On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----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. >
yes...we must all be boring to you...you who knows all and sees everything with such clarity. we should all move to cali and help you fight the man... > 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. > sounds like a duck to me, frank. your vacillations are making you dizzy. -- 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.
