The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: mrclose on January 16, 2019, 01:12:32 PM
-
Let's see how the wankers who were lamenting over the possible land seizing that Trump was going to have to do to build a border wall will react to this? :whistling:
(Trump wouldn't need to land grab due to the Roosevelt Reservation Act of 1907)
The California Coastal Commission is set to empower local government to take thousands of properties through eminent domain along 1,100 miles of coastline to prepare for sea level rise.
Despite California being battered by 4-8 inches of torrential rain and flooding from an El Niño weather cycle, E&E News reported that the State of California in late January will authorize eminent domain authority for local jurisdictions to implement a "managed retreat" policy that will allow taking and demolishing coastal homes and businesses.
The California Coastal Commission circulated an 87-page "Draft Residential Adaptation Guidance" in March regarding how communities could proactively address sea level rise impacts through Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Although the CCC draft did not adopt specific retreat guidance, the California Special Districts magazine expects that the CCC will predict a sea level rise of 2.5-5.5 feet and the elimination of 31-67 percent of Southern California beaches by the year 2100.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/california_set_to_seize_1100_miles_of_coastline.html
-
Ummmm ... no. I don't know whether this writer's alarmism is due to misunderstanding or dishonesty, but this document is NOT about governments taking mass stretches of private property through eminent domain.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RESIDENTIAL ADAPTATION POLICY GUIDANCE (https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/climate/slr/vulnerability/residential/RevisedDraftResidentialAdaptationGuidance.pdf)
This Guidance is advisory. It provides the Commission’s direction on how local governments can address sea level rise issues in Local Coastal Programs consistent with the Coastal Act. The guidance is not a regulatory document or legal standard of review for the actions that the Commission or local governments may take under the Coastal Act. Such actions are subject to the applicable requirements of the Coastal Act, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, certified Local Coastal Programs, and other applicable laws and regulations as applied in the context of the evidence in the record for that action. (PDF Page 4)
...
Takings Analysis Policy
As described above, this Guidance and several of the model policies provide a framework for avoiding future instances of takings; however, there may still be circumstances where a taking of private property would be unavoidable when applying the Coastal Act. In those cases, to help carry out Section 30010 of the Coastal Act by avoiding an application of the Coastal Act or an LCP that would cause an unconstitutional takings of private property, a local government may adopt an LCP policy that allows some development in a sea level rise hazard zone even though that development would normally be prohibited pursuant to other LCP policies. (PDF Page 52)
...
B.10 Takings Analysis
Where full adherence with all LCP policies, including for setbacks and other hazard avoidance measures, would preclude a reasonable economic use of the property as a whole, the [city or county, or Commission if on appeal] may allow the minimum economic use and/or development of the property necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. There is no taking that needs to be avoided if the proposed development constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise prohibited pursuant to other background principles of property law (e.g., public trust doctrine). Continued use of an existing structure, including with any permissible repair and maintenance (which may be exempt from permitting requirements), may provide a reasonable economic use. If development is allowed pursuant to this policy, it must be consistent with all LCP policies to the maximum extent feasible. (PDF Page 72)
I'm no fan of the California Coastal Commission, and would love to see it scrapped. But accusing it falsely the way this American Thinker writer did serves no one except Enviro-Crazies who do want to do away with private property rights.