What Property Rights: The California Coastal Commission's History of Abusing Land Rights and Some Thoughts on the Underlying Causes

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION When California enacted California Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), (2) and created California Coastal Commission (Commission) to implement policies of that Act, it attempted to ensure balanced approach toward future development along coast. In particular, Act empowered Commission to weigh environmentally-minded conservation goals against economic needs and private property rights in determining how development should proceed. (3) Portions of Act specifically preclude Commission from applying Act in manner that offends constitutional protections for private property. (4) After twenty-five years, it is fair to say that Commission is more attentive today to claims of property rights, at least in some circumstances, than it was in years immediately following its creation. Nevertheless, for many observers, Commission's incremental progress hardly achieves balance between private and public rights contemplated by Coastal Act and United States Constitution. Indeed, in last few years, Commission has been described in following terms: categorically refuses to recognize validity of an individual homeowner's property rights; (5) a perfect example of well-meaning liberalism gone terribly awry; (6) a rogue organization less interested in matters of general interest than in micromanaging such details as color of people's homes, what they can plant in their gardens and whether they should be allowed to fence wild animals away from yards where their children play; (7) the poster child for government power run amok--but because everything commission does is supposedly to protect environment, hardly anybody questions it; (8) established ... to help local governments adopt local coastal plans. Instead, it pulled Saddam, investing itself with dictatorial powers over every last grain of state's 1.5 million acres of coastal property--public and private; (9) If one's goal is to slow development at all costs--even if it means undermining private property rights ... then one would be aghast at monumental court decision this week that says California Coastal Commission is unconstitutional. Everyone else should be elated. (10) A review of extensive body of case law involving Commission and publicly reported accounts of Commission's actions tends to support foregoing complaints, at least to extent they suggest that Commission has insufficient respect for private rights in land. As described in this article, such review indicates that, much of time, Commission operates by neglect at best, and contempt at worst, when it comes to private property rights. Lack of appreciation for individual property rights can be found in all of Commission's activities; one can see it in denial of carefully-planned development projects along coast, imposition of severe conditions on approved projects, strict enforcement of strict reading Coastal Act, and in Commission's interpretation of scope of its own jurisdiction and procedural protections afforded coastal development applicants. (11) This article documents Commission's response to claims of private land rights, whether that response is manifested in substantive or procedural applications of Commission's power, and surveys judicial conflicts which result. Upon coming to conclusion that individual property interests rank low on Commission's priority list, article attempts to explain reasons for de facto policy treating private land use as privilege subject to Commission's control, rather than as constitutionally protected right. Part II of this article reviews purposes of Coastal Act and role of Commission in implementing Act, with special emphasis on Commission's power over activities on private land. Part III surveys selected case law and press accounts documenting Commission's actions, and summarizes instances in which Commission appears to have given insufficient respect to private rights. …