-----Original message----- From: richardsan [email protected] Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:19:16 -0700 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Stratalist-ot] It's never really linear
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Francis Drouillard <[email protected]>wrote: > > > I wish our Coastal Commission would ditch their "3-foot by 2100" estimate > > of sea level rise. That phony number is being used to unnecessarily deny > > people the use of their property. They extrapolate that phony number into a > > phony accelerated bluff retreat rate. They then argue that because the > > bluff retreat will make the parcel undevelopable in 75 years, it's > > undevelopable now. Furthermore, they insist that most people knew (or > > should have known) that the lot was undevelopable (due to phony numbers) > > and therefore their action does not constitute a "taking" under the US > > Constitution. > > > > ...you *get the kind of government interference that you vote for...* Wow, what a profound statement! So insightful. So enlightened. And quite a display of complete and utter ignorance of the California Coastal Act. > > > The Charter of the California Coastal Commission is good -- prevent > > private property owners from blocking beach access or from destroying > > coastal resources (wetlands and ESHA). But when environmental extremists > > took over the commission they began abusing their power by using the > > Coastal Act to stop development under any pretext possible. > > > > and you can't have it both ways... Another statement that demonstrates your complete and utter ignorance of the California Coastal Act. You really should try learning more about it before opening your mouth and inserting your foot. The Coastal Act was designed to protect public access to the coast and to protect coastal resources. It isn't necessary or desirable to stop "development" to accomplish either of those goals. (Keep in mind that "development" as defined in the Act includes activities such as building access paths and stairs, or wetland restorations, or fireworks displays.) The Act was not designed or intended to prevent development along the California coast. Rather, it was to make sure that development was consistent with the Coastal Act. It was not designed or intended to deprive people of their property rights based on inflated estimates of sea level rise. > > -- > knowledge and wisdom come from knowing a ""republican conservative"" is an > oxymoron. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > > Francis Drouillard, PE Novato, CA 94945 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
