Friday, July 7, 2017

Seawall owners lose at Supreme Court

Fox 5:
Property owners who object to government-mandated restrictions on construction permits must litigate the issues before building their projects, or risk forfeiting their rights to take legal action, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case involving plaintiffs in Encinitas.

In a unanimous opinion, the justices ruled that plaintiffs Barbara Lynch and Thomas Frick, who own adjacent blufftop properties in the northern San Diego County municipality, gave up their right to challenge the California Coastal Commission’s conditions on a seawall project because they went ahead and had the structure built.

52 comments:

  1. Ain't that a shame. Nope. Maybe they can try the DC Supreme Court next and feed their lawyers all the more.

    Live with the twenty years they have been given and see what damage they have inflicted upon their neighbors who don't have seawalls.

    Mother nature will have the ultimate say.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CCC is a state sanctioned criminal organization. State sponsored mafia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical developer "property rights" blather, 3:55. Someone's mad they can't treat the coast as their private playground. Too bad they thought the rules didn't apply. Time to look in the mirror.

      Delete
    2. 5:50- has nothing to do with the coast, has to do with city, county, state govt saying your permit to xyz is good for xxx years after that you must reapply. AND then the govt will decide to allow you to continue or revoke your permit... it's an illegal taking of land value without compensation. But then your not able to think beyond your public school education...

      Delete
    3. Soynds like the good folks in question built without a permit - or do I have that wrong?

      Delete
    4. Spell check failed me - but the question stands.

      Delete
  3. Blakespear makes a fool of herself again, with her mayors minute in the coast news. This time she tells us how important it is that we enact the Climate Action Plan:
    1-" the 2nd largest source of Encinitas carbon 23% comes from burning gas to produce our electricity ". Lololollll gee Kathy I didn't know Encinitas had a power plant that produced electricity... where is that located and when was it fired up??
    2- " 13% of our local carbon is natural gas, which we use in our homes' stoves, dryers and water heaters". Ahhhhhnnnnn, wrong again Kathy. Many of us have electric water heaters, stoves/ovens and dryers. Try again, a broken clock is correct twice a day....
    3- 3% comes from the transportation of water from the Colorado river...." so we should reduce our water usage, maybe like the Europeans from the Middle Ages that didn't bath for fear that water caused disease, or today's Leucadia hippies??
    4- " Solana Beach is already ahead of us". News to Kathy, SB is ahead of Encinitas in every important catagory... they have the train in a trench, their streetscape is completed, their rail trail kicks ass. Encinitas... naaaaahhhh. Encinitas can't be bothered with important things like that.

    With Blakespear at the helm it's only a matter of time before the good ship Encinitas is run up against the rocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude you are one weird poster. Do you call her "Kathy" in stalker copycat fashion, thinking you're being clever? You're not, you're creepy.

      Delete
    2. I think she should concern herself with more immediate issues - like over development, traffic problems, and infrastructural aspects of the city. Plus the pension bloat that is like a tumor on the city budget.

      Delete
    3. 9:23 PM

      "Blakespear makes a fool of herself again..." I'm afraid you're the one making a fool of themselves. First, I like a lot of people have a gas fired furnace although the blower is electric. Second, the Climate Action Plan (CAP) calculates the equivalent of the carbon produced to electrify your home. It doesn't mean a power plant is located in Encinitas. Third, like the second, the CAP tries to list what functions require electricity or some type of power to accomplish their mission. Water aqueducts often require pumps (electricity) to move water, goods are delivered by trucks, etc. Reducing how much people consume reduces the need for the power consumption which reduces greenhouse gases.

      Delete
    4. It would be nice if the City would water the trees it owns.

      The City's current practices are killing trees and wasting expense assets. Total mismanagement and waste of City tax dollars. Plus trees are the most effective mitigation against green house gases.

      KB - Please step up and tell staff to deep water the trees.

      Delete
    5. 4:55- " Reducing how much people consume reduces the need for power consumption which reduces greenhouse gases". Bases on your theory no people means no consumption, therefore we should all just kill ourselves. Sounds like a good idea to me, ahhhh you go first. After all it's your theory....

      Delete
    6. 10:02 AM

      Sorry, but it's not my theory. It's the theory behind the state legislation. But don't let that stop you from doing your duty to reduce consumption.

      Delete
    7. 5:19- I'll use as much or little of power as I need or want. You nor any govt agency should have no say in those decisions.
      Want to reduce the carbon footprint of this city?? Turn off your lights when you leave your house or go to bed. Try it you might like it.

      Delete
  4. PS- I'm using my home air conditioner tonight because it's hot and humid.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The principal here is the precedent of replacing like with like. Say you have a currently non-conforming use, like a guest house on a lot zoned for a single family residence, or a set back violation. Something that was conforming when you built it. If your place burns down, you usually get to replace like with like, as long as you don't make the non-conformance worse. In this case, these people had sea walls of some sort that were destroyed in a storm. Their permit to replace had an expiration date - the implication is that they would have to take down the wall or get a new permit. The court did not rule on the concept of an expiration date, the court said if they wanted to sue to remove the expiration date, they should not have re-built. The court is punting the real decision - whether the government can take property by imposing expiration dates on existing legal uses.

    This matters to people in Encinitas. We have a lot of homes and garages, that violate current set-backs. Say your garage needs to be rebuilt. Do you really want the city to impose an expiration date on your garage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, the city doesn't put an expiration date on any other kind of non-conforming repairs or remodeling. As long as one original wall is still standing and incorporated into the new construction and the new construction doesn't expand the footprint into current setbacks, there is no problem. However, a complete tear down requires conformance with all the new setbacks.

      Sea walls are a special problem. The Coastal Commission now has a policy of "planned retreat" for the coastline. The city got into trouble at Beacon Beach when it planned a sea wall to stabilize the bluff. The city had a grant to do the work, but the state refused to release the money, which was diverted to improvements at Moonlight Beach.

      All one needs to do is walk the beach from Moonlight Beach northward to see the problem. There are fragments of sea walls, but they increase erosion at the two ends. Even segments with sea walls have bluff collapse higher up. It's not hard to see the houses which will slip into the ocean first. Mother nature eventually wins.

      Delete
  6. And some of these bluff top owners water their grass turf on the edge of the bluff!!! Duh.

    A seawall won't do a thing for them other than delay the eventual natural retreat.

    Enjoy the view while you can. Just know the cost will be paid sooner or later, and it should not be at the cost of your neighbors bluffs who don't have millions $ to pay for a seawall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irrigation accelerates the eventual slippage. The Self Realization Fellowship has this problem.

      Delete
  7. Build an oversized tribute to your greatness as close to the water as possible on top of sandstone and the party's gonna end eventually.

    I'm not willing to foot this bill of hubris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:08 PM You were never asked to. Sounds like jealousy masked as self-righteousness.

      Delete
    2. The cliffdwellers have repeatedly asked for help from the city - that would be you and me - to pay to shore up their crumbling properties.

      No jealousy, just keeping it real on the whiners.

      Delete
    3. 2:33 PM Some of it concerns public safety - that is the city's concern. As far as funding seawalls, I don't recall any examples.

      Delete
    4. They show up at council meetings from time to time.

      Delete
    5. A seawall had been proposed for Beacon('s) Beach access. It didn't happen because new seawalls are only allowed in emergency situations, now. That proposal was another example of poor engineering by Encinitas city engineers.

      Delete
    6. Because it is so difficult to get a permit to build or maintain a wall, some bluff top property owners have organized to support sand replenishment as an alternative to walls. However, beyond this, bluff top owners have never asked for public assistance. They just want to protect their properties, and are just seeking permission (not subsidies) to do so.

      Delete
    7. 10:31, you need to attend more meetings. Of course they've asked for help.

      Delete
    8. Dumping too much sand is also environmentally degrading, and yes, people who live here do have to pay taxes for that, including TOT taxes paid by homeowners who rent out, seasonally, part time, while living on site.

      We are now going to have our surf breaks degraded, particularly at Stonesteps, for which there is to be no mitigation, because of the project we were roped into, through these cliff dweller property owners, working with the Army Corps of Engineers.

      Wait until after the first dumping of sand, and see what happens. At least there is to be monitoring, and at least the amount to be dumped was cut in half, through the Coastal Commission.

      The Army Corps of Engineers is the same group that is forcing the Dakota Access Pipeline through sacred Native American grounds. Unfortunately, there is no Coastal Commission to protect that community's character and environmental heritage.

      Delete
  8. Pretty good analysis on this by Logan

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/logan-jenkins/sd-no-jenkins20170709-story.html

    - The Sculpin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Logan is dead wrong when he says, "Not that long ago, the bluffs of North County were covered by chaparral and commercial flower fields." Commercial flower growers never grew at the bluff edge, where the legal fight is taking place, and not even close to the bluff edge. Too much wind and salt in the air.

      In fairness to the county supervisors, there was a widespread belief that North County bluffs were stable, although there was evidence to the contrary. Logan's proposal of a 900-foot setback is more than a half century too late. Presently our city requires a 40-foot setback. And this is an increase from what it was before. Probably sufficient until we get the storm of the century!

      Delete
    2. Logan gets things wrong a lot more than he gets it right. He's not worth reading unless you're prepared to fact-check an entire article..

      Delete
  9. Yea, Logan Jenkins is worthless as far as factual information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmmm....maybe that's why he's a columnist and not a journalist. There is a difference.....

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. Both should deal with factual information. A columnist can make up information?

      Delete
    3. In sculp's world, yes. He regularly defends the indefensible, which is why he's made himself irrelevant on this blog.

      Delete
    4. 6:29 PM How true. I think that he thinks he is clever and can nuance absurdities - the sculp is an idiot for the most part.

      Delete
    5. Aw jeeze you guys - you certainly got me there! After all, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, George Will, Maureen Dowd, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington all deal in factual information and everything they write should be taken as the gospel truth. I stand corrected.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    6. George Will called your hero Trump a lackluster idiot - that was true.

      Delete
  10. The fundamentals of bluff-top real estate have to do with the varying width of the crest before it slopes down toward the east and the placement of the roads.

    South of Moonlight, it's Fourth St. and Seaview Lane. North of Moonlight, it's Fifth St. and Neptune Ave. Those alignments are after the huge collapse in the late 1800s that took away many, many near-bluff acres south of Moonlight.

    So there could be lots on both sides of the crest, the roads were placed and aligned in specific ways. That created lots of varying depths on both sides.

    The people who built on the west side didn't want their houses right on the road, so they placed them closer to the edge of the bluff.

    As time marched on, west side property owners paid the price for building too close to the bluff edge. Their precious property progressively fell to the beach. To try to prevent or at least slow the loss, they built seawalls.

    Who wouldn't want to live on the bluff? Given that, who wouldn't then try to save his/her property?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sculpin, if only that were true that you stood corrected. History does not support your claim. Now prove it with your posts to come from here on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, I do not subscribe to group-think, but I do subscribe to irony.

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    2. The irony that you think you're cute and witty?

      Delete
  12. Only a matter of time before we see cash only buyers for sea bluff properties. I don't think any bank would issue a load for something so risky.

    Very troubling for our coastline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already the case in LJ. Plus, they have to put down enough money for the clean up when they do fall into the ocean.

      Delete
    2. Vegas folks are cash folks....no problems

      Delete
    3. Chinese have plenty of cash too.

      Delete
    4. as do the Russians..

      Delete
    5. Does The City do any amount of vetting regarding who they are permitting? That is, who is the money or principals behind the balls-to-your-granny build projects? Who are these people that are knocking on doors asking - is your "under-built" lot for sale?
      Does The City believe that it is no one's business to ask? My own thought is that honest dollars, from hard working people are welcome but the question - "who are you?" is a fair question...race, nationality, etc. does not matter but - who are you and is the money "clean" is a question and answer that impacts the quality of life in this community.

      Delete
  13. Sounds all too familiar to another out of town poster who chooses to pollute our local blog and more than likely came from him, and just as trashy, minus a few of the usual key terms. Go away.

    Minds like these are a scourge upon society and birds of a feather flock together applies here again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks WC for taking the trash out again, even when it was a surrogate for the usual source of hate speech from out of town.

    The sentiment remains the same from these subhumans, no matter whether they are anonymous or not. Thanks for keeping our local blog free from these cretins.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good.

    Stop turning our greatest regional economic asset (beautiful, natural beaches) into a concrete bunker. Soon we'll rename Grandview to Omaha Beach.

    Any bluff top owner should be able to afford good insurance. If it can't be insured, the invisible hand of the market is telling you to get out. If you ignore the message and your house collapses, you earn one free punch on your Tough Shit Card®. Ten punches and you earn a brand new card.

    ReplyDelete