Archive for the ‘Coastal Commission’ Category
Crazifornia: Regulating the rockets’ red glare
The following article by Laer appears on today’s Daily Caller website:
It should come as no surprise that the leftist legislators and authoritarian bureaucrats who run California are vehemently opposed to fireworks shows. After all, the shows are always fun and usually patriotic.
And against them they are. The California Coastal Commission has led the charge with a multi-year assault on the Sea World theme park in San Diego, which blasts fireworks over Mission Bay every night. That effort shipwrecked on the rocks of Sea World’s considerable political clout and even more considerable legal budget, so the Commission looked for a more vulnerable, less wealthy target.
A Picture Can Defeat A Thousand Arguments
Take a moment to consider this photo of fish swimming about happily in the seawater intake of an ocean desalination plant in Perth, Australia.
The photo notwithstanding, opponents of desalination plants often attack them because of the supposedly horrible things the plants’ seawater intake and brine dispersal systems do to marine life. Since most (all?) regulators haven’t put on scuba gear to judge the reality for themselves, the opponents’ arguments often are persuasive.
They need not be. Proponents of desalination can respond to this line of attack with scientific studies countering the claims, and should – but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words – even a thousand words in a scientific study. And a video is worth much more.
Please view the video linked below. Once you’ve viewed it, you’ll wonder how the opponents of desalination get away with their claims.
As you saw, there is no indication marine life is being harmed by either the intake or brine dispersal systems of ocean desalination plants. In fact, just the opposite appears to be true – the critters are thriving. How are they going to counter that?
Here at LP&A, we spend a lot of time writing messages, but we know that sometimes it’s best to put away the keyboard and just show the message.
The Land Big Three: Nothing but the truth so help me CARB
What were the three biggest late-breaking California water stories? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here, or you can follow LPALand on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Big 3 via email here. This edition:
CARB Sets a Standard It Can’t Meet
The California Air Resources Board apparently didn’t read the First Amendment before it decided to propose a regulation prohibiting false statements made to its board or staff. Now we don’t condone lying, but if enacted, the new policy would have CARB deciding what’s true and what’s not. Scofflaws could face various “penalties” to be named later…by CARB. And as we’ve seen with CARB’s recent use of phony data and resumes to push its agenda, any dissenting opinion may be fair game for this new carbon-clouded truth Gestapo.
CARB’s public notice on the proposed regulation
Prop 26 – A New Way To Stop Projects?
Given how deft Sacramento is at hiding taxes as fees in order to avoid the mandatory two-thirds vote for taxes, who didn’t vote for Prop 26, so fees will also be subject to a two-thirds vote? Well, actually 4.3 million Californians didn’t, by current count. Fortunately for wallet-watchers, 4.7 million voted yes.
But California is nothing if not the Land of Unintended Consequences. Now it looks like Prop 26 could be a nifty new way for state regulatory boards like the California Coastal Commission or a Regional Water Quality Control Board, which are subject to its provisions, to delay new development projects.
Development fees are not subject to Prop 26, so if a new project is dinged a nice little bucket of cash to improve signals at some intersections it’s impacting, no special vote is required. That’s fine – the authors of the California Chamber-sponsored proposition anticipated that, and wrote the measure to protect developers.
The Weekly 3 Land: Red tape and NIMBYs galore
What were the three biggest California land development stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here, or you can follow LPALand on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Red Tape…Fuggedaboudit
It’s a rare day when California can learn something from the state of New Jersey. We’ll take the California shore over Jersey’s version any day, but Californians should be paying attention to what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is up to. The state’s newly elected leader is proposing the merger or elimination of nearly 300 boards and commissions – including many inactive or defunct groups created years ago, and some that have never met at all. Sacramento, are you listening?
The Weekly 3: Land Development
What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development? You’ll find them right here, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also subscribe to our e-blast to receive our Weekly Three directly. This week:
1. It depends what your definition of “is” is
Either a plant or animal species is threatened with extinction or it’s not. Seems pretty black and white … or green. So why is the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service trying to list some populations of the Preble’s Meadow jumping mouse and other species as threatened, even though the species itself is abundant? The Service’s motives are up for debate, but the consequences are as clear a new double-paned Energy Star window: lots of land could soon fall unnecessarily under tough federal permitting requirements, and that’s no bueno for homebuilders and the successful habitat conservation planning efforts they’ve spearheaded.
The Weekly 3: Land Development
August 2, 2010
What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development? You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. This week:
What could you do with this raw land?
1. Builders beginning to buy raw land with eye on market turnaround.
Standard Pacific CEO Ken Campbell made the news recently when he predicted a 2014 housing comeback and said he’s buying raw land in a big way. That’s a sure sign the supply of already-approved lots is drying up … and it also means there will be a new wave of activism from the environmentalist/NIMBY cabal. New legislation and policy have prioritized infill development and attempted to make greenfield development neighborhood non grata in California. That will make entitlement a challenge … but one with great potential financial upsides for those who purchase wisely.
The Weekly 3: Land Development
What are the three biggest stories each week in the world of California land development? You’ll find them right here each Monday, or follow LP&A all week long on Twitter at @LPALand for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. This week:
1. Is Developing Alameda Point worth the hassle?
Alameda Point - What Could Have Been
The city of Alameda voted last week to terminate an exclusive negotiating agreement with SunCal for development of the city’s former Navy base, which closed 15 years ago. SunCal invested nearly $15 million during its four-year process, but was stymied by ever-changing political winds, a city staff with personal agendas and a public that’s not happy without a fight on its hands. SunCal came on board in 2006 after a partnership of Shea and Catellus got fed up and walked away, which begs the question: Is developing Alameda Point worth the hassle? >>Read More
Did the Coastal Commission Just Get Greener?
It appears so, as Santa Monica City Councilman (and favorite son of local environmental groups) Richard Bloom, beat out several OC candidates for the South Coast regional seat on the Commission. Coming up short on the appointment were several sensible choices, including supervisors John Moorlach and Bill Campbell and Huntington Beach City Councilman Keith Bohr. Bloom’s appointment combines with the appointments of two anti-growth commissioners last September: Santa Cruz County supervisor Mark Stone and Oceanside City Council member Esther Sanchez, both committed environmentalists.
New appointments make Coastal Commission an even tougher hurdle
We know of at least one land developer whose due diligence questions include, “Is the property in the Coastal Zone.” If the answer is “yes,” forget it; no acquisition.
Two new Coastal Commission appointments by Assembly leader Karen Bass have made that approach seem even more justified, as two open-minded and reasonable Commission members have been replaced by two who raise red … make that green … flags. Let’s let the head of San Diego Coastkeeper frame it up for us:
“I think we have a chance to have the ‘greenest’ commission that we have had
in a long time.”
You are currently browsing the archives for the Coastal Commission category.
