Case in point.

A $10,000 check to Bonnie Neely from a Southern California developer of the the last promontory in Southern CA. comes to mind. http://samoasoftball.blogspot.com/2010/02/bonnie-neely-garners-10000-from-so-cal.html.

I think Oshen and everyone else wants to see the commission operate fairly, transparently and with consistency. They especially want the CCC to stop harassing them over small stuff like rose bushes, patio furniture, etc.

This funding swap will help the CCC re-prioritize their mission and encourage them to spend their resources wisely, stop coastal cronyism, and go after egregious threats to the coast - not families, farmers and ranchers.

If it weren’t for PLF who would stand up for the people against the commission?

Truly funny. They are all appointed by politicians. As if it isn’t already “politicized.”

Great article here from the North Coast which explains the CCC very well.

http://www.times-standard.com/othervoices/ci_15068244

Sorry, Mr. Drouillard. The beginning of the end of Mr. Douglas’ tyranny is here.

(Last year, that office holder voted to approve the PXP/Tranquillon Ridge project, so imagine how eager he will be to prevent overdevelopment of the coast.)

Legal services for the Coastal Commission average about $2.5 million per year. Suits against the CCC are largely beyond the control of the CCC. The PLF, which serves to “break” the Coastal Act, spends about $500 thousand per year to achieve that goal.

The CCC is number 8 or 9 on the list of state agencies consuming legal services from the DOJ. At the top of the list is the Dept. of Corrections, which accounts for about 2/3 of those services.

The point is, if you (like RIchard Oshen and others) want to undermine the Coastal Act, then support the fund swap. If you want to maintain access to the coast and prevent overdevelopment of the coast, then you should ask your elected officials to oppose the fund swap.