mistakes in approvals for some of the inappropriate affordable projects that have been pushed, and, voila, bring the researching person to the connection to appeals based on the LCP and the Coastal Act and then the form of appeal that is the supposed topic of this thread.

So the Researcher knows many of you are stuck playing in a rhetorical daisy chain going nowhere. But those of you doomed to the playground are fortunate in that you are not troubled by facts and principles. After all, how could you be? So carry on knowing that the Researcher will never advocate that just because of your impulsive destructive schemes and shortcomings you should not benefit from the knowledge others acquire through their research, knowledge that can lead to a better coastside.

Short version: If you do the research, I won't need to break it down for you.

I proclaim Researcher a Troll.

Web Link

What? Did someone say something? I can't remember when I've heard such a crock. Like a pesty knat, there's a very slight buzzing going on here. It can be resolved with the old trusty fly swatter. Some find entertainment in very strange ways. Some just like to hear themselves speak. Some just like to see their babble in print. Any way you slice it, someone needs to get a life.

Back to subject. Send your correspondance to the legislators supporting Ducheney. We'll all be better off for it.

Perfect link Spanker of Trolls.

Researcher is King of Research, I so declare on his behalf.

Trolls agree with Researcher. Daft do-nothings warrant no consideration in a rhetorical daisy chain.

Improper and/or proper approvals should be appealed. The Researcher has spoken.

Yes, perhaps we can thank researcher for keeping this thread active, in spite of his delusive screed.

Indeed, there are two concrete examples in this thread of a Coastal Commission run amok - internal appeals and affordable housing.

Power corrupts, and when a state employee can exercise tremendously powerful influence by generating an appeal, analyzing that appeal, recommending action on that appeal, and de facto approving that appeal, there is too much power in too few hands according to my understanding of our democratic society. Are the Coastal Commission staff unbiased? Hard to imagine, since they often have pedigrees that include Sierra Club membership, for example. Perhaps that's why the Commissioners allow so much ex-parte communication from Sierra Club representatives.

Please support SB 1295 by writing the members of the Senate Natuiral Resources and Water Committee (link below), where the Ducheny bill will be heard on April 8.

Web Link

"Power corrupts, and when a state employee can exercise tremendously powerful influence by generating an appeal, analyzing that appeal, recommending action on that appeal, and de facto approving that appeal, there is too much power in too few hands according to my understanding of our democratic society. Are the Coastal Commission staff unbiased? Hard to imagine, since they often have pedigrees that include Sierra Club membership, for example. Perhaps that's why the Commissioners allow so much ex-parte communication from Sierra Club representatives."

Of course, the Researcher is continuously amused by the weak incompetents who can merely comment on other personalities rather than relate information that is germane to the subject at hand. Some children cannot do better than to mimic the Researcher's name and city, hoping to discredit the one who would break the daisy chain and direct the children out of the boggy areas of their playground. This is expected of many denizens of TalkAbout, so the Researcher realizes one can never do better than toy with the less able among them while helping others more promising out of the mire.

Those able to apply the least scrutiny and thought to the paragraph quoted above may join the Researcher in amusement. In it is the implication that one may be characterized by one's memberships and associations. Yet only one specific association is made. Any objective person knows that for this kind of guilt by association to work in a discussion, there needs to be full disclosure of associations by all involved. Beyond that, however, one must know the nature of each association engaged in by each party, as there is never a simple correlation between any group's stances and any single person's stances associated with that group. For example, a bit of research--so painful to the simple-minded who prefer ungrounded opinions--will show any large organization has members with positions mostly contrary to the organization's, perhaps to keep tabs on what their perceived "enemy" is doing. Or one might be a member of an organization primarily to receive a publication such as a journal or a magazine from them, membership going along with the subscription.

My children, whenever someone throws out a name like the Sierra Club, the Mormon Church, or the Republican Party as if the name alone means anything, you are bound to investigate. Make the person tossing out the innuendo state what, specifically, the organization named has to do with the topic at hand. Ask if the organization named is the only organization involved. If not, what, specifically, do the other organizations have to do with the topic at hand. Ask if the entire organization is connected to the topic, or if only elements in the organization are involved (this is particularly important for clarity when large organizations are named). And so on into your research. If you do not get satisfactory answers to your questions, you may safely ignore the person making the original baseless slur or misconnection.

If there are some who have lost track, and there are many of you with weak memories, little knowledge, and short attention spans, you also will not want to take the word of a would-be director of opinion like Civic Duty, for CD grossly distorts and invents how any of the several kinds of appeals are conducted by the Coastal Commission. Do your research.

My old Grandaddy used to say, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS". At least I think it was him. Researcher is the type of person that exemplefies that statement. Someone needs to put a cork into this person, first amendment or not.


If you want to know more about Club Siera, go to their main offices, and Yo, Begorra, they are truly Club Sierra.

Tactics are intimidation and fear.

Researcher, do your magic, Club Sierra is way off track from their original mission.

But I really really want that free backpack they offered me for donating to the Sierra Club! They are so nice to do that!

I also like it that they send me postcards I can sign to my elected officials. I really love it when they give me a postage paid envelope to send it back to them so they can put it with all the others they receive from people like me and deliver the whole bunch at once to the elected officials!

It's so nice not to have to worry about doing that myself!

Heck, you can do better than a backpack. If you donate enough, you can buy a seat on the coastal commission! It only cost Blank one Million $s.

Hmm, I wonder, how much would you have to donate to take Peter Douglas's spot. May not be as exciting as a ride to the moon, but look at all the power and attention you'd get. Heck, you'll even have throngs of people asking for your autograph, not including those staffers of course.

Thank you for the vacuous comments I have come to expect for an afternoon pick-me-up. The Sierra Club must be bloated with importance as a result of the imagined power deeded to it by the uninformed.

There are many economic and political forces at work along the California Coast, and they are liberated to have their way under the cover of misdirected accusations. Misdirection: a tool for the manipulator, nourishment for the gullible. Do the research or play the sucker.

Researcher wrote: " The Sierra Club must be bloated with importance as a result of the imagined power deeded to it by the uninformed. "

truer words were never spoken !

It takes bold steps to build a wall up against special interests. The Coastal Act reflects the General Will of the people, as it was an act of direct democracy.

That aside, "the ends justify the means". Preservation of open space is especially essential as we approach 2050...the year of 10B on the planet.

Agreed !

Let's start w/ Mr. MossBeach Machiavelli - approach the Guillotine, Mssr., and let us watch it's end justify Your means.

I used to know someone like the self proclaimed above, but for the life of me I just can't remember who it was. He was a person of minimal stature vertically, and tipped the scales at a rather portly number. Gee, I wish I could remember. He had a big mouth, knew it all, talked down to others and rarely was he seen.

Oh how I hate when this happens. Maybe I should take some Ginsing or something.

Oh, Oh, Oh, I remember now. It was me, at thirteen years old, when I got the first armpit hair.

Ecofraud, I believe you are out of your district. Go express your piece of the General Will elsewhere.

Out of my district ? I'm right here in your district, Little Prince.

Am I missing something here? I thought this was about the CCC and the bill currently in the legislature. This forum is begining to look like the whackos took over the institution.


Name casting aside, Greg is right. To bring it back up to discussion. I dare say local politics can be more under the influence of the power players than federal politics. The Coastal Commission turns down many a deal as it should. Otherwise HMB to Santa Cruz would look like the child from a marriage of Daly City and Sand City.

ps: you almost had me back off the thread with the "little prince" reference, but as a female i'm totally cool with that.

Agreed, the thread's thesis seems to have demised. The objectivity of the CCC has been questioned many times in the past. I know Arnold is no fan. The Terminator could take down Machiavelli anyday.

Although this is not directly tied to this topic, at least not yet, I posted this on another topic (Joan's) a few minutes ago and just want to get the word out.

apparently we, members of the public, will not only get the nod of approval from the Council tonight, we'll also get a look at the settlement agreement.

According to Julia Scott, in a piece she did today for the SM Times:

"Attorneys for both Half Moon Bay and Palo Alto developer Charles "Chop" Keenan say that if a settlement is signed today, the details will be presented at the start of the regular City Council meeting following a closed-door session between the two sides."

"I think it's likely to be at the council meeting. That would be my best guess," said John Knox, an attorney representing the city with the firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe."

Finally, we may be at the end of a long and winding road. I'm very much looking forward to tonight's meeting. Starts at 7:00.

As an aside, I just have to say that I hope this is the last 'settlement agreement' HMB does. From now on, how about we treat people with honesty, dignity, and respect so we don't go through this again.

Regarding the forthcoming settlement, I can already here the giant sucking. The development that could ensue will make a lot of mid-coast commuters also commenting "this sucks". Glad we have the CCC to prevent this kind of jackpot reward for a measely act of speculation in the future.

This selling out to the devil settlement proves the point that the Coastal Commission is vital. Look how quickly 4 pro development council members can screw things up for everyone!

I am still trying to figure out why everybody is still so surprised that Keenan won this lawsuit, and that the City is willing to settle. Should this go further into appeal, and he wins there, there would be a "For Sale" sign on City Hall, and you would be looking to the County to run a bankrupt City. It was only a matter of time until someone did this. You can't run over people and deny Projects just because you don't like them, and this is evidence of that. CCC didn't deny him his permits, the City did, and now it is time to pay the Piper. Get over it.


Well, how long did it take for Ducheney to feel the heat? Not long, and unfortunately she caved. The bill that started this thread's discussion has now been changed. Please see: Web Link

At least she lasted longer than Yee. He flipped like a short cooked omlette in 24 hours from co-sponsoring the Beachwood legislation to not.

I find it disturbing that No Growthers, under the Enviromental umbrella, can apply that much pressure that quickly. There is, by the way, a huge difference between a true Environmentalist and a No Growther.

Is it any wonder the rest of the country laughs at us?

The majority of the people in California have repeatedly stood up to say they want their coast "protected". Nothing, not even money, will move a politician faster than what most of the voters want. So, its not surprising to me to see an attempt to modify a bill when it is recognized to be DOA... problem is that it is already stigmatized so I'll bet even a "fixed" version goes nowhere now.

That goes both for the bill in this thread and what appeared to be the one to "save" HMB.

It will take more than legislation to "fix" Montara.

From where I sit (live) nothing appears to be broken.

Wrong. The majority of people in California are only vaguely aware and largely apathetic about what the Coastal Commission does to people.

A small vocal minority, who love to exercise all manner of control over their neighbors, communities, businesses, whoever they can stop with hysterical, horrific predictions of destruction, are at work here (see for example Web Link).

They have organized (Sierra Club, CGF, POST), they understand how to manipulate the state political machine, and they have found a touchstone of power: the environment. They can use it successfully without really understanding any real science, because in politics, you only have to say something several times and it's true.

The most active of these are often bored but self-important wealthy people. They have plenty of inclination and lots of time to get involved in other people's affairs.

It's not just the wealthy, note that there are many complaints about the cost of appealing various Projects. That's why they have gravitated to the CCC, because it only costs the price of an email. Don't even have to buy a stamp, and you can wait until the 11th hour to do it, and you don't even have to have a valid reason for filing, you just attach a copy of the local LCP, and say that someone is violating it. And of course, all of these "usual suspects" are trained experts on LCP interpretation, and calling out wetlands where there were proviously none to begin with, with almost psychic regularity.


"The majority of people in California are only vaguely aware and largely apathetic about what the Coastal Commission does to people."

That was not my statement. Whether the people of the State of California know, or care, what the CC "does to people" is irrelevant. I'm only pointing out that the voters support legislation which is seen to help preserve the coastline.

You can make a good case that much of that support is ill guided, I won't disagree with a lot of those arguments. But I think if you want to really see something done about it you need to stop arguing pure property rights and start showing people that development and access/preservation of the coast can co-exist.


" '...usual suspects' are trained experts on LCP interpretation'"

It is striking to see how many appeals and comment letters look alike. Are there that many "trained experts" around?

I made a comment above that I'd like to restate: "There is, by the way, a huge difference between a true Environmentalist and a No Growther." Many feel the same way.

I consider myself an environmentalist. I spent many years farming, and dealing with livestock. Still do. I honestly can't think of anyone more environmentally conscious than farmers and ranchers. Their very livelihood depends on it. Just imagine yourself on a ranch, maybe 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 acres or more, responsible for everything from farming (which is neither a cheap nor easy proposition), to feeding and watering your cattle and other livestock, to maintaining roads, ditches, creating and maintaining reservoirs, while truly appreciating and enjoying the outdoors - what most of us call Nature. It's not a job, it's a lifestyle and if you don't have a fondness for Nature, well, you better stay home. She is gentle, on the one hand, and ferocious on the other. I can't count the times I was out in the pouring rain, with winds ranging from 40-70 knots, trying to ditch water, or bring another new animal through the birthing process cause Mom's having problems. I can't count the number of times I've brought injured animals home and nursed them back to health, just to release them back where they belong. It’s very rewarding. Those are the very properties alleged non profits seek. Why? Because they are the most beautiful, well maintained ‘open spaces’ around.

Take trees, for example. Most people don’t know the difference between healthy and sick trees; or even tree types. Ranchers do, and know what to do to remedy most problems. Why do you think deer are found on ranches? They’re safe, and certainly well fed. Most people don’t know the difference between weeds, like star thistle, and others that overtake fields and destroy any usefulness. Farmers know the difference and know what to do to maximize the land’s use.

Environmentalists appreciate farming and farmers, unlike those alleged environmentalists (No Growthers) that will throw themselves in front of a tractor that’s disking or planting a field (remember Wavecrest?)

So, when I see comments like “The majority of the people in California have repeatedly stood up to say they want their coast "protected", I get a bit curious. First of all, ‘most’ people in CA don’t have to deal with the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission deals with the CA coast; Hence, the name.

We all love this place, and for the same reasons, predominately. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. I have yet to find a better spot, and have traveled extensively. I, for one, don’t appreciate any ‘outsider’ interfering with my (our) right to self determination (enter Coastal Commission). I further take exception to so called expert’s opinions that fly right in the face of something I know to be true; all in the name of the environment, when it’s the ‘I’ve got mine, and screw you’ approach that really applies. If people like me had the attitude of these alleged environmentalists (No Growthers) some years back, this town’s population would be 4,000-5,000 people, where it was in 1980.

Hopefully, reason and balance will prevail; the sooner the better. Sorry if I ‘talked’ too much. It needs to be said, though.

As an example of how the flip flop on this bill was accomplished by bombarding the committee with email was a Wildlife Alert sent out by Defenders of Wildlife. It had a picture of a cute sea otter. It warned:

"SB 1295 could spell disaster for California’s coasts and the wildlife that depends on them to survive."

It had a "Take Action Now!" button to click in the email that takes you to this Web Link

I am saddened to think of the puppets who clicked and sent without giving it any thought or doing any research.

It is one thing to do this knowing the facts and believing you are correct in what you are doing. It's another to just do it because Defnders of (fill in the blank) told you so and they must be right so why research it...

I click and send money all the time. Do you think I am doing something wrong?

Sheeple, you are doing just fine. Just watch out for the mountain lionel. And for George, who might try to make you one of his "girls."

What got this going again???


OK, I got it. The Coastal Commission and Sierra Club are not to be trusted. I see what damage they have done.

Trust only your mom, Sheeple, and not even her if she tells you to go into the pen and play with one of George's "girls."

The Coastal Commission does not care about the coast. Let me repeat, the Coastal Commission does not care about the coast. They want people to leave the coast. This is about power and corruption, plain and simple.

Trenchant stuff, SG, sure to get the intellectuals interested in what you have to say?

We'd like to thank Some Girls and nipper for bringing this pertinent topic back to life.

The person I quote at the end of the initial thread (above) nails it, but we can take this a step further.

Not only do we see Commission staff determining what they feel is in our best interest, rather than elected officials or even the Commissioners themselves, we also have a great example of a powerful special interest group. Not only that, but the kling-ons that hide behind the broad skirt of the Commission itself collectively strongly influence the staff to the detriment of us all (EX: Sierra Club, Committee for Green Foothills, League for Coastside Protection {our very own}, POST, MidPen, GGNRA & more).

We see these groups and more at almost all of the Coastal Commission meetings gladly telling the Commission and their staff how we should live.

We see the Commission, and some of their kling-ons in Sacramento lobbying Assembly and Senate members (Yeah, our elected officials) too.

Special Interest at it’s best on display for all to see. Quite a web.

The Coastal Commission has a simple mandate: preserve the California Coast. The other bozos (BOS) have other agendas, such as maximize county revenues by building more.

My money is on the CCC - the coast needs preserving from the profit vultures.

Personally, I find your blanket comments irresponsible, Lady.

In closing, you say "My money is on the CCC - the coast needs preserving from the profit vultures." Yes, your money and every other CA resident’s money is “on” the Commission (not by choice) and it’s proven to be a whopper of a mistake and disappointment, not to mention an enormous waste of personal assets and resources.

Capitalism is, in my opinion, the most rewarding and most fundamental core of our society. Those that portray it as evil generally have not had any success at it. It is, however, woven through our government and is one of the two basic threads of our society. The other is the right to own property and the benefits that can bring.

That is not to say that greed, at the expense of others &/or the system in general doesn't pop its head up - that's one of the downdrafts of capitalism; but I haven't found the "perfect" form of government yet. Net/net, we have it going on right here in the US.

Calling the BOS "bozos" probably isn't too productive, either.

Why is it, Lady that your comments seem to bring little in the way of productivity and facts, but rather offer large doses of perceived inflammatory spins?

We obviously disagree on the Commission, but you don't see me throwing out a broad blanket blaming our woes on capitalism. Can't you do better?

I admit I'm not bringing any productivity to this discussion. This is purely an aside.

Is Lady D perhaps married to or cohabiting with NP? Or a blood relative? Sister? Mother?


when you say: "We obviously disagree on the Commission, but you don't see me throwing out a broad blanket blaming our woes on capitalism. Can't you do better?" I wonder about your facility to comprehend.

What I said was that the San Mateo County BOS has an agenda, which is to maximize county revenues. Now, this has nothing to with capitalism!!! The county is a bureaucracy that has self-sustaining goals, such as keep or grow expenditures. This bureaucratic behavior is as true in Redwood City as in Havana, independent from the form of government or system.

Why to mix big words like capitalism in here?

In conclusion: the county has an agenda, and it is not preservation. The CCC also has an agenda, which, by definition IS preservation.

PS: Aside, I still don't know who Now Pitching is. I really don't.

The very definition of oxymoron: "What I said was that the San Mateo County BOS has an agenda, which is to maximize county revenues. Now, this has nothing to with capitalism!!!"

Not only that, but I don't recall seeing your understanding of the BOS purpose anywhere in their Mission Statement: Web Link

I'll just politely disagree with you, Lady, on both the BOS and the Coastal Commission. I've had multiple dealings with both, over time, and without question, the BOS has always demonstrated interest, concern over issues, the ability and desire to listen, and the will to act appropriately. I have not seen the Commission do any of those things - not one, not once.

I will add one more point. Your comments, most of them anyway, simply amaze me - and I don't mean that in a flattering way.

I don't see much use in repeating myself again, only to get the type of responses you provide.

"What I said was that the San Mateo County BOS has an agenda, which is to maximize county revenues. Now, this has nothing to with capitalism!!!"

To which the Georgified One replies:

"I'll just politely disagree with you, Lady, on both the BOS and the Coastal Commission. I've had multiple dealings with both, over time, and without question, the BOS has always demonstrated interest, concern over issues, the ability and desire to listen, and the will to act appropriately. I have not seen the Commission do any of those things - not one, not once."

Which just goes to show why so many of us believe George spews his superficial spins and lies to forward his agenda or really doesn't realize what he is saying because he just got here from another galaxy.

You attempt to rewrite comments as you do history, nipper.

I suspect anyone reading this can see the response I gave to the quote you provide, by looking at the comments from my last post:

"The very definition of oxymoron: "What I said was that the San Mateo County BOS has an agenda, which is to maximize county revenues. Now, this has nothing to with capitalism!!!"

"Not only that, but I don't recall seeing your understanding of the BOS purpose anywhere in their Mission Statement: Web Link "

Love your improve of cutsie names; so Elementary School.

But, we're used to it.

Preposterous gnostics alert the populace to renounce hyperboles. The Coastal Commission is coming. The Coastal Commission is coming. If you wish to have water, sewer or services, beware. The Coastal Commission is coming. They want your coast.

Good ol' George, sinking deeper in the quicksand with his semantic foibles. Only in the property wrongs crowd does one experience such superficial but dogged self-defeat around here. Given the suicidal impulses of the town's Old Guard, that's saying a lot; but, then, these two groups of foggy-brained would-be dictators have a lot of overlap.

There he goes again; nipper, full of - well, we know what he's full of - bringing nothing to the table but hype and trash talking with nothing behind it.

Dirty shame empty trash talking isn't a salaried job for nipper. If it were, he/she might just have two pennies to rub together.

I don't think nipper could identify a fact (yes nipper, that's how we spell fact) if he/she tripped over it.

Again, however, we thank you nipper for keeping this topic front and center where it belongs.

George, the very definition of a self-serving gasbag. Endless thousands of words on TalkAbout, but still searching for a good idea that will persuade someone, anyone, that his property should be freed for development. He struck out on shilling for Keenan as a way of spreading fear that would intimidate regulators and get more than the town's simpletons in line with his anti-environment and lower quality of life property wrongs spiel. The Mike F. character assassination went nowhere, with only the usual small minority of dummies buying into the blame game. So now he flails at an anonymous nobody, as if that might attract someone to his backward point of view. A man adrift, searching for an anchor.

The Coastal Commission is way off the reservation. Why don't they just do to their mission and follow the Coastal Act? Why does every agenda and meeting have all the pending legislation they are trying to amend to increase their power, their reach, their arrogance. I think that is what Sen Ducheny was trying to do with SB 1295, simply limit the CCC.

Just look at what the CCC is now trying to do with the Midcoast LCP, prohibit private wells. Get your letters in to our Supervisors if you have an opinion on that.


Did you see the report of the (pro-development) county's consultant on midcoast watersheds and the groundwater issues associated with them? It is the latest for our midcoast area to the best of my knowledge, and it dramatizes our lack of knowledge concerning the availability of even one drop of sustainable groundwater for additional development in our area.

I see you live in Half Moon Bay. That city is in the CCWD, a water district that went along with development desires that so exceeded local water resources that it had to build an expensive pipeline to suck Hetch Hetchy water. Tell us how that dependence on outside water not under the control of the district is going in an overdevelopment-loving, water-short district these days, will you?

In the preceding post, I meant the county is pro-development, not the reasonably objective groundwater consultant.

Are you even able to scribe anything other than bizarre personal attacks, nipper? Just looking at your comments gives one the notion that you have issues with yourself. For example, you say “George, the very definition of a self-serving gasbag.” I won’t argue with the gasbag comment. That’s simply a matter of opinion; but “self-serving”? I’ve been active in City affairs for years; always promoting what I believe is in the best interest of HMB. Agree or not with my thoughts or ideas, what have you done?

You continue with “…but still searching for a good idea that will persuade someone, anyone, that his property should be freed for development.” Where do you come up with that utter nonsense? I have never spoken with anyone regarding any development on this property and I’m certainly not qualified or interested in doing it myself. You know nothing about my personal life, yet feel compelled to comment on it. Where do you come up with these fantasies? What a fool.

As if you haven’t made yourself look dumber that a post, you continue with “…get more than the town's simpletons in line with his anti-environment and lower quality of life property wrongs spiel.” What? “anti-environment”? What a joke, just like the rest of that statement.

Probably the most ridiculous (although it’s close) comment you made this time is “The Mike F. character assassination went nowhere, with only the usual small minority of dummies buying into the blame game.” It took everything that everyone did during the 2005 campaign, but you may have noticed that Mike F. is no longer on the Council. Try to keep up.

Had I not run, he probably would have won. If, for some reason, you don’t believe that, ask Mike F. Furthermore, what I’ve done is inform anyone interested what your buddy did while “serving” as a Planning Commissioner and Council member. I’ve provided example after example after example of his self-serving activities, some of which were illegal and all of which were at our expense. Just one example is Beachwood. The POST/NE/City transaction with the Hwy 92 property would be another.

Character assassination? No, just factual information. Blame game? No, just accountability.

I doubt your little buddy could get elected to anything here on the coast, but I’d love to see him try.

“…searching for an anchor.? No, I’m pretty grounded, very informed and well anchored. It would appear as though you are the one drifting, like a rudderless ship. If you’re not embarrassed by your own comments, your weak attempts at attacking people instead of issues, and your pitiful slanderous attempts, well than you’re more worthless than I thought – and I don’t think you have any value as it is.

Now, do you have anything to offer on the topic at hand?

How much money does the coastal commission cost the taxpayers?

the official number is 16.5M, but the real number which includes lawsuits, is exactly ten times that.

Actually, the enacted budget for 2008-09 was about $18 million

Web Link

The legal expenses borne by the California Department of Justice in defending the CCC are rumored to be in excess of $1 Billion annually.

Yes, Billion.

I wonder how we can confirm "rumor" and find out the amount.

Not that I am doubting the "rumored" figure. Putting the costs onto the DOJ is certainly a good way to make the CCC seem to be right on budget.

Now, por favor, how much would it cost to leave the coast undefended to the fly-by-night developers? How many billions in irreparable damage (see Southern California). The CC is a bargain at $18M or $180M...

"I wonder how we can confirm 'rumor' and find out the amount."

FOIA. Since I believe the number is well-founded, I am not going to waste my time.

Who said anything about leaving the "coast undefended?" Is rhetoric all you have, "Lady?"

It is not rhetoric, Brian. The voters voted for the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission for a reason. The reason people support the Coastal Commission is that they want to curb unchecked development and utilize the coast (or what's left of it) in a way that benefits ALL the people in California, not just the few who make money on it.

Thank you to the coastal commission for all your hard work in standing up to those who would rape and pillage these beautiful lands for their own personal gain. Keep up the good work! You are there for a reason and millions of Californians understand that.

To give anybody a blank check is a bad idea. Even if it seems like it is a good thing for a year or two, or a decade or three, in time, arrogance and over-reaching tends to be exhibited.

What is wrong with transparency, oversight, and accountability? We need the Coastal Act, but to say that the Commission need not ever be reformed or accountable is absurd.

No Thanks.

The Coastal Commission certainly does not have a blank check. To say that is to show a lack of knowledge of what it is, how it operates, and how it is funded.

"What is wrong with transparency, oversight, and accountability? We need the Coastal Act, but to say that the Commission need not ever be reformed or accountable is absurd."

First, the Coastal Commission is established in the Coastal Act. Check it out.

As for your general sentiment, many defenders of the Coastal Act do so in the absence of anything better to slow ravages of the California coastline. So they might tend to agree on the matters of reformation and accountability. Over time the political appointees that make up the Coastal Commission, the very different LCP's that they have certified for different stretches of the coast at different times, legislative amendments to the Coastal Act, and the minority of weakening lawsuits that have been won against portions of the Coastal Act have made the law less protective and created a need for a successor.

Can someone define how far East the Coastal Zone extends?

Eddie, you'll find the answer to your question here Web Link

Have some coffee and a dictionary handy. Good luck.

For most of the coastal zone it extends 5 miles inward from the coast. The Coastal Commission is the absolute master of all within the zone.

Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium