Can Venice Continue to Coast?
By Moe
Stravnezer
A recent court decision
regarding the Coastal Commission has caused great concern among those of us who
strongly support the protection of our coast. This is especially true in Venice
when, between 1972 and 1987, the Coastal Act provided an alternative to the
rapacious development tendencies of the City of Los Angeles.
Indeed, were it not for the Coastal Commission,
Venice would be unrecognizable: hotels would dot the ocean front and Pacific Av;
a major road would bisect the community; the canals and Ballona Lagoon would be
deep dredged allowing motorized boats to ply the waterways; and hundreds of
units of affordable housing would not exist. This didn't happen because
community activists successfully appealed these development schemes to the
Coastal Commission. So, reports that the court had put the commission in
jeopardy sent shock waves through the community.
These shock waves were felt throughout
the state as well. Drive the coast highway and you'll be struck by what you
don't see as much as what you do. Wetlands that aren't filled by developments,
access to beaches that didn't exist before, oil rigs that aren't there, dwarf
forests that you can walk through, mountains unspoiled by housing developments,
views not blocked by hotels or Wal-Marts. The effect the Coastal Commission has
had on our precious coast and the people of California is incalculable. And, is
taken for granted.
Taken for
granted, in part, because almost half the people living in California today are
too young to remember a time before Proposition 20, which established the
commission, was passed in 1972. In large measure, however, its because so many
of us have simply gotten used to the commission being there that we have
forgotten the work it has done.
But,
contrary to rumor and innuendo, the court did not strike down the Coastal Act
nor did the court abolish the Coastal Commission. What the court did do, in a
very narrowly drawn opinion, is to declare that the legislature has too much
control over the commissioners it
appoints.
A little background will
help. In order to defend the commission from undue influence by a single branch
of the government, the Coastal Act of 1976 was crafted to give each house of the
legislature and the governor an equal number of appointments to the commission.
Thus, the Senate Rules Committee, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Governor
each appoints 4 commissioners to 2-year terms. This is similar to the process
used in appointing members to many of the state's regulatory boards and
commissions. But the Coastal Act is different in one crucial respect and that
difference is the linchpin of the court's decision.
The Coastal Act allows appointees two
year terms at the pleasure of the appointing authority. In other words,
commissioners can be removed at will. To quote directly from the court's
opinion:
"The flaw is that the
unfettered power to remove the majority of the Commission's voting members, and
to replace them with others, if they act in a manner disfavored by the Senate
Committee on Rules and the Speaker of the Assembly makes those commission
members subservient to the
Legislature."
Ironically, this is the
opposite view of the anti-commission people who brought the suit that resulted
in this decision. Their view has always been that the commission is out of
control, unfettered by any agency of government. Meaning, of course, that the
commission could over-rule local government decisions where developers have far
greater influence to the detriment of the public. In other words, lets go back
to the bad old days when the coast was for sale and the public be
damned!
So, what can be done?
The Coastal Commission has taken the
first steps. In early January, the commission voted to: first, appeal to the
court to rehear this matter; second, to appeal the decision to the California
Supreme Court if the appellate court refuses a rehearing. In either case, the
court decision would be stayed during the appeal process and the commission
would continue to function normally. It should be noted that either the
appellate court or the supreme court can simply strike the "offending" language
from the Coastal Act and that would be that.
There is also the strong possibility
that the matter would go to the state legislature, especially if the court
refuses either appeal. And here there are many possibilities. The legislature
could simply vote to strike the section of the Act that allows for removal of
commissioners at will and satisfy the court's decision. But when such a change
takes effect is also an issue. So, many are urging the governor to call a
special session of the legislature because a change in a special session takes
effect in 90 days while the same change in a regular session would not take
effect until next year. Is this complicated
enough?
If not, consider the fact that
there is some movement out there to increase the number of commissioners so that
the governor would get to chose the majority rather than the same number as the
senate and assembly. Imagine what the commission would have looked like under
Pete Wilson or Ronald Reagan if that were the law when they were governor.
There may come a time, and it may come
sooner than later, when we will have to demonstrate our support for a strong,
independent Coastal Commission. A recent letter in the L.A. Times from a man in
Seattle states the case for doing just that says it better than I
can:
“California's coast is a
priceless resource enjoyed by all. The Coastal Commission has championed public
access, environmental protection and economic development for all the people,
not just the few who can afford the high cost of coastal real
estate.”
Hear, hear!!
Posted: Sat
- February 1, 2003 at 08:28 PM