
Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times
Editorial Commentary ("Op-Ed") Page, January 3, 2003 |
COMMENTARY
Coast Panel's Work
Demands Integrity
Clear the way for an independent membership.
By Ellen Stern Harris
Ellen Stern Harris was a co-author of Proposition 20 and vice
chair of the State Coastal Commission for its first four years. She is
executive director of Fund for the Environment.
January 3 2003
Efforts to save what remained of California's treasured coastline began in
the glorious 1960s, when the public-interest movement was flourishing.
I was sitting on the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and
realized that every time we gave a permit for another outfall, there went
another once-lovely beach. This was also not doing California's tourism
industry any good at all.
It was the citizen-led cleanup of what were then industrial cesspools, the
Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, that made us believe that any
worthwhile environmental purpose could be achieved. But it was the Great
Wall against the sea -- development blocking the view of the beach all
along the coast of Malibu -- that especially inspired my own efforts. A
group of us drafted legislation that combined the accessibility of the
regional water quality boards, the oversight of the state Water Resources
Board and the virtues of the San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development
Commission. But we never could get our bills passed without their being
watered down into meaninglessness.
That's how Proposition 20 came to be.
It was among the few successful initiatives in the last 30 years that did
not use paid signature-gatherers. And in 1972 it won, thanks in no small
part to people's passion for the coast -- and to the Federal
Communications Commission's requirement then that broadcasters provide
free equal time for responses in such issues.
Charlton Heston appeared, pro bono, on TV and in radio ads for the Save
Our Coast campaign. It was as if he were handing down an 11th Commandment:
"Thou shall vote for Proposition 20."
We drafted Proposition 20 so that appointments to the Coastal Commission
would be divided among the governor and leaders of the Legislature. We
thought that if we had a governor who did not believe in coastal
protection, that might be countered by legislative appointees. Or vice
versa.
Now an appeals court in Sacramento says another provision allowing the
commissioners to serve at the "pleasure" of the appointers -- in other
words, they can be arbitrarily removed -- violates California's
Constitution. With this, I could not agree more. The decision is likely to
be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The Legislature soon may weigh in as well. And if the law is changed to
allow set terms for commissioners, they won't be subject to removal for
voting against a permit for somebody who has contributed to the appointing
authority's campaign.
As it is now, a "wrong" vote has too often resulted in an appointing
authority's imaginary vaudevillian hook, removing a commissioner
immediately following the "miscast" vote.
Of course, the real issue is getting the appointing authorities to select
commissioners who are motivated to protect, restore and enhance the coast.
Our best hope of that is instituting something called "clean-money
campaigning."
That's where a large number of signatures, each accompanied by a donation
of $5, allows candidates to run for state offices without pandering to
special interests. Partial public financing is provided to those who
qualify.
Recently, most of Arizona's gubernatorial candidates ran on this basis.
And a clean-money campaigner won.
Though coastal commissioners are required to disclose their holdings,
attorneys appointed to the commission have claimed attorney-client
privilege and refused to reveal who their clients are. It's time for them
to either make full disclosure, with the permission of their clients, or
decline to serve on the commission.
Concern about the public trust in the shoreline goes back to the Roman
Emperor Justinian in 530. He declared that "by the laws of nature these
things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea and
consequently the shores of the sea."
The California Supreme Court has reaffirmed that ancient doctrine, stating
that lands between the lines of the mean high tide and mean low tide are
held in trust for the people. That's usually the wet part of the sandy
shore.
It's getting there, without a rowboat, that has so limited our access to
the beach.
One of the key provisions of Proposition 20 and the current coastal act is
the focus on obtaining public access paths to the beaches.
That -- rather than a Great Wall of Mansions -- is what the Coastal
Commission is supposed to protect. And whether it takes the state Supreme
Court or the Legislature or a clean-money campaigning initiative, that is
what we need to fight for.
Copyright © 2003, Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission. |