Del Mar Times: Solana Beach’s bluff rebuffed by Coastal Commission

erodible solana beach.jpg

The California Coastal Commission last month rejected a proposal to install concrete infills that would bolster a 90-foot gash in Solana Beach’s bluffs. Read More. 

The Daily Signal: A State Agency's Crusade Against Seawalls Erodes The Rule of Law

Daily signal post.jpg

“Pacific” means peaceful. But the ocean that bears that name doesn’t always live up to it.

How can oceanfront homeowners safeguard their property, even their lives, from the erosive power of the Pacific? Read More. 

Ignoring Rule of Law from Pacific Legal Foundaiton. 

The Orange County Register - Arbitrary rule violates law, property rights

                                                                                                                                              AP Photo/John Antczak

                                                                                                                                            AP Photo/John Antczak


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

40 Years of Coastal Protection up in Smoke?

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”


Surfrider vs CCC P2 Capture.JPG