Yesterday I penned a lengthy commentary entitled, Who’s in charge over at the Coastal Commission? The Commissioners? Or the Staff? Well, today we got the answer to that question. The members of the Coastal Commission voted by a large 8 – 3 majority to oppose Assemblyman Lloyd Levine’s extremest legislation that would have banned the use of fractional ownership (timeshares and the like) in coastal resort developments.
This after rumors were widely circulating that their own Commission Executive Director, Peter Douglas, had played a role in the crafting of the legislation. Douglas’ staff recommendation to the Commission, by the way, was NOT to oppose the bill, but to amend the bill (by the way, his recommended amendment would still have usurped authority currently held by his bosses on the Commission).
Apparently the dog is wagging the tail after all. Perhaps this is an indicator that the Commission staff needs to understand where it is the Commission would like to go, and work to get there. Not, as rumor has it, go out and try to reign in their bosses with a legislative end-run.
The political future of AB 1459 looks very imperiled now, given that I would be very surprised if ANY Republican would put their name on it — and with Democrats clearly split.
Then again, Levine lost the committee vote on his bill to require that virtually all dogs and cats in California be neutered. I guess it is a ‘thumbs down’ week for Levine (this is the guy who wants to ban incadencent light bulbs, too).
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon – You may be interested to know that in 2004, Diane Harkey also opposed fractional timeshares in Dana Point on the campaign trail to city council election. In fact, one of her good friends, political confidents and drinking budies, Mary Jeffries, even put up a website to oppose fractional timeshares at the St. Regis (probably paid for in part by contributions, or white wine, by Harkey).
In my experience in OPPOSING the Coastal Commission on the city council, Peter Douglas was basically a doctrinaire socialist whose saw his role not only as to protect the environment, but also to “restribute wealth.” I am on record in several articles as being critical of Douglas and his sad staff orientation, and it would be a good thing for freedom for him to be removed and replaced.