PLF comments on Coastal Commission's sea-level rise scheme
For the last several years, the California Coastal Commission has been preparing a document called the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance. This document is intended to compel local governments and the CCC itself to take into account computer projections on potential sea level rise when making decisions about coastal property in California. It encourages land use permitting agencies to adopt certain sea level rise “adaptation” strategies, such as limiting seawalls, imposing extensive conditions on any such protective devices, requiring deep building “set backs,” and removing structures away from the coast.
This last Wednesday, June 8, 2015, the CCC considered the latest draft of this policy document. PLF’s Coastal Land Rights Project was there to give the agency some feedback – from a property rights perspective. The message? There is no sea-level rise exception to the United States Constitution, or to the property rights which it protects. A video of PLF’s comments can be found here at about 2:35:50 into the recording.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.