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.
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by Francis Drouillard March 24, 3:03 PM
Cool. Where do I get this film?
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by FILM GUY March 25, 11:58 PM
The battle heats up in response to Ginger Liu’s review of SINS OF COMMISSION… and the film isn’t even out yet - Nor is it likely it will be anytime soon since no film festivals in the state of California will screen it - including the LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL and SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL.
The “criminalisation” of general care of one’s own land certainly seems un-American…
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by FREEMAN March 23, 5:21 PM
People in California must see this film.Sadly, it will take another catastrophic fire before Governor Schwarzenegger, the legislature, and the people take a serious look at the California Coastal Commission.
- Richard Oshen, Filmmaker, SINS OF COMMISSION
I am keenly interested, and intend to forward this to those who also make it their job to inform the public of such eye-opening situations. This is not some minor drab of a documentary, but one of great interest to all parties involved.
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by BW March 25, 7:56 AM
oshen is a wanted criminal; who is running from the law
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by LOPSIDED March 23, 8:57 AM
That accuser is slanderous. Accountability is a door that should swing both ways. The accuser is the one actually crossing the line into the arena of criminal behavior.
Comment on INSIDE HOLLLYWOOD EXAMINER by pG March 23, 12:51 PM
By taking on the California Coastal Commission head on, this riveting and intelligent documentary from Richard Oshen exposes the archaic and unbending rules of power on the lives of ordinary homeowners.
SINS OF COMMISSION got its first review today. Getting a review from a film critic would normally be a proud moment shared with friends and loved ones. A time to crack open a bottle of champagne and celebrate. But for me, it is a joyless solitary moment filled with torment as I toss and turn to reconcile within why someone in the “comments” section would call me a “criminal” who is supposedly “on the lam from justice” for making a film.
What crime did I commit? What charges are against me? And who is my my accuser that hides in the shadows of anonymity? Come forward and be seen.
Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone…
SINS OF COMMISSION is a film I never wanted to make, never intended to make, but felt compelled to make. Why did I do it? Beacuse, for me, and hopefully for you, once a truth is known, it cannot be unknown. One person sent an e-mail today and simply said, “thank you.”
My husband and I have been battling the CCC for 13 years…My husband had a heart attack in 1998 from all of the stress from dealing with them and their lies and craziness -
Kathleen Kenny died from colon cancer one year after I interviewed her. Other people, people you may know or possibly neighbors you have have heard about, suffered the slings and arrows of persecution thrown at them with impunity by commissioners appointed by the highest officials in our state - simply because they audaciously wanted to live on land they purchased. This should not stand. We must do better.
Something is rotten in the state of California but by suppressing SINS OF COMMISSION, that dirty dark secret will not be brought out into the sunlight of truth for all of us to see, to debate, to comment upon, to ponder, to talk amongst ourselves, and do such things as we do in a democracy. We must do better.
If you are an independent documentary filmmaker in a country in which independent journalism is seen as a danger to those in power, you are talking a risk. But preserving democracy for all means risks must be taken. Democracy is not a spectator sport.
At stake is more than just freedom of expression. We Americans live in a country built on the principle of separation of powers - where power is separated into three distinct branches of government that are supposed to check and balance each other so there can never be an accumulation of absolute power in any one branch. This is not a Conservative principle, this is not a Liberal principal, it is not a Democratic principle, it is not a Republican principle…it is an American principle- and we must do better.
Any agency of any state or regulatory commission that embraces all 3 branches of government, in direct opposition of our principle of the separation of powers - even for the “noblest of intentions” - needs to be reevaluated. Unfettered power still corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Sins of Commission exposes Southern California’s law makers
By taking on the California Coastal Commission head on, this riveting and intelligent documentary from Richard Oshen exposes the archaic and unbending rules of power on the lives of ordinary homeowners
The story unfolds naturally as we first sympathize with the rule makers in preventing the destruction of habitat by homeowners until the CCC quite remarkably shoot themselves in the foot as dogmatic rules and corruption unfold. The film shows all sides with interviews from couples that have fought the CCC for years, ex CCC staff that believe in the Commission but not their strict laws, and the Commissioners themselves who are absolute and unwavering.
No one is denying the purpose of a commission that protects Southern California’s rich landscape. Oshen’s film dares to question authority and in doing so ignites the kind of investigative journalism that has been sadly missing during Bush years.
“Driving through Victoria, it’s just like driving through coastal California. … With the same heat, the same winds and dry fuels, California always has the potential to burn like that,”
-Kevin Olson, chief of California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Chief Olson, head of California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said southeastern Australia faces some of the same fire problems because of similar climates and topography as California.
While that may be so, it all boils down, or um burns down, to sensible vegetation management. As long as uber-powerful state commissions like the California Coastal Commission and governmental entities in Australia ban people from clearing brush the problem won’t go away.
So what is the problem?
It’s the fuel, stupid!
Excerpt from Chief Scott Franklin’s exclusive SINS OF COMMISSION interview.
A method to reduce flame lengths, reduce down wind spotting, and reduce emissions while meeting fuel reduction requirements, was found by crushing chaparral and allowing it to cure for several days prior to burning. Crushing and burning has proven to be a highly successful tool in managing vegetation at the urban wild land interface.
-Scott Franklin, Fire Captain and Vegetation Management Officer, County of Los Angeles Fire Department (ret)
In California, most western U.S states, and Australia, the problem is two fold: 1) influx of residents into intermediate areas we call Urban Interface Areas and government prohibition on sensible vegitation Management.
Political pressure forced the Victorian Government to curtail back burning during winter months and eliminated the clearing of buffer areas between forests on the grounds that it is harming the environment and destroying wildlife habitat.
Basic forestry management procedures that would have limited the amount of fuel available and limited the speed at which these fires would have traveled were stopped.
The [California] fires, fought at a huge cost to taxpayers, failed to translate into any meaningful reforms at the state or federal level despite efforts in Sacramento and Washington.
As wildfire fire fighting costs in California spiral upwards, driven by one of the worst wildfire seasons in the state’s history, our government still waffles.
‘I don’t think you can take money from suppression to do fuels treatment,’ Rey said. ‘Suppression money is what saves lives and homes, so that’s not going to be a very popular posture.’
-Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey
Popular isn’t the issue. Fuel modification is, and I for one. don’t know why everyone is dancing around the issue. In fiscal 2008, half of the $1.4 billion that the U.S. Forest Service spent nationally on wildfire suppression was spent in California alone. State fire expenditures topped $1 billion.
The reason why recent fires in Australia are so bad, is the same reason last year’s firestorm almost blew down to the Pacific here in L.A - Prohibitions on brush clearance in large areas. Argueably, there are many factors to consider, but the truth is that the astonishing increase in the intensity of catastrophic wildfires cannot all be blamed on global warming. Here’s why -
The fires, fought at a huge cost to taxpayers, failed to translate into any meaningful reforms at the state or federal level despite efforts in Sacramento and Washington.
Let us not let recent rains and snow covered mountains lull us into a false sense of security. Another fire season is on the way sure as shootin’. But this time there are new techniques we can implement. So why not implement them?
Wildfire fire fighting costs in California spiral upwards, driven by one of the worst wildfire seasons in the state’s history.
Deer Lost ABove Malibu - Photo Alan Simmons
Feeling burnt?
Help us spread the word?
SINS OF COMMISSION needs your help. We desperately need funds to finish the film. Please donate now though our fiscal sponsor, The International Documentary Association, a 501 c3 non profit organization, and receive a tax deduction from Uncle Sam or at least an I.O.U.
Name Change Won’t Alter Resources Agency’s Dark Mission
Big Kudos to Dan Bacher at TRUTHOUT. Dan is a local activist and an editor of The Fish Sniffer, “The No. 1 newspaper in the world dedicated entirely to fishermen.)
As all things environment move centerstage, more corporations and agencies like the California Coastal Commission are going to greenwash and drape themselves in a cloak of green to enable them to commit sins of commission under the guise of sound environmental protection.
The CCC has been doing this for years.
On January 1 The Resources Agency adopted a new name, the California “Natural” Resources Agency, to give the agency a more “green” veneer.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed at the agency. A press release from the agency in late December claimed that the name change was adopted to “better reflect its mission.”
“Since 1961, the Resources Agency has been responsible for the safeguarding and stewardship of California’s precious natural resources,” according to the release. “From water and wildlife management and conservation to wildland fire protection, energy, ocean and coastal policy, land stewardship, climate change adaptation, sustainable living, and the promotion of outdoor recreation, the agency oversees most all of the state’s functions designed to protect California’s natural resources.”
In July, Gov. Arnold “Fish Terminator” Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1464 (Maldonado) authorizing the Resources Agency to change its name. “The new Agency logo will remain largely the same and the change will be phased in gradually as new supplies are ordered,” the release stated. “In this way there will be little or no cost to the Agency or any of its departments, boards or commissions (The California Coastal Commission is one of them) save for any replacement costs that would normally be incurred.”
California’s Natural Resources Agency is responsible for the state’s natural resource policies, programs and activities. It has 17,000 employees and oversees 25 departments, commissions, boards and conservancies, including the Department of Fish and Game, Department of Water Resources, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, California Conservation Corps, Department of Boating and Waterways, Department of Conservation, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Department of Parks and Recreation.
(Note: Curious that the article did not mention the CCC in the line up)
However, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the Resources Agency to adopt a name that truly reflects its REAL primary mission? Based on years covering California fisheries, this mission appears to be engineering the collapse of Central Valley salmon fisheries, driving the California Delta’s pelagic fish populations to the edge of extinction, building a peripheral canal, constructing more dams, slashing funds for salmon and steelhead restoration, and instituting massive closures of public trust fisheries throughout the state’s ocean waters.
Considering all of this, wouldn’t “the Natural Destruction Agency” be a more appropriate name for the agency?
Other potential names for the agency could be
“Bureau of Corporate Greenwashing,”
“Raping of Natural Resources Agency,”
“No More Natural Resources Agency,”
“The Fish Termination Agency,” or the “Water Exports Agency.”
Readers of Dan’s articles have also suggested the “Final Legislative Usurpation of Significant Habitats, FLUSH,” and “The Death Star” as more appropriate names for this agency with such a legacy of environmental destruction behind it.
While the name of the agency has changed, pelagic (open water) fish populations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta continue to collapse. There is nothing “natural” about this unprecedented and catastrophic species decline.
The delta smelt population has declined to its lowest level ever, according to the latest data from the DFG’s fall midwater trawl survey. The DFG studies the health of these populations by compiling an “index” - a relative measure of abundance. The index declined to 23 in fall 2008, down from the previous low level of 28 in fall 2009.
These fish populations have declined to unprecedented low population levels because of the deplorable water and fishery management policies of the California “Natural” Resources Agency under the Schwarzenegger administration, combined with extremely bad management by the federal government.
In 1976, the California Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act that established a far-reaching coastal protection program and made permanent the California Coastal Commission. ( Source: California Natural Resources Agency.
The commission is supposed to plan and regulate development and natural resource use along the coast in partnership with local governments and in keeping with the requirements of the Coastal Act. SINS OF COMMISSION reveals the commission’s unsung other mission is to destroy chapparral, sell environmental degredation, obliterate constitutional rights, and cook the books on pollution standards.
The crisis in Delta fisheries, or in the abundant chaparral that surrounds major California cities will not be solved by changing the agency’s name..but by cleaning house.
Something smell fishy to you too? Help us get the word out. Hit the Donate Now button on the right.
3 1/2 years after Peggy called me to document a California Coastal Commission inspection; SINS OF COMMISSION debuted at the 2009 NATPE CONVENTION (National Association of Television Program Executives), in LAS VEGAS.
Even though SINS OF COMMISSION is not finished, we had no choice but to present it to the global film and television distribution community.
Time is running out for California.
NATPE 2009 Opening coincides with Chinese New Year
One question each distributor inevitably asks is why a film dealing with a local “California” issue has global importance. It’s a darn good question. Here’s my response -
ERIN BROKAVITCH was a film about a powerful utility company called P G & E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) and took place in the sleepy southern California town of Hinkley. Who ever heard of Hinkley?
SILKWOOD was about a local small and previously unknown company, Kerr-McGee. The story took place in a Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma. Does anyone know where Crescent is?
Everyone knows where the California is.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas….but what happens in California effects the world.
-Richard Oshen, Writer, Director, Producer
NATPE 2009 IDA Booth
The events revealed in ERIN BROKAVITCH and SILKWOOD entered our national debate and shaped policy.
Although the corruption each film exposed occurred in a local context… it occurs in every state in our nation and universally.
Each film’s specific event is a template anyone living anywhere in the world can identify with.
Same with SINS OF COMMISSION.
Corruption is universally understood.
California Wild Fires from Space
The dialog SINS OF COMMISSION ignites, will shape California state environmental policy and will also have a profound effect domestically and internationally for several reasons:
1) quasijudicial regulatory agencies operate in every state in our country and occur internationally
2) land use is an incredibly hot topic, and
3) the entire world is effected by the CO2 California emits each year from catastrophic wildfires
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
NATPE 2009 - IDA Booth
SINS OF COMMISSION urgently needs your support to complete the film.
SINS OF COMMISSION is a fiscally sponsored film through the IDA - the International Documentary Association a 501 c3 Non Profit organization.
All contributions made thru the IDA are tax deductible.
Times are tough for all of us, but so are we…and they won’t get better unless we pull together.
In 2005, the wildfire survivors pressed for passage of an ambitious proposal by Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough), chairwoman of the state Senate’s insurance committee, who held her own hearings on the industry’s actions after the wildfires and believed that the previous year’s legislation was insufficient.
Speier proposed that insurers pay out 85% of the limit for personal property without demanding a list of everything lost. Only homeowners wanting to collect the policy limit would have to submit a complete inventory. The concept was endorsed by a Republican senator from San Diego County, Bill Morrow of Oceanside, and it passed the Senate.
When the measure moved to the Assembly, it could not get through the lower house’s Insurance Committee. Insurers complained that they would have no way to stop homeowners from exaggerating the value of lost contents and said most people’s possessions were not worth 85% of their coverage.
The Assn. of California Insurance Cos. wrote to Vargas that the provision “provides another easy vehicle for fraudulent behavior on the part of policyholders.”
Vargas said he agreed. Although homeowners shouldn’t have to document the loss of “clothes, underwear, the stuff in your kitchen,” he said, they should provide proof of “super-expensive stereos, mink coats, flat-screen TVs.” He said insurers should not have to pay out more than 30% of a policy limit without an inventory of things lost. Speier ” who is widely disliked by insurers even though they have donated at least $264,247 to her since 2000 ” saw that Vargas’ panel would not pass the measure, and she removed the provision so the rest of her bill would pass.
The final version required insurers to provide two years of living expenses, rather than one, for people who lose their homes, but Speier called the bill “a ghost of its previous self.”
“It’s common knowledge,” she said in an interview, “that the Assembly Insurance Committee has become the graveyard for any consumer protection measures relating to insurance.”
Industry-supported laws that passed gave homeowners more options for mediation and required insurers to give a specific reason when they choose not to renew a policy. Lawmakers also placed restrictions on public adjusters’ soliciting victims of natural disasters, by passing a bill that Vargas introduced.
Insurers also must now renew a policy at least once after a house is destroyed by a natural disaster, and cannot leave disaster victims without insurance while their homes are under reconstruction.
Garamendi and Speier, who are competing this year for the Democratic nomination for lieutenant governor, say these laws are major improvements. Consumer advocates and many wildfire survivors say they are insufficient responses to the problems uncovered during the fires.
“We can’t ever get the tough medicine,” said Bach, whose group has been pressing for changes since the 1991 Oakland Hills fire. “Every time, we’ve had the same challenge: The insurance industry has an extremely powerful lobby in Sacramento. All the reforms we’ve been able to get through are watered down.”
The October 2003 wildfires, which swept huge areas from Ventura County to the Mexican border, damaged or destroyed 3,631 buildings and were blamed for 24 deaths. Although some insurers won accolades for their response, the state insurance department received 869 complaints concerning insurers ” roughly one for every four lost houses.
Garamendi and a number of legislators held public hearings in Southern California and fashioned legislative solutions to recurring complaints. Insurers said the survivors’ stories were not symptoms of larger problems and most claims were resolved with minimal dispute.
“A great many of these issues were brought up based on anecdotes,” said Bill Sirola, a spokesman for State Farm who is based in Sacramento. “Sometimes in the emotional aftermath of disasters, like the fires down in the Southland, there’s a great amount of publicity to what has seemingly gone wrong without seeing that, by and large, everything has gone well.”
State Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) introduced a measure in 2004 to prohibit insurers from canceling a policy or raising its cost because a home had suffered damage from a natural disaster or something beyond the owners’ responsibility or control.
Among the homeowners who testified was Lisza Pontes. Her Lakeside house was damaged but was spared destruction largely because she had spent more than $50,000 on fire-resistant coating and brush clearance.
“Mine was the only house on a street of 13 that wasn’t a complete loss,” she said. Nonetheless, after Pontes filed a claim, her insurer placed her in a more expensive, high-risk pool, and 17 other California companies rejected her before she found an out-of-state firm that would insure her.
Industry officials argued that it was reasonable to be skeptical of people with a history of filing claims, because they are more likely to file future claims. State regulators and consumer advocates countered that insurers practice “use it and lose it” to deter people from filing claims. Six members of the Assembly Insurance Committee voted for Escutia’s measure, SB 1474. Three opposed it. Nine votes were needed to pass the bill.
Under Sacramento rules, a measure needs the support of a majority of a committee’s members ” not just a majority of those casting votes. The panel at that time had 17 members. Escutia’s bill failed because eight did not vote, though attendance records show that all were present in the Assembly that day. In 2005, a scarcity of participants in Vargas’ committee killed another bill concerning homeowners insurance.
Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) had proposed banning insurers from using potential customers’ credit histories in deciding whether to sell them policies. Ortiz said consumers’ credit was irrelevant to whether they were likely to file insurance claims. The industry countered that its studies showed that people who fell behind on their credit were more likely to fail to take care of their homes.
When the measure, SB 603, came before Vargas’ committee, which had been reorganized into a 10-member panel, three legislators cast votes for the bill, and two against it. The bill failed because five other legislators, including Vargas, did not vote, though all were in the Capitol that day.
As do many other interest groups, companies that write homeowners insurance have multiple ways of currying favor with legislators. Disclosure records show that since 2003, property insurers have picked up the tab 70 times on items as small as a $3.72 breakfast and as large as a $340 round of golf at Pebble Beach.
“That’s our premium dollars working against us,” said George Kehrer, executive director of Community Assisting Recovery, an advocacy group founded after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. In the last three years, Allstate, Farmers Insurance Group and two industry associations gave committee member Ronald S. Calderon (D-Montebello) $1,300 in golf fees, meals and a room at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas. Allstate also paid for a $170 meal at a Pebble Beach clubhouse for Calderon and his wife.
In May 2003, Farmers paid for Calderon and then-committee member George Nakano (D-Torrance) to attend a Laker game at $114 per ticket. State Farm gave $50 tickets to a 2004 Clipper game to staffers who work for Nakano and for two colleagues on the panel, Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) and Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood).
In March 2005, Farmers bought dinner for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), Vargas and the committee’s chief advisor at a cost of $166 a person. Insurers do not overlook the Republican minority on the panel, though records show that they have tended to pay for smaller events, like a $32 reception in 2003 for Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks), who owns an insurance business (Cox was elected to the Senate last year). Committee vice chairman John Benoit (R-Palm Desert) received a $67 dinner in 2004.
One of the most active lobbying groups is the Personal Insurance Federation of California, formed by Farmers and State Farm in 1989 after voters imposed stringent new rules on insurers through Proposition 103.
Between 2003 and 2005, the federation paid for 22 meals for committee members and their aides, as well as a $290 golf game for Vargas’ brother, Javier. A frequent participant at those meetings, legislators said, was the federation’s president, Dan Dunmoyer, now a deputy chief of staff to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Vargas said the perks were irrelevant. “Most of the contact I have is not with them,” he said. “Most of the time I’m meeting with citizens, I’m meeting with friends of mine, and these are people who are not in the insurance business.”
Vargas noted that since he became chairman of the committee, he has sponsored three bills opposed by insurers and often votes against their interests.
Several of the wildfire survivors said Vargas particularly disappointed them. “When we found out that the chairman of the insurance committee was a San Diegan, we thought: ‘How great, who better than a local guy to know what had happened,’ ” said Ciaran Thornton, who lost his Harbison Canyon house in the fires. Thornton and a friend whose home had narrowly escaped incineration met with Vargas at his Chula Vista office in June 2004.
“We sat down, he listened to us. He said, ‘We’ll see what we can do.’ It was very hard convincing him. It was pretty much a roadblock,” Thornton said. “He never got back to us at all.”
Vargas said he gave wildfire victims extensive opportunities to make their cases, both privately and before his panel. But he said his empathy was outweighed by concerns that greater protections for wildfire areas, which tend to be affluent, would be paid for by more economically vulnerable people.
“You know who’s going to get hurt? It’s the elderly woman who has never had a claim, never done anything wrong, and her rates are going to go up by 10%, and that’s not right,” Vargas said.
Amy Bach, executive director of United Policy Holders, a San Francisco homeowner advocacy group, said the schmoozing between legislators and lobbyists cements personal relationships that carry over into the Capitol.
“If the guy’s gotten them a great tee time on a very coveted golf course, then they’re pals, and that makes it that much harder on a personal level to go against them,” she said.
See which California lawmakers, that represent you, make the biggest bucks from the insurance industry in Part 4.
Bruce W. McClendon, the chief land use planner for Los Angeles County, was fired Friday by the county’s chief executive. McClendon thinks it was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on county supervisors’ aides.
McClendon said he was called to a meeting with William T Fujioka and told he was terminated from his $191,028-a-year job as head of the Department of Regional Planning. Security officers later escorted him out of the building.
According to the LA TIMES, when McClendon was reached by telephone, he said
… he believed he had been fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle on county supervisors’ aides. He said he had given Fujioka information that showed that aides to the county supervisors routinely sought to improperly influence decisions on whether to permit development plans.
“It was illegal, and they can go to jail for doing it,”said McClendon, 62. He said his meetings with Fujioka in recent weeks made it clear that he was likely to be fired. He said he recently began consulting with attorneys in preparation for filing a whistle-blower retaliation lawsuit.
Fujioka denied that McClendon had given him such information. Aides to Supervisors Michael Antonovich, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Mark Ridley-Thomas and Zev Yaroslavsky declined to comment on the allegations.
McClendon said that he had to protect his staff from day-to-day interference from supervisors’ aides, which was supposed to be reduced under a new county structure that went into effect in 2007.
The Department of Regional Planning performs all land use planning functions for the unincorporated areas of the county. Like Topanga Canyon. Services include long-range planning, land development counseling, project review, environmental review and zoning enforcement.
The more things change… the more things stay the same….
Los Angeles County’s unincorporated areas include more than 2,600 square miles and represent two-thirds of the county’s land and one-tenth of its population. Some of that land is in the California Coastal Zone, and under the jursidiction of the California Coastal Commission…
In the wake of the Southern California wildfires, lawmakers proposed six bills that, among other provisions, would have forced insurers to provide consumers with more information about policy choices, made it harder for companies to raise rates or cancel coverage and reduced the documentation that homeowners must provide to collect on a claim.
Those provisions, like others strongly opposed by the insurance industry, never made it to the Assembly floor.
The less ambitious bills that passed into law, with insurers’ consent, extended living expenses for those awaiting rebuilt homes, gave homeowners more options for mediation as an alternative to lawsuits and prevented insurers from canceling coverage while a home’s reconstruction was underway.
What happened to the homeowners bill of rights?
“What happened to the homeowners bill of rights is certainly an example of the power of this industry,” said state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, referring to a package of legislation that his office helped write in response to the wildfires.
The committee’s members and insurers alike said donations and gifts had no influence on legislative decisions. Insurers praised the panel for understanding that the proposed rules would have cost them so much that they would have raised premiums on all California homeowners.
“A lot of the bills were written because a natural disaster had happened, and people were writing bills that weren’t fully thought out,” said Juan Vargas (D-San Diego), chairman of the Assembly panel. Insurers, he said in an interview, “have to be held accountable, but at the same time you have to look at the whole picture: These guys are going to make money no matter what, so you have to keep the prices down.”
Rex Frazier, general counsel for the Personal Insurance Federation of California, commended the panel for finding compromises that produced “better bills.” “A number of the bills that were introduced were well-intended,” Frazier said, “but were not good policy.”
The industry does not rely solely on the force of its arguments to sway lawmakers. Vargas has received more than $325,377 in campaign contributions from the industry, most of it since he took over the panel in 2003. Insurance donations were 17% of the money he raised for his two Assembly races. He is now making his third run for Congress, trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Bob Filner (D-Chula Vista) in the June Democratic primary.
In addition to the campaign donations, insurers with interests before the committee bought Vargas 13 meals, including one for $181 at Morton’s steakhouse in 2004. They paid for his flight to Boston to attend an industry conference and for rounds of golf.
Such events provided the industry with opportunities to present its perspective on legislation. Vargas said his legislative decisions derived not from the gifts and donations, all of which were legal, but from his moderate, pro-business views.
Wildfire survivors who came to Sacramento to press for changes said the committee’s position rarely deviated from that of the industry.
“When it came time to vote on one bill, lobbyists literally ran up to the dais and slipped them notes,” said Rebecca Huston, a screenwriter whose home in Cedar Glen was destroyed in the fires and one of a dozen wildfire victims who came at Garamendi’s behest to testify about their experiences.
“I watched insurance lobbyists mouth things to the Insurance Committee,” Reimus said. “You hear about people being in the pocket of an industry, and I really got to see it firsthand.”
Erik Strahm, a computer project manager at UC San Diego who also testified and met with lawmakers, said: “Always what we ended up hearing was, ‘Well, the insurance lobby is really strongly against this.’ At dinner one night, we actually ran into the insurance lobby giving a party to a lot of the lawmakers we had spoken to.”
See which California lawmakers, that represent you, make the biggest bucks from the insurance industry in Part 4.
.jpg)
