OC Blog

Coastal Commission Rebuffed In Laguna Beach

I missed this story while doing the News Roundup this morning, but seeing as it reports on a heart-warming instance of a judge telling California Coastal Commission to butt out, I thought it deserved its own post:

An Orange County Superior Court judge has ruled that the California Coastal Commission does not have the authority to prevent a Catholic school's expansion in Laguna Beach.

The decision by Judge Ronald L. Bauer on Monday restarts the St. Catherine of Siena Catholic School's effort to expand at its current Coast Highway location, nearly two years after it applied to the city for a coastal development permit. 

Viva Judge Bauer! Call me old fashioned, but I believe jurisdiction over the coastlines should be in the hands of county governments, not some unelected statewide bureaucracy that functions as judge, jury and executioner. So any time the Coastal Commissariat has its ears slapped back is a good day for liberty.

San Juan's Open Space -- At What Price?

Members of the San Juan Capistrano City Council seem to be on the verge of approving an ordinance that would put open space zoning decisions in the hands of voters:

"There are certain things that are too important to have three (councilmembers) decide," Councilman Londres Uso said.

If that's the case, perhaps San Juan Capistrano should become an Athenian democracy and let the people directly exercise legislative and executive power themselves. If San Juan's 18,000 voters are competent to make informed land use planning decisions regarding open space, surely they can collectively manage the public works department and the parks department.

In any case, I ask Kristine Thalman, CEO of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, to pen a column addressing the San Juan Capistrano issues, and she graciously obliged:

Mayor Pringle Authors "Development Without Eminent Domain" Report

Steve Greenhut reports over at Orange Punch that Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle has authored a study released by the Castle Coalition entitled "Development Without Eminent Domain: Foundation of Freedom Inspires Economic Growth."

According to the Castle Coalition press release:

Pringle’s report explains how Anaheim’s leadership brought economic vibrancy to their city without resorting to any takings of private property.  It also explores the successes and failures of other cities around the nation in economic redevelopment.

Dana Point Preservationists Should Get Out Their Checkbooks

I saw in the OC Register today how "almost 600 people have told the city they don't want to see the Doheny House demolished."

If that's the case, I suggest those 600 people get out the check books and buy the house themselves, rather than try to impose their will on the actual property owner via the strong arm of government.

I love old houses as much as the next person and don't like to see them torn down. But unless I'm willing to pony up and save an old home from destruction by buying it myself -- or organizing other to pool our resources to purchase the property -- I have no business using government to impose my will on that property owner.

Property Rights In "Stanton-By-The-Sea"

Pollster, campaign consultant, blogger and media quotemeister Adam Probolsky penned an article for the new issue of Red County magazine:

San Clemente: A Mayor and City Council Oppose Home Improvement

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, San Clemente Mayor Wayne Eggleston was quoted as saying, “I wouldn’t want to stop in Stanton, much less [work] there.” Well, Mr. Eggleston may have more in common than he thinks with the central-county hamlet at the butt of his joke.

Last year, the Stanton City Council passed a law mandating home inspections by city officials. Not to be outdone by shabby, landlocked little Stanton, the San Clemente City Council has targeted a small neighborhood called Shorecliffs and effectively imposed an indefinite moratorium on home improvements there.

Brea Turns Up It's Nose To Walgreens

I saw that a bankruptcy judge sided with Brea and against bankrupt Tower Records' attempt to lease their 30,000 square foot space to Walgreens:

"There are a lot of places in our city where a Walgreens would be great," O'Donnell said. "But not in an entertainment/restaurant district."

A drugstore? Eeeewww...how tawdry! People with illnesses picking up prescriptions! Can't possibly have that across the street from the multiplex!

Have we come to this? Local government inserting itself into the free marketplace to the extent of deciding where it is and isn't appropriate to put a drugstore?

It's tragi-comic to read such statements from a Brea city official, especially since Brea city officials will deny until they are blue in the face that their city government is hostile to property rights.

If Brea is so particular about what will take the place of Tower Records and clearly do not trust Tower to find a replacement tenant that is compatible with an "entertainment/restaurant" district, why don't they pay the rent on the 30,000 square feet and find an "appropriate" tenant themselves for their hang-around-drink-lattes-watch-movies-get-an-ice-cream district?

Perhaps someday, enough Brea residents will say to themselves:

"There are a lot of places for where meddling bureaucrats are great -- but not in a freedom district."

Prop 90: Good Idea, Bad Initiative

Originally I believed supporting Prop 90 was a no-brainer, after all it is an anti-Kelo, anti-eminent domain initiative supported by our good friend Mimi Walters and the OC GOP. However, as Election Day drew near and I actually started reading my official voter information guide, I realized Prop 90 is a poorly thought out and poorly written initiative that embodies good fundamental ideas but lacks a clear and efficient way to implement them. I believe that private property rights must be protected, but not by an initiative that creates open ended liability for local governments towards many frivolous and time consuming lawsuits, which ultimately will impede economic growth and development.

The language in Prop 90 is too vague, one specific example is how local governments will have to compensate private land owners if any “laws and rules” pertaining to property cause “substantial economic loss” to a private property owner. There is no definition for substantial loss, which means it will be defined by many lawsuits, in many court rooms and by many judges, ultimately using a tremendous number of tax payer dollars.

Prop 90 at League of Cities

The so-called debate on Proposition 90 the other night at the Orange County League of Cities was uneventful and predictable. The evening was originally billed as a presentation on "Prop 90: the Taxpayer Trap," but vigilance from this blog and others pressured the League to include the other viewpoint. The "Yes on 90" side was ably represented by Assemblyman Ray Haynes. The "No" side was presented by John Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association.

Rally In Tustin Today To Protest League of Cities Anti-Prop. 90 Stance

This came over the transom a little while ago:

The Protect Our Homes Coalition will rally and carry out an informational picket at a meeting of the League of California Cities in Orange County

The statewide coalition will protest the League of California Cities' $1.8 million donation to defeat Proposition 90

Tustin, CA – A coalition of concerned citizens will rally today in the City of Tustin at the League of California Cities Orange County Chapter meeting, to protest the League of Cities intensified efforts to defeat Proposition 90, the “Protect Our Homes Initiative” in order to continue the takings of homes, churches and businesses to hand them over to private developers and big business, using the abusive practice of eminent domain.

Huntington Beach Vows To Fight Against Property Rights

Huntington Beach Mayor Dave Sullivan is retiring from office this year -- and none too soon. In news  story posted this afternoon on the OC Register website, Sullivan vowed the city would defend in court a two-year old law that could, according to the article, "force mobile home park owners to pay residents millions of dollars if they shut down their parks.":

Owners of three area mobile home parks are among a group that sued the city in June -- less than two years after the law was adopted to protect the city's roughly 6,000 mobile home residents and to preserve the 17 mobile home parks as low-cost housing.

The law requires park owners who want to shut down to relocate residents to a comparable park within a 20-mile radius or purchase the mobile homes at their in-place market value.

Why do local government officials so often treat mobile home park owners as if they weren't really  property owners and lack  real property rights? I know why: because mobile home residents tend to be vocal and organized, and councilmembers are afraid of them (as are legislators whose districts contain lots of mobile home parks).

I understand being upset if the owner of the mobile home park in which you live decides he or she wants to sell the land or develop it for another use -- but that's the risk of choosing to buy a home that's on land you don't own. Elected officials can empathize with displaced mobile home park residents, but at the end of the day the property rights of the landowner ought to take precedence, and city councilmembers ought to have the nerve to say as much. When government starts traducing the property rights of one group of people -- even in the name of "compassion" -- it traduces the property rights of everyone.