Coastal Commission asks Wavecrest owners about their plans for farming

This is pretty comical! I read the letter from the coastal commission to Concar. There is even this question: 15. Were there security trucks/guards present on the site during the disking activities?

Why does the coastal commission care whether security guards were present when the land was prepared for farming? Doesn’t it sounds quite odd that they would be asking these questions? To me, it sounds like some folks may have pushed the coastal commision to respond in a certain way? If the law is black and white, wouldn’t the coastal commission simply respond with a fine, or a court order? Ray

Ray,

The CCC should not care how much it cost to have a security guard. They are simply asking lots of questions because they feell they can. How fully Concar has to answer them is debatable. They could argue that the security arrangements are none of the CCC’s business (they are Concar’s and Concar’s alone).

“I called Jo Ginsberg, but she declined to discuss an ongoing investigation.”

Barry - I hope you figured that was going to be the answer. It would be truly astounding if Ms. Ginsberg did not treat any and all questions in that manner.

Comment 3 by Barry Parr  on  Sep 20  at  12:09pm  •  All my comments • 

If Concar is conducting agriculture at a loss, it raises some serious questions about their motivations for disking up the land. I would think that would be important information to any agency considering their application for a permit.

I agree with Brian that “How fully Concar has to answer them is debatable” and I asked Jo Ginsberg about that. She replied that Wavecrest’s application had been before the Coastal Commission for “some time”. I think the implication is that failure to respond might have an impact on their permit application.

And I think that answers Brian unasked question about why I called Jo Ginsberg in the first place.

Right now, they are conducting DEVELOPMENT at a loss, so why not farming?

That implication, that CCC can act in that manner (adversarial actions to a failure to respond to idiotic questions to their delight), can have an impact on a landowner’s plans, is astonishing. Not surprising, as this is something people or agencies without effective checks and balances can do. Think IRS. Has nothing to do with either the spirit or letter of the law. All about uneven, unwarranted and often times, unfair enforcement.

Why is it that the abandonment angle is never pursued in these discussions? Because folks are hoping it happens?

Look, I am not necessarily for Concar developing the land. As it currently stands, they are preparing the land to raise some sort of crop. The land had previously been farm land, so why can’t they continue this? Until there is actually development activities going on, the coastal commission’s decision on the property being treated as endangered habitat will probably not be able to be enforced. Just like the farm property that is on the east side of hwy 1.

What I do read from the letter is that there might be some folks that are pushing the coastal commission to act a certain way, trying to extend the commission’s boundaries perhaps.