CCC argued that “existing” is at the time of the permit. They have since changed their definition. See Pacific Legal Foundation's letter of opposition.
By Mark Greene |
June 9, 2017 at 12:04 am
This is a story of how abusive actions by the California Coastal Commission can upend a family’s hopes and dreams. It’s relevant no matter where you live, because if an agency — any agency — is allowed to erode property rights, everyone’s freedoms are less secure.
My wife, Bella, and I purchased a home in Playa Del Rey, with the hope of moving there when I retire next year from my position at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School to live near our grandchildren. We knew that the aging property would require a lot of updating before we moved in, but nothing inconsistent with local codes and zoning ordinances. However, we didn’t plan on the heavy-handed — and unlawful — demands we would face from the Coastal Commission. Read More Here
Smoke and Mirrors in Sacramento – AB 1129 is a Taking!
By passage of AB 1129, the Coastal Commission will alter the definition of “existing”, as used numerous times in the Coastal Act. It is a 180 degree change from previous interpretations of the Coastal Act that guarantee protections of property by the Coastal Commission. Property owners and Public Agencies rely on the Coastal Commission’s stated interpretation and they have relied on that interpretation for over 40 years. Should Coastal and or legislation now change that interpretation and retroactively define it as anything built before 1977, it is a taking.
Excerpts from Coastal Commission arguments before the California Court of Appeals supporting the common, logical meaning of "existing"
In their opening statement, they wrote: “This is a case in which the rules of statutory construction, sound public policy and common sense converge in harmony”