The California Coastal Commission has all the hallmarks of a
third-world government, replete with arrogance, corruption, and a
total lack of accountability. Now that the California Court of
Appeal has declared the Coastal Commission to be unconstitutional,
it is time for a dramatic restructuring.
The California Coastal Commission has all the hallmarks of a third-world government, replete with arrogance, corruption, and a total lack of accountability. Now that the California Court of Appeal has declared the Coastal Commission to be unconstitutional, it is time for a dramatic restructuring.
How is the Commission arrogant? In 1987 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commission’s practice of forcing landowners to give up land in exchange for building permits was an “out-and-out plan of extortion.” Instead of been chastened, the Commission continues to enforce pre-1987 land thefts and to this day tries to find ways to slide around the Supreme Court decision and demand land for permits. What’s more, the Commission’s executive director, Peter Douglas, has a habit of making speeches attacking the Court’s decision as “corrosive” and contrary to society’s “collective needs.” To put itself above the law, and then to criticize those would enforce it, is nothing but unbridled arrogance.
The Coastal Commission’s corruption is legendary. We all know about the sordid tale of Commissioner Mark Nathanson, who was convicted for soliciting bribes in exchange for permits. But even apart from the squalor of bribery there is the matter of lawful corruption. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle last October, developers appearing before the Commission contributed a whopping $8.3 million to Governor Davis’ campaign, and most of those “got their permits approved” within three months of making their contributions. The legislature plays the same game.
Corruption, legal or otherwise, is inherent in the nature of a body that makes decisions that represent psychological and economic life and death to coastal landowners. Failure to get a permit can be the end of a dream to build or remodel a home; obtaining the permit can provide rewards worth many times the cost of a well-placed bribe or lawful campaign contribution. It is a system that begs for money to grease, or at least provide a perception of greasing, the creaky permitting machinery at the Commission.
The Commission is unaccountable. With the appointments of the unelected commissioners scattered across the governor, the Senate, and the Assembly, it is impossible for the voters to toss out the bums who are in charge because no one is in charge.
The Court of Appeal held that the Commission was unconstitutional because the Legislature had a majority of the appointments, because it could fire those commissioners at any time without cause, and because there were no “checks and balances” in the appointment process. It will not be enough to fix just one of these problems – the appointment power must be controlled by the governor. But to significantly reduce the corruption and arrogance, much of the Commission’s power must be sent back to the local governments where it belongs.
The Coastal Act was adopted with the vision that the Coastal Commission would help local governments adopt local coastal plans. Once the plans were adopted, permitting and enforcement authority was to reside largely in the hands of local government-government that is directly accountable to the voters. But instead of facilitating the adoption of local coastal plans the Commission has run roughshod over the desires and needs of local communities – forcing them to adopt plans conceived by the Commission. The Coastal Commission continues to micromanage development, large and minuscule, with the motto: “No detail too small, no permit too large.”
The process of approving local coastal plans must be streamlined, with the Commission’s power to disapprove a plan removed; if the Commission has a problem with a local government not taking its advice it can go to court-but it should no longer wield a veto power over the process.
Furthermore, once a local coastal plan is adopted, the Commission should have the power to file a challenge or appeal only in court and not the current twisted process of filing appeals to itself. To understand the structure of the Commission is to demonstrate its failure. The beast must be defanged and power returned to the people.
James Burling is a principal attorney with Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation. www.pacificlegal.org. PLF is a public-interest law firm dedicated to property rights. For many years PLF has been a leader in litigating against regulation by the California Coastal Commission.
