Proposition 90 would doom coast to over-development

By Meg Caldwell
Thursday, October 19, 2006

More than 30 years ago, California lawmakers approved the California Coastal Act to safeguard this magnificent landscape from undue environmental harm and overdevelopment, and to protect the public's access to our beautiful beaches and coast.

Proposition 90 on California's Nov. 7 ballot threatens to tear a gaping hole through the safety net of protections for California's coast, placing the entire coast in jeopardy of undesirable developments and harmful activities like offshore drilling. Not only would Proposition 90 jeopardize our coast, it also threatens to dismantle many other environmental and consumer protections as well as laws that protect our neighborhoods and home values.

Under the guise of reforming eminent domain laws, Proposition 90 goes far beyond that to require state and local governments to pay property owners any time any government measure ``substantially'' reduces property values. While this may seem reasonable on the surface, Proposition 90 is anything but. Proposition 90 is so poorly written and rife with loopholes that even basic regulations and government actions -- like voter-approved initiatives to protect our coastline -- would be subject to new payments to a few landowners.

Under Proposition 90, state and local agencies (read: taxpayers) would be forced to compensate landowners to comply with measures that are necessary to protect public access to the coast, limit unwise coastal development, regulate offshore drilling or protect vital natural resources and marine habitat like dolphins and sea otters.

Taxpayers are either forced to shell out billions of dollars to protect California's coast or eliminate the very regulations that protect our state's most vital resources. Either way, Californians lose.

One need only look to our northern neighbors to see the results of such a disastrous initiative. In 2004, Oregon voters passed Measure 37 which, like Proposition 90, prevents state and local government from taking actions that would have economic effects on landowners without paying for the regulation. The result has been bedlam: To date, landowners have filed more than 2,200 claims seeking more than $5 billion in compensation. Unable to divert money from essential government services to pay this windfall to property owners, government agencies in Oregon are powerless to stop development schemes, no matter how shortsighted they may be.

For example, a landowner in Clackamas County, Ore., filed a Measure 37 claim, demanding a payoff of $16 million or he would build a gravel mine on his property. Because the county couldn't afford that sum, the new law required the county to approve the mine. Now, surrounding homeowners face having a noisy, dirty gravel mine within 200 yards of their homes. Measure 37 didn't protect their property values.

Unless Proposition 90 is defeated, similar horror stories are likely to pop up all over the Golden State. For example, more than four decades ago, developers planned a city of 60,000 in the heart of the central coast, on land that is now contained in San Simeon State Park. Oil companies have repeatedly reignited their push to increase off-shore drilling.

Fortunately, under existing law California has been able to regulate and even prevent these types of activities. But if Proposition 90 were in effect, the Coastal Commission, along with state and local governments, would be virtually powerless to stop these types of developments.

Under Proposition 90, any amendments, modifications or, potentially, even implementation of the Coastal Act would require the state and local coastal commissions to pay developers who allege that their property value would be diminished. Coastal management would be thrown back 30 years. The results would be devastating.

Imagine the chaos if police departments had to pay motorists to comply with traffic safety laws. Proposition 90's effect on land use would be little different. Coastal zoning would be thrown into turmoil and well-established coastal protections could be eliminated overnight.

The California coast is an emblem of the Golden State and a primary reason that California is such a great place to live and work. We cannot afford to go back to the days of unchecked coastal development, restricted public access and excessive offshore drilling.

On Nov. 7, you can vote to protect the coast and all of California's natural resources by voting ``no'' on Proposition 90.

MEG CALDWELL is chair of the California Coastal Commission and a senior lecturer at Stanford Law School. She has also been a member of the California Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force and a member of the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. She wrote this article for the Mercury News.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews