January 17th 2009
Statues
I
got a gift this week from CBMC, a Christian ministry to men in business. (My CMBC Forum group serves as my informal board of directors – a group of men who own their own businesses that get together once a month to provide each other advice and pray for each other.) The gift was a book, Facts of the Matter, Daily Meditations for the Marketplace, by Dwight Hill. I’d like to share with you this wonderful and thought-provoking passage from one of the meditations I read this morning:
Perhaps for too long we have indulged in this thing called LIBERTY: Making choices without bearing the responsibility of those choices. In the U.S. we have the STATUE OF LIBERTY on the East Coast. Maybe what we need is a STATUE OF RESPONSIBILITY on the West Coast. We could all then choose to live somewhere between LIBERTY and RESPONSIBILITY!
What a wonderful idea! Given how much Hollywood shapes the nation, and how fanatical the California Coastal Commission is about stopping any building of anything along the California coast, I officially nominate Santa Monica Bay in LA as the ideal spot for the statue.
I see her on one knee, acknowledging a superior power, with one hand on her heart, and one stretched up towards the heavens. And if she were there, I would be content to live on the West Coast, closer to responsibility than to liberty itself.
Posted in America, Religion, Uncategorized | 4 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
January 18th, 2009 at 9:50 am
The California Coastal Commission is NOT about stopping development along the California Coast. That’s an extreme exaggeration on your part. Rather, the CCC ensures that development within the Coastal Zone is consistent with the Coastal Act.In other words, the CCC maintains public access to the coast and public views of the coastal, and works to ensure that private development in the Coastal Zone does no harm to state lands in the Coastal Zone. Most developers can easily make the changes necessary to conform to the Coastal Act. It’s stubborn developers that refuse to accept they too must conform to state law that do the most bellyaching about the Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission.
January 18th, 2009 at 10:27 am
What do you say then to the Malibu retired couple that wanted to build an 800 square foot home, which the Commission cut to 600 square feet? What do you say to the Coastal staff that wanted to declare a parking lot a restricted Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area because birds sometimes nested in its trees? How do you justify their rejection of the wetland standards used by the US, California and all other wildlife agencies in favor of a stricter policy? What do you say to the stables owner who wanted to rebuild after a wildfire and were told they couldn’t, even though their plan was more environmentally sensitive in design than the stables that burned?
All that said, I would much rather live in a California with a Coastal Commission than one without, but it needs to be dialed back to a less Gaian, more democratic, position.
I wonder, Frank – do you live in Sea Ranch since your blog focuses on the “Mendonoma” coast? Sea Ranch, which refused to allow coastal access, leading to the Coastal Act? Sea Ranch, whose coastal access is laughable? Sea Ranch, which is itself exempt from the Coastal Act?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t know the specific issues involved in the cases you mention, but if you provide the CDP application number I’ll read the staff report and give you an informed opinion. I am certain of one thing — they’re not as simple as you make them out to be.
The CCC reconizes an area as a wetland if it has hydric soils OR hydrophyitic plants OR the presence of water for a relatively short time during the year (6 weeks IIRC).
The Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game recognize an area as a wetland if it has hydric soils AND hydrophyitic plants AND the presence of water for a relatively short time during the year.
I believe the stricter CCC interpretation is warranted within the Coastal Zone because of the importance of wetlands to a healthy coast. I also know that the CCC can not use the presence of wetlands to completely deny development on a parcel with wetlands.
I live in Novato, but own vacant land within the coastal zone in southern Mendocino County that I hope to develop some day. It’s a special place by Mendocino standards in that it has lots of water flowing through it. Lots of water. And wetlands, and rare plants, and endangered critters. But I will be allowed to develop the land anyway.
Like you, I once thought the CCC was an evil bureaucracy. I resented them telling me what to do with my land. But then I attended a CCC meeting in Santa Rosa that really opened my eyes. The CCC and staff are there to help small developers like me prepare plans that conform to the Coastal Act.
In my case, the advice was to get a botanical report and find the extent of the wetlands. Place all that info on one map that includes a tree survey and local property line setback information, as well as your proposed development. This so-called “constraints map” can then be used by CCC staff to determine if the proposed development conforms to the Coastal Act. If it does, you get a permit. If it doesn’t, staff recommends changes which are usually minor in nature.
In my case, I have to encroach on wetlands to access the usable portion of the parcel. I am quite confident that my proposed development will be allowed because, with the exception of the “no-build” alternative, it is the least environmentally harmful alternative.
The CCC will not insist on the “no-build” alternative because that would result in a “taking,” which is something they now avoid doing. At worst, they may ask me to scale it down a bit or impose special conditions on its use, which won’t be any more onerous than those imposed by Mendocino County Planning & Building.
Although development of The Sea Ranch may have inspired the Coastal Act, The Sea Ranch is NOT exempt from the Coastal Act. There is a public bluff trail that extends nearly the full length of TSR. In fact, that trail passes very close to the home of a TSR resident that you harrassed last year by posting pictures of his house. Furthermore, there are at least 4 public beach access points through TSR.
You need to get your Incredible Butt out of the car and take a hike next time you’re in the area.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:07 am
My “Incredible Butt?” Actually I did exactly that, and enjoyed it mightily. Redwood groves, the lagoon … did some kayaking which was a hoot and a half. I didn’t enjoy Ocean Ranch, though … yes I trespassed … thought it particularly ugly and poorly planned.
My understanding, which I got from a former Commission staff members, is that Sea Ranch did receive an exemption – the developments there are not subject to CCC review. The trails, which you mention as not exempt, are less extensive than coastal access trails elsewhere and require long treks from the parking lots to the coast. That’s fine if you’re just getting your Incredible Butt out of the car, but it’s not fine if you’re toting kids, coolers and chairs for a day at the beach.
Your optimism is commendable, Frank, and as one human to another, I hope it turns out well for you. My own experience with the Commission, which is moderately extensive but primarily in SoCal, tells me you won’t be as thrilled with the CCC when you’re done as you are now.