Talk:California Coastal Commission

The Commission's fines, penalties, and blockages

While perhaps uncomfortable for those of us who appreciate the Commission's goals and hard work, I think it's essential for balance that some of the many fines, penalties, and blockages imposed by the Commission be listed, even if it's unflattering to the Commission. The actions of an entity are in some ways more enlightening than what their stated mission and processes are. I have started that process of adding some of the reporting in the "Legal Issues" section but the work is ongoing and I'm happy to add additional specificity to any items if there are objections. It might be better in a different and/or expanded format. I certainly don't think this information is silly nor meaningless, especially for the citizens who are being fined millions of dollars and cities having projects halted. We should strive for balance. I'm happy to discuss any feedback or criticism. Kind regards, Hephestus-1964 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

sea world construction permit with breeding conditions

I'd like to add a section to legal about the SeaWorld ruling, which made national and world headlines. I don't want to make the effort if someone is going to object, so I figured I'd ask here first. Please post opinions, because I'd like to link the other relevant pages to this one. thanks.

On Oct 8 2015 the commission approved SeaWorld San Diego's's proposed orca tank expansion, conditional on the discontinuation of breeding programs and acceptance of newly wild-caught whales. http://ktla.com/2015/10/08/seaworld-expansion-of-orca-tanks-up-for-coastal-commission-vote-thursday/

On Dec 29 2015 SeaWorld filed suit disputing the commission's right to impose such restrictions. The lawsuit says the orcas do not fall under the commission's jurisdiction over the coastal or marine environment, and the commission's authority does not extend to the park's onshore activities.

“All of SeaWorld’s activities with respect to the care, breeding and transportation of orcas occur onshore in the orca pools and not in the marine environment and are specifically governed by federal law.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/seaworld-suing-california-over-ban-on-orca-breedin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrpickaxe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a major issue before the commission and could be added. The issue has been mentioned in SeaWorld#Blackfish_film but needs to be updated at SeaWorld_San_Diego#Blue_World_Project. The section at Blackfish_(film)#Impact mentions California legislation and also that SeaWorld plans to end killer-whale shows at its San Diego theme park.

I edited the former version of the section as it did not have a Neutral point of view in conformance with only having encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Fettlemap (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion == The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Voter Information Guide for 1972 General Election.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

@Fettlemap:: maybe do smaller moves and then those can be discussed more easily, point-by-point?

@Hephestus-1964: You can add a sentence to the lead which summarizes the criticism it has received.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fettlemap (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To better state what I should have said in my edit summary: Fettlemap is correct, new items should not be introduced in the lead, they should be in the article, though they can ALSO be summarized in the lead if they are an Important Point about the organization.---Avatar317[[User talk:||^(talk)]] 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

These two sentences which were moved from the lead: "The 12 appointed commissioners control zoning, compel property alterations, impose fines, bestow construction approvals or vetoes, and require public thoroughfares on private property. The Commission has blocked, disrupted, and penalized the construction of fire-mitigation infrastructure, homes, offices, and roads." -- I attempted to re-add in a summarized fashion, but didn't list the "compel property alterations" or "require public thoroughfares on private property" simply because *I* haven't read enough of this article to know whether or not that is true. If it is, that should also be mentioned in the lead. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: and @Avatar317:, Hi both of you. I had to create a wikipedia account to address just one of the many bias edits that @Hephestus-1964: has contributed to this page. Overall, I think his inclusions of information are justified, but she/he does not have a neutral point of view for many of his/her edits. I don't personally have the time to go through all of them, so if it is possible to point a less bias editor to the page I think it would make wikipedia a better place. As you can see from his profile, he is a Single-purpose_account and if you refer to my edits recently you can see that most of the information I added was quickly reverted by him.

Hi, @Pierpointer:, et al., I'm more than happy to have help with the page and happy to discuss any issues. I'm fine with having "protect citizens" removed although that's what the city was trying to do by updating powerlines before the cease and desist order. Old power lines have killed many people in CA unfortunately because they spark wildfires; that's why we have blackouts, i.e. Camp Fire (2018), hence why I judged that wording to be appropriate. Happy to have anyone help out to make the page better. Thank you, ---Hephestus-1964 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent removal

Hi, @Pierpointer:, regarding your contestation of the "legal" categorization: the coastal commission is a quasi-judicial entity, so many of its actions can be categorized as legal issues such as "in reviewing coastal development permit applications, certifying local coastal programs, and reviewing the activities of the federal government to assess whether those activities are consistent with California law" Neutral point of view does not preclude information that might be interpreted by some as slightly unflattering to an entity. The 3 paragraphs that you blanked spanning 1,772 characters were from good secondary sources. ---Hephestus-1964 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hephestus-1964: I don't know if you noticed, but of the three paragraphs that Pierpointer removed, I restored two of them: the first and the third (but with different statements). I haven't yet read the second reference, but this could probably also be included somewhere, but with a better summary.

One suggestion: the statement you used to summarize the Daily Breeze article: "An inn owner paid the Commission $150,000 for the privilege to begin working on improving his 1910 bungalow in Hermosa Beach." read as "the Commission EXTORTED $150k for someone to be allowed to renovate their existing home" when in fact the circumstances were that a NEW mini-hotel was being built, as you can see by my summary of the same source, now in the article in a new section here:[1]

Whether or not people agree with this requirement (the hotel version of Inclusionary zoning) or think it is or is not intelligent policy is a different issue. We should explain it for what it is. If we can find an economist criticising this policy (essentially a wealth transfer tax, since it increases the price of expensive hotel rooms to make other ones cheaper) than we could include that criticism of their policy.

Some of your additions would be better if you answered the "how, what, when, why, where" of the situation, to help the reader understand why the Commission makes these decisions, rather than a "the Commission did this deed" which sounds terrible, but when fully explained, doesn't sound completely wacko.

The sources you have found are good sources, thanks for your contributions!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Avatar317:, I sincerely appreciate you giving the time and effort to provide such helpful recommendations and deft teaching, not to mention the substantial improvements you've generously written and researched yourself; thank you. You're right of course. I'm inspired to be better by you :) I'll happily work on these notes -- I expect to finish along with the formatting of dates during the next few days, probably by the end of the weekend. Thank you, --Hephestus-1964 (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Restored mission statement quote

We don’t cherry pick mission statements and turn them into scare quotes. We have policies and guidelines that explicitly explain why this is not best practice. I’ve restored the full quote. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Time to discuss

@Avatar317: Regarding the primary research you're trying to add. What I meant was it was funded in part by the Ziman Real Estate Center, which is funded by Zinman, a "leader and influencer in the the real estate community". But I think that's beside the point, which is that this is primary research, and you have not yet provided a reason why we should make an exception for including this study. Is there part of WP:PRIMARY that you don't understand? I'd like to believe that we're all trying to make articles better, but you must admit your behavior on this article seems to look a bit like an agenda. Or am I mistaken? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Where do you find who it was funded by? I don't see that....please show where you see that. That would change my mind to least require attribution to make that clear.

Primary certainly does NOT block including primary sources, it says: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and the way I did no more than re-wording the researcher's conclusions as to avoid copyright is certainly not interpreting that source or its dataset.

I was starting to think that your "funded comment" was your bias...please link to that. Thank you for starting this discussion.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see, at the bottom of the paper itsself: "We thank the Haynes Foundation and the Richard Ziman Real Estate Center at UCLA for generous research funding." ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is misusing a primary source, in my opinion, for the same reason it often is elsewhere: if this study is significant enough to include in an encyclopedia, it's certainly significant enough to be covered by the media. If it is, use those as sources. If it's not, apply WP:PRIMARY and avoid. From my perspective, it looks like you have strong opinions about the CCC as it relates to housing and real estate, and are looking for ways to include that view in the article. That's fine, but it's going to be difficult for you to convince me and others that you're editing from a neutral point of view. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you have a good point about its publicity in secondary sources. I hadn't checked until now, (since I am not the editor who originally added it) and it doesn't seem to have been covered in any that I can find, even looking at urbanist/housing related sources like CityLab. Ok, I'll remove it.

To follow up, I have heard cases of researchers commenting that most of the time their studies are ignored by the media, but sometimes (depending on current politics) one study of theirs will surprise them by being all over the news. How do we find good sources and at the same time avoid cherry-picking studies? (Obviously in medical field, systematic reviews solve that issue). ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to understand my comments and being collaborative. That's a good question about sources. I imagine it's frustrating for researchers to understand the vagaries of media coverage. As for cherry-picking, I think we all can fall into that trap. When I think about it, it seems to me that the media is looking for a narrative, and certain studies seem incongruous with a narrative that seems worth telling in context to a broad worldview. In other words, it's hard for me to imagine a journalist sitting there thinking she needs to tell the story of how environmental protection hurts shoreline real estate, when we're facing a global environmental catastrophe. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to this conversation, but, as I understand it, one editor is asking that that certain changes be considered one by one instead of en bloc. In general, I agree with this idea, and if it can be done, why not get it started? If I am wrong, correct me, but gently, 'cause I bruise. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Project permits and proposals" section

It is clear that this section is basically an aggregation of actions/events taken by the CCC. I would like to suggest that rather than simply trimming this section, we look at each paragraph (and sources) to see whether it can be used as a summary/example of the types of policy goals the CCC undertakes. I like that we have a section "Affordable overnight coastal accommodations" (don't remember whether Fettlemap or I did that) that explains what some policy goal is and how the CCC implements/enforces that goal.

Also, I think that descriptions of events which led to appellate court decisions would generally be considered notable, as well as cases that led to decisions which define the scope of the CCC's power (for example, the statement that starts with "In 2005, the commission found Dennis Schneider's proposed...." is good as it stands, in my opinion.

As one specific case, I think that the statement (towards the end) "In 2015, the commission approved a construction project for SeaWorld San Diego ....." should be made larger, since this got nationwide press coverage, and sources talk about how the movie Blackfish (film) had influence on public opinion and thereby influenced CCC discussions and should be mentioned, but isn't.

But the sentence that follows: "In 2020, a commission investigation found the city of Long Beach guilty..." seems of little value....I propose that sources like that be used to support an overall paragraph like the one I tried to re-instate here (but was not written by me; we could write it more neutrally) which gives an overview of many of their lesser activities but still mentions them.

What do others think?---Avatar317^(talk) 05:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If there are instances that you think are important to include, then perhaps we can include those. But maybe just a few, and trimmed of the excess detail. I still have a hard time seeing the reader benefit of listing every action they took and then dueling over over what spin to put on it. I don't have access to the LA Times, so I can't read many of the sources. But right now it seems like this article is being written mostly by California-based editors with axes to grind. And that's why it's good when articles are written and edited by neutral parties. I'm overwhelmed trying to sift through each one of these paragraphs to determine what should be included. We should blank the section and start over, one by one. Otherwise, it's not fair to other editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support creating summary/example of the types of policy goals such as "Affordable overnight coastal accommodations. A description of an event which led to appellate court decision as well as cases that led to decisions which define the scope of the CCC's power would improve the article. More editors from outside of California are certainly welcome. Please dive in on events which received wider coverage. While deletions may be appropriate, blanking the section makes starter citations harder to find and doesn't help with access to the LA Times. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, we're starting from a place of having you and the other editor basically controlling the entire section and not letting any of it go without analyzing it thoroughly. These additions should have the opportunity to be discussed prior to all going up at once. Otherwise, you have a situation where I have to do ALL the work of going through each entry and each source. That's why when there are disputes over big lists or sections like this, it's best to start from scratch. It really doesn't matter how much "work" someone has put into finding sources. That's beside the point. 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

These additions didn't "all go up at once". The great majority are from editor: Hephestus-1964, over the course of five months, with some content that has been changed/edited/hopefully-improved by myself and Fettlemap along the way and after. Then this content stayed for over a year (Implicit Consensus) until Viriditas brought up this to the NPOV board. (I initially started spending time on this after I saw edit-warring between Hephestus-1964 and Fettlemap and felt that I could help since no other editors seemed to care enough to try to improve this article.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no current content disputes that I am aware of. Let's improve the article and not worry about who is doing what. You do not "have to do ALL the work of going through each entry and each source." That is not how editing works. I think that is in conformance to Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a dispute. I believe the content in the section needs to be removed, so we can discuss what should be there, and avoid the current bloat. That would be "improving" the article. But what you want seems to be to just keep the bloat, and then scrutinize it one-by-one, while the bloated content remains. That's the dispute. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the temporary harm of the bloated content. Remember, there is no urgency to Wikipedia, it is always a work in progress. Some essays: WP:WIP and WP:TIND. It sat for a year like this. What is the urgency to immediately fix this?

I'm not saying that the content can't be trimmed, nor that we should reward effort with content inclusion, but many of these sources are hard to find, and I believe that other visiting editors (and potential new editors) will find it easier (and are more likely) to improve the article when they have access to many sources WITHIN the article, and see statements from those sources. Many editors will not necessarily want to dig very hard for sources. In my opinion, we should care more about a better article long-term, than a short-term bad appearing article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, thanks for clarifying that there is no dispute over content but only the editing method. You prefer blanking the section which is typically used only for content that can't be salvaged. The case has been made that this content has been and will be improved and there is no Wikipedia editing guideline for blanking the section. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skipper: It would be more constructive if you'd avoid accusations like: "But right now it seems like this article is being written mostly by California-based editors with axes to grind." - which seems that you're referring to both Fettlemap and myself, since no other editors (other than Hephestus-1964) have done any substantial work on this article in the last two years. (How many non-Californians would have even heard of this organization?) The way you phrase things (the "wealthy" discussion on the NPOV board) and your statements make me feel like I could equally accuse you of having a significant bias. Please concentrate on edits/article-content than editors.---Avatar317^(talk) 20:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to your opinion, of course, I'm simply applying WP:SPADE. The "way I phrase things" is one thing. It's another to fundamentally alter an article to put a particular spin on it. I'd like to focus on the content, but unfortunately you've done nothing to make me think you are editing this article neutrally. I only found this article from a NPOV noticeboard. It wouldn't be on a noticeboard if another editor also didn't find your edits non-constructive POV edits. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Except that that editor (Viriditas) wasn't referring to me, they were referring to Hephestus-1964. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

With whom you agreed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did I ever say that? Hephestus-1964 hasn't edited for a year now. If you can't even keep it straight who edits what of course you think everyone is against you. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had discussions with Hephestus-1964 about how to summarize sources and some advice, all of which are viewable on the Talk page for that article or in the edit history. I would definitely say that at least the lead is VASTLY improved from what it was, and I see no neutrality issue there It's pretty simple. The neutrality issue that was brought to the board, you found to be a non-issue and thought the edits in question were fine. That's all I'm saying. This conversation is going nowhere. If you think having a giant wall of prose to describe every action the CCC has taken makes a good section, then we fundamentally disagree on what Wikipedia is. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead gives undue weight to popular right-wing conspiracy theories from critics of the CCC, such as the myth that they are responsible for the housing crisis, which has more to do with NIMBY conservatives who don't want affordable housing in their neighborhoods. In fact, the current criticism in the article reads like a page out of a Vinod Khosla's grudge match against the CCC, and those of other billionaires. It's pretty obvious we have a POV problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are some problematic POV issues on this article. A couple editors seemed to have a grudge or something. Glad there are more eyes on it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the part about the housing shortage, with a source, which will hopefully dispel some of your uninformed beliefs. For one, NIMBYs are equally liberals as conservatives; Marin county is a great example of the rich White folk who vote Democrat and also vote to keep the "character" (whiteness) of their neighborhoods from changing by opposing low-income housing. See also: "What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving “local character,” maintaining “local control,” keeping housing scarce and inaccessible—the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out." ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Except the vast majority of the CCC's actions have nothing to do with opposing low-income housing projects. It's nearly all corporate and wealthy interests. You can cherry pick an example of a low-income housing project, but not a single one of the examples in this article has anything to do with "racial character" and most seem to be protecting natural resources and access to them from corporate interests. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that probably 95+% of the CCC's actions are unrelated to blocking low-income or multi-family housing. Much of their individual criticism has been from rich individuals or hotels/resorts concerning shoring up their properties against erosion or expanding their buildings, but recently (as the new source shows) there has been criticism that the effects of their limitations on new housing (blocking the creation of new ADU's for example) have served to keep the area wealthy, white, and low-density; the CCC has been weaponized by local NIMBYs, as the new source notes: "In neighborhoods especially close to the water, foes of proposed developments can appeal directly to the commission." ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References