sins of commission

 

 
 
about the film sins of commission

Posts Tagged ‘Half Moon Bay Review’

California Coastal Commission - Why It Is Time For A Change

Sunday, April 18th, 2010

The Sterling Family

The Sterling Family

Dan Sterling has been locked in a decade-long battle to get a permit to build a home on land he purchased in 1997.

No one should ever have to do that.

This is not environmental protection, this is not politics  - this is EXTORTION, state run, government sanctioned - and its time for it to stop in California.

Mr. Sterling went on to say,” it took seven years to get a county permit to construct a 6,456-square-foot home on the land.”

Then the Coastal Commission took his plan under review and ultimately required he agree to turn over all but 10,000 square feet of the property for an agricultural easement, meaning use of the property surrounding his new home would be limited.

Last Friday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram ruled the Coastal Commission acted inappropriately. (HMBReview.com)

“While the (Coastal) Commission may have jurisdiction to impose an affirmative agricultural easement under the Local Coastal Plan, the imposition of the easement here constitutes an unconstitutional taking…

San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram

It was clear that the Coastal Commission was violating the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment prohibition on ‘takings’ forbids government from using the building permit process to extort property from the permit applicant. That’s exactly what the commission was trying to do. “It was exploiting the permit process as a chance to try to confiscate property from the Sterlings,”

J. David Breemer, Pacific Legal Foundation

The Sterling Family Children

There will no doubt be an unnecessary, lengthy. time consuming, and costly appeal processes as there was with another famous case Marine Forest Society.

In the spring of 2001, a superior court judge found the Coastal Commission to be unconstitutional under California’s separation-of-powers doctrine.

The judgment was then affirmed unanimously on appeal, with the appellate court finding a separation of powers violation. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79:281]

The problem with the California Coastal Commission is that the issue of the separation of powers still exists, the problem of no term limits still exists, and the appointment process still exists.

Even though the California Coastal Commission was Jerry-rigged at the last minute to pass muster by the state Supreme Court, until such time as the legislature changes what the California Coastal Commission does and how it does it - the California Coastal Commission will continue its end-run policy around constitutional law.

Quasi-judicial organizations like the California Coastal Commission create serious separation-of-powers concerns, and that those concerns are heightened by the scope of the Coastal Commission’s authority and jurisdiction,along with the powerful interests it regulates and has been demonstrated to promote cronyism and out right extortion.

It is not clear, however, that the appointment structure has actually insulated commissioners from political influence, and in fact, the appointment process has been called the Commission’s greatest flaw. It is precisely in a situation like this that courts should be wary of political self-interest leading legislators to diverge from the procedures that promote good law and help protect individuals from arbitrary policy-making.

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79:281]

Dan Sterling's children wait

The Sterling Family wait their fate

Until the structural mechanics of the California Coastal Commission is brought under reform, the commission will continue to abuse its power.

It is unfortunate for all the people of California that the California Coastal Commission does not care about the pain it inflicts on California coastal families.

Perhaps this is the best example of why it it important the  California Coastal Commission foots its own legal bills as proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Maybe then, and only then, we will see the end to the California Coastal Commission’s abuse of their authority, stop their over reach of jurisdiction, and end years of ruining people’s lives…for what? A “dedication” of property.

 

Still got a few - and I mean a few - of these stylin’ SINS OF COMMISSION hats, and I will send you one FREE as a personal thank-you gift with any donation over $110.00.  ($10 is Shipping + Handling). You receive both a tax deduction and a hat when you click the donate now button on the upper right.

The California Coastal Commission wants your home - part 2

Monday, April 13th, 2009

For over 30 years the California Coastal Commission has overzealously pursued a clear-cut course of action to control private property. The latest example: A big-home ban limiting the size of beach homes, orchestrated by Santa Cruz County,  was upheld by Coastal Commission. 

Pleasure Point residents Barry and Susan Porter sued [Santa Cruz] county two years ago, claiming that [a county] ordinance was unfair, but their lawsuit was put on hold while the ordinance made its way through the approval process.

The Porter argue the ordinance unfairly strips property owners of developable space.

The effort to trim home sizes is not over. County supervisors face a legal challenge to their ordinance, which reduces the amount of land on which a coastal property owner can build.

(Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel)

Every form of tyranny begins by destroying property rights.

The coastal commission's idea of a dream home.

Once the Triple C gets a legal toe-hold and can cut back the size of one home today, they’ve established a precedent, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll push for more next year, more the year after, and so on until they  force people out of the coastal zone completely.

Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take 5 miles inland. 

When agencies of other states see the CCC get away with this, they’ll try it too - and perhaps they’ll try it right where you live…perhaps they’ll even try your house.

Machiavellian schemes like these, often hatched by non-government corporations, foisted upon the public, and enforced by government agencies and commissions with unlimited legal resources, weaken what remains of our liberty.  

Policies like these are usually implemented without public knowledge and more importantly voter input. Driving a single family into bankruptcy goes unseen. 

If the right to life is the source of all rights, the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.

- Ayn Rand 

Perhaps there needs to be an organization of people? People who live in homes and are tired of coastal  commission’s abusive actions. 

A recent discussion about SINS OF COMMISSION on TALK ABOUT, a blog of the HALF MOON BAY REVIEW got so heated, it  was closed on February 25th. There were well over 300 comments to that thread, making it the second most commented-on thread ever on TALK ABOUT.

Perhaps then, it is possible. People can stop the California Coastal Commission, and other quasijudicial agencies like them whatever state they are in, from destroying one of our essential freedoms along the way- the right to own property and be secure one’s home. 

If one freedom goes, so do all the others  - eventually.  

The California Coastal Commission wants YOUR home - part 1

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Treachery on the California Coast!

Dan and Denise Sterling's four children

Dan and Denise Sterling's four children

A family in El Granada filed suit against the California Coastal Commission Wednesday to retain a 143-acre piece of Coastside property without converting part of it to farmland.

Plaintiffs Dan and Denise Sterling sought to build a house on their land and, in applying for a building permit, hit a snag, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation. 

[T]he Coastal Commission will not grant them [Dan and Denise Sterling] a building permit unless they give the state an agricultural easement over most of their property - more than 140 acres - and pledge that it will be forever dedicated for farming or cattle grazing.”

“In essence, the commission is trying to force the family into the farming or ranching business - and trying to coerce them into turning their property into perpetual open space, without being compensated a penny,”

-Harold Johnson, Pacific Legal Foundation

The Sterlings have been living in a mobile home since buying the land, all the while attempting to secure a building permit for an approximately 6,000 square-foot home. They have continued to graze cattle. The homesite would not displace any land being farmed or used for grazing. In 2006, they finally acquired a permit from the County, but it was appealed to the Commission by the Commission.

Commission staff recommended a permit imposing an “affirmative” agricultural easement the Sterlings’ land

After substantial delay, the Commission finally held a hearing on the Sterlings’ proposal on February 5, 2009. At the hearing, the Commission staff recommended a permit condition requiring imposition of an “affirmative” agricultural easement on all of the Sterlings’ land outside their 10,000 square foot building area. The Commission approved it. The condition requires the Sterlings to dedicate an easement to a public or publicly approved trust group which requires the land to be farmed forever.

The condition allows the holder of the easement to come in on the Sterlings’ land…

The Sterlings object to the condition because it prevents them from ever subdividing their land, transfers their development rights to the public, and imposes an affirmative servitude on their land. They have requested PLF’s assistance in obtaining a judicial ruling striking down the easement condition.

(Source: Pacific Legal Foundation)



 
 
Subscribe for Updates
First name
E-mail
 
facebook international documentary association imdb youtube