Coastal Commission votes unanimously to oppose Beachwood settlement bill

Returning to my earlier analogy (see link) between the Coastal Commission and another public regulatory agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/stop_sb_1295_defend_coastal_commission/

What if Gene Mullin was a member of U.S. Congress and he proposed a bill that would exempt one well-connected company, let’s call it ENRON, from having to comply with the SEC’s mandatory accounting regulations?

Anybody with an ounce of common sense should recognize that this would be horrible public policy and shouldn’t even be considered.

Same goes for Mullin’s bill to exempt Half Moon Bay (and Keenan) from complying with our state’s mandatory environmental regulations.

AB 1991 and the Settlement Agreement - Another Nail in the Coffin!

Ken Johnson

I was wondering which one of the Friends of the Coast would be the first to try and kill the bill.  It won’t be long now till the others add their 2 cents.

It still remains to be seen how this will play out in Sacramento.  Its probably too much to think that common sense will prevail.

As a result, HMB may be one of the first towns that can have a $23 million Wetlands Theme Park (which includes the $5 million down payment made to the lawyers).  I envision a Disney type ride going through the towering wetlands with an Al Gore Green Amphitheatre extolling their beauty and contribution to stop global warming. And maybe we can have some of the docents dressed as red frogs to help people spot them better.  After all, they only appear on vacant lots that are about to be built on.

This is truly a very sad situation that hasn’t run its course yet.  Too bad for all of us.

Common sense would suggest a settlement that did not demand exemptions from a number of applicable laws. Do the city council members of Half Moon Bay imagine they are somehow separate from the rest of the state? As Wan said, it is a terrible precedent. Previous legal erosion of this sort--a lessening of Coastal Act regulations on one property being used to justify the same kind of act-busting activities on other properties--is one of the reasons the Coastal Act has become so feeble.

Comments displaying ignorance of the well-established environmental science involved do nothing to demean the facts and principles of the situation. A property does not have to be in pristine natural condition to have coastal characteristics worthy of protection. If development had not already destroyed roughly 95 percent of California’s coastal wetlands, there might be more of a basis for compromise. But there isn’t. If we, as a society, invested more in understanding the various kinds of wetlands and how to restore them after assaults on their integrity, there might be possibilities for mitigation off-site. But we haven’t.

Politics and the power of money might yet prevail to let the Beachwood settlement happen, but if it needs to get by on the facts on the ground, it’s dead. Only time will tell how Half Moon Bay’s blunder of almost a quarter of a century ago will play out.

Steven,

You wrote, “to try and kill the bill” - that presumes the fantasy that AB 1991
has shown any life since it was introduced on 14 Feb 08. It has not! The Settlement Agreement pulled the life support on 1 April.

The forthcoming California Coastal Commission staff reports may assist the City if / when it goes to court for the Bankruptcy Reorganization Hearing in setting a reduced value on the $18,000,000 settlement amount.

As to your F.O.F., Fear Of Frogs, I can’t help you there - I always liked Kermit the Frog.

Ken Johnson