Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Local seawall case going to California Supreme Court

Coast News:
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on an Encinitas seawall case that could have far reaching implications on the state Coastal Commission’s authority regulating the beach barriers.

The state’s high court is scheduled to hear arguments at 9 a.m. in San Francisco on May 4 in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission, nearly seven years after a pair of Encinitas residents contested the state agency’s decision over their request for a seawall permit.

The court’s decision could determine if the state Coastal Commission has the authority to impose time limits on privately erected seawalls along the state’s coastline.

40 comments:

  1. Dump the coastal commission.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad for the CCC. I hope it prevails.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CCC is a criminal organization that violates the rights of Californians every day. Unelected and exempt from prosecution they hold up Californians for millions of dollars yearly. They should be arrested and prosecuted under federal charges of an organizated crime family.

      Delete
    2. Organizated? That's the trouble with you CCC haters, you're ignorant.

      Delete
    3. Love when emasculated libtards use the term "haters." Libtards HATE traditional American: limited government and strong private property rights. Look engage with libtard haters and let's expose these socialists for who they are and how they work overtime to 'change' and destroy the traditional culture (tiny limited government and the most powerful private property rights in the world) of this country.

      Delete
    4. The hypocrisy of the supposedly hardy, self-sufficient, fiercely independent anarchists is glaring. When you renounce your Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, stop driving on interstate highways, flying on FAA-regulated planes and stop using FDA-regulated food and meds, come back to post about keeping the beaches for yourself. And tell Cliven Bundy to pay for grazing his private herds on public lands.

      Delete
    5. Please, it's spelled LibTards! And it's not socialists, it's anarchists! Free the beaches!

      Delete
    6. The hallmark of right-wingers is ignorance. From that ignorance comes prejudice. Then there's their blatant hypocrisy.

      Delete
  3. Lynch et al. must have already paid a ton of money to lawyers, and they're not done yet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. God Bless the Pacific Legal Foundation. They helped my project against the COE and the illegal taking of private property.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All of our home values rely on proximity to beautiful and natural beaches. Stop the bunkerification of our beaches.

    Let nature do its thing. Insurance will cover losses when nature reclaims development.

    If this insanity continues, there will be no natural beach left--only concrete plunging directly into ocean. Then ALL of our property rights are affected.

    No more walls. No more construction equipment on the public beach. No more concrete below the property line (mean high water line).

    Nature always wins anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is very easy (and selfish) to take that position when it is someone else's house that is in danger of complete destruction (not just the house, but the land as well). And no, insurance does not cover this. I surf several days a week in front of this wall. I am glad it is there. There is more sand in front of this wall than the beach to the north or south of it. My kids can come hang out there without fear of being killed by a bluff failure (1995 Stonesteps). For a lot of the "let their houses fall into the ocean" crowd, class envy plays a big part.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely not. I respect these people, and recognize that if I were in their shoes I'd probably be doing the same thing. But there is a bigger picture. Armoring our coastline destroys the natural beauty that contributes to billions in property values city-wide and regionally. No way should we destroy the single greatest driver of property value and tourism for the benefit of a few people.

      If normal homeowners insurance won't cover losses, then we should insure them publically. Add $50 surcharge to every property tax bill within 10 miles of the coast, and build a fund to compensate for losses when a property must be condemned.

      I don't want to be punitive. I want these owners made whole if nature takes their home. But we should never sacrifice our beautiful, natural coastline.

      Delete
    3. Making those that do not live on the bluff subsidize those that do is just as bad of an idea as preventing bluff owners from protecting their property.

      Delete
    4. It's not a subsidy. They wouldn't be profiting. It's a value for value deal. We get a natural and beautiful coastline and the property values that go with it--they get insurance that they won't be financially ruined if nature reclaims their property.

      There's benefit for both sides.

      Delete
  6. Here here!!! No more sea walls!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why do those who build mega mansions on the edge of the sandstone bluffs think the rest of the city should pay for their overblown egos?

    You can scratch those bluffs with your fingernail. What you have is a string of prideful homeowners who don't think the laws of nature apply to them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yup, no seawalls. No access to the beach either. Stairs, no steps, no lifeguard stations. Nothing on the beach, nothing. No toilets, no showers. No concession stands. No nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No people either.

      Delete
    2. Just no sea walls paid for by the rest of us. That's all. You build too close to the edge of a soft bluff, you pay alone.

      Your ego is not our problem.

      Delete
    3. 4:21 PM

      Seawalls for private property are paid for by the property owner not the public.

      Speaking of seawalls, since the Coastal Commission has a hard time allowing the city to reinforce Beacon('s) access path, it should be closed before it collapses and kills someone. Allow natural bluff retreat to work its magic.

      Delete
  9. notwithstanding....not a good time to be owning a home on the bluff. matters will just get worse and more difficult to finance or loan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed 12:14. Cash only buyers moving forward into the future.

      Delete
    2. Sure doesn't look homey!

      Delete
  10. When Surfrider held a meeting on the beach below the proposed walls, there was one in particular rude as could be jackass with long hair and a jacket with sponsors emblems all over it, that kept interrupting the presentation.

    The speaker repeatedly asked him to please allow them to finish what they were saying and then any questions he wanted to ask could be answered.

    This was not good enough for this pos. He wanted camera time showing he was disrupting the presentation. Finally some in the crowd got in bis face and told him to stfu and wait for the opportunity to ask whatever questions he wanted.

    It sounded like this pos owned a house on the bluff somewhere further south down along Neptune.

    If this is the type of person who wants to have anything he desires, the public be damned, he probably also waters the edge of his bluff for a green lawn. Karmic justice should demand his little piece of bluff needs to come crashing down. Mother nature, where are you when we need you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you just generalize the entire situation and all property owners by your baseless assumptions?

      Delete
  11. By the way, when the time came for questions from the attendees, he had nothing to ask. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That has nothing to do with the case at hand , pay attention.

      Delete
    2. Well, in the sense that the Surfrider event was on the beach in front of the very wall the Supreme Court case is about, yes, the post does concern the case at hand.

      Surfrider called a press conference at the wall to bring attention to that specific case and to seawalls in general. They succeeded. There were more media people there than members of the public, and Surfrider played to the cameras. Their people pretty much ignored the non-media folks who were there.

      Delete
  12. 6:40pm. I was there and did not see any ignoring of the public for any questions that they wanted to ask after the presentation.

    The previously mentioned troll who came to disrupt the opening info session, apparently wanted camera time trying to interrupt the presentation by Surfrider and nothing else. Once the question period was available, he had nothing to say.

    Alice Jacobson, of the Seaside courier bird cage liner rag of a publication, took up most of the publics alloted time with questions that represented the homeowners view point. No surprise there, as she and her sponsors are from the developer camp.

    I never saw any ignoring of the other public attendees questions being denied a response. The Surfrider reps stayed until the last question was asked and answered.

    You are correct, in that Surfrider chose to give of their time to put this event before the public. That there were more media than pubic interest is stretching that point a bit. I recall considerably more people than the media, but the actual numbers matter little for the time being.

    I take objection to your statement that Surfrider ignored any of the attendees questions, whether it was the media or not. Some in the media did try to take over the limited time for questions and Alice was the main one.

    Any longtime local knows from where she comes and why she was there. She is a tool and has been for decades.

    I appreciate your opinion that Surfrider succeeded. They did. Their impetus was to give out information to anyone who was interested in learning.

    There are some there who had other motivations, and it couldn't have been more obvious what they were up to.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a press conference staged for media attention. Surfrider didn't care if the public was there or not.

      Delete
  13. 11:27pm. Not true. Not even close. You were either not there in person, or you were that jackass who kept interrupting the presentation and then had nothin g to ask when the public and the chance to ask whatever they wanted to. Then again, you could be Alice.

    There was plenty of genuine interest from the twenty or thirty people who came to learn, besides the several media outlets. Nice try. Never mind.Not a nice try. Fill in the blankety blanks yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You got it backwards. The people there were interested, but Surfrider didn't care that people were there. It was a media event.

      Delete
  14. Once again, I saw no evidence of your statement that Surfrider didn't care about the public that chose to attend. There was not.

    Whatever purpose you have, only draws attention to what your motivation is in repeating this faulty statement.

    Myself and others were there. Were you? I never witnessed any of what you are implying and neither did a few of the people I know who were there. Your statement is baseless. Your motivation is questionable.

    Alice Jacobson, happy Easter Sunday to you too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:29

      You don't understand how these things work. Surfrider wanted to bring attention to its point of view about seawalls.

      A convenient way to do that was the huge, two-lots-wide, new seawall south of Grandview that was already controversial and being litigated.

      Surfrider called every print, radio and TV media outlet in San Diego and the North County coast to announce their press conference. Having some locals there was helpful in achieving their goal, but what they wanted was media coverage so they could reach hundreds of thousands of people.

      Delete
  15. Don't build anymore seawalls. Its bad for the public and only good for the one property owner.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Any property next to these abominations will suffer excessive erosion. That is the undeniable fact.

    Imagine every bluff top owner having to install seawalls because of their neighbors. Our beaches would have contiguous walls for miles, and wherever there weren't, those sections of the bluffs would suffer excessive degradation.

    There are longtime bluff top owners who would be forced out because they don't have the millions it takes to defend their properties from their neighbors actions.

    It is an unending battle to hold back mother nature. You buy a place on the edge of the continent and you takes your chances. You get the million dollar view for the time being. Enjoy it while you can. Just don't expect the rest to cover your butt and have to deal with your selfish impulses at the cost of causing more erosion for your closest neighbors to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Surfrider only cares about surfrider. Where are your dues going?? Ask for a detailed accounting of Surfrider spending see where that gets you....

    ReplyDelete
  18. 8:12pm. Not even close and you know it.

    Surfrider only cares about Surfrider? You are talking out of your posterior.

    If you knew anything at all about why and how this organization was created and what they have stood for over the decades, you would show some appreciation.

    That is, unless you have taken a position that you are above any regulation regarding our beaches for your own selfish purposes. That is a more likely reason for your ignorant and arrogant comment.

    Defending our shared coast for the benefit of all of our futures is something we should be able to agree upon.

    When certain property owners pursue their own selfish shortsighted solutions that negatively affect their neighbors and beach goers on the sand, we have Surfrider to thank for knowing better and defending our most precious resource for the betterment of all of us.

    ReplyDelete