PLF Coastal Land Rights Project Busy Fighting Coastal Commission on Multiple Fronts
Author: Paul Beard
PLF's Coastal Land Rights Project has had a busy January so far:
On Saturday, we interviewed Venice residents about the California Coastal Commission's refusal to allow reasonable parking restrictions (from 2:00 a.m. – 6:00 a.m.) in their neighborhoods as a way to combat the pollution, crime, and parking issues created by nonresident vehicles. PLF will represent many of these residents as amici in a case challenging the Commission's powerto deny the restrictions, despite residents' strong support and the City of Los Angeles's approval. The Venice residents' compelling stories will be available soon on PLF's website.
On Monday, the Ventura County Chapter of Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights hosted PLF's Coastal Land Rights Project at an educational forum in Thousand Oaks, California. Attended by over 80 residents, the event highlighted PLF's work in the courts for property rights.
Earlier this month, my article entitled, "The California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights," appeared in the Winter Issue of The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. The article introduces readers to the Coastal Commission, its abuses of power, and what they can do to stop it and similar governmental agencies.
Finally, our appeal in Marsh v. California Coastal Commission was brilliantly argued by Project attorney Damien Schiff, in California's 4th District Court of Appeal. The appeal challenged the Commission's denial of a permit on the grounds that it had failed to act on the permit application in a timely manner and that it had applied the wrong permitting standard. Unfortunately, the court of appeal handed us a disappointing loss in an unpublished decision.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›