http://www.CaliforniaCoastline.org/

Adelman is doing this great and wonderful job pro bono (with the guidance of his pilot, of course) to try to help with one of the persistent, real problems of Coastal Act enforcement:

SOME PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

Yep, that's right, as the scandal in Dana Point "low income" housing demonstrates: some bozos will walk off with the entitlements to build on the Coast, for their benefit, that are conditioned on them giving something back or following the rules. And then
not follow the rules, with no one to know.

For example,
1. Some developments require an "Offer to Dedicate" public access, which means that the permit holder, in exchange for often intrusive development, must allow a small public walk way for public access of THEIR OWN BEACH. Otherwise, often, the houses of the wealthy form a barrier to the masses, who must walk miles to get to the Beach, which, by ancient sovereign lands doctrine, belongs to the sovereign power -- for the USA, that's US PEOPLE. To take the development rights while blocking agreed-on public access is immoral, and often illegal.

2. The Coastal Commission does NOT have staff to go out and verify that permits are followed. Who tells them that the deck is really only 30 ft. wide, the wall is only 5 ft. high, the beach is not obstructed? Coastal Act Sect. 30801 allows public spirited citizens to report violations, but, often, in practice, potential transgressors can just deny public scrutiny of their actions under the guise of "privacy".

3. Blatant violations of habitat rights, erosion controls, sewage safeguards, runoff standards, flora and fauna protections, happen all the time. Yet how, in practice,
to find out about them?

Mr. Adelman had the GREAT idea of a photographic record of the entire Coast. OF COURSE the selfish, the negligent, the crooked and the anti-social don't like it at all, because it gives the public the ability to view the entire coast (and closeups of each part) to make it barely possible, perhaps, to enforce the Coastal Act and other laws that scofflaws don't like. Et tu, Barbra?

---------------------
According to Immanuel Kant, ethics demands socialization, a restatement of the biblical "golden rule". Thus, in a crowded theater on fire, the best thing, says Kant,
is for everyone to calmly walk out, because from a social perspective, the most people will survive if an orderly egress is achieved. If everyone runs, then the trampling might harm more than the fire! Kant generalized this kind of thinking with the idea of demonstrating morality.

However, selfish buffoons point out that from the selfish individual's point of view, an orderly exit is not the best result. The best result for the selfish is if EVERYONE ELSE
has to walk (i.e., follow the rules), but THEY GET TO RUN!

This is really the platform of the Republican Party, as it seems: everyone else has to follow the rules, but WE GET TO PARTEEE (i.e., transgress securities and other laws, bomb the innocent, defy international law, hide the electic scam, refuse to disclose Cheney's illicit links, etc.).
-----------------

Adelman's project brilliantly helps enforcers of the law, which is basically YOU, because no one else is doing it, to find out what transgressions the rich, such as those selfish Republican types, are performing behind their high walls and steep prices.

Fighting on the side of Adelman is fighting for public access, following the law, and Woody Guthrie's old injunction: "this land is your land, this land is my land..."

Is the once-beloved Streisand now counted amongst the sort who think they have some special rights that pertain to the rich and famous alone?

You can send emails of support to Adelman at: adelman@adelman.com

-----------------------
CONTACT STREISAND and express your opinion:

C/O Martin Erlichman Associates, Inc. 323-525-2555
5670 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Streisand, lecturing Democrats:
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/hall/StreisandBarbra.htm
------------------------

Doug
714-496-1567

PS, they are seeking $10 million in "damages", and removal of public scrutiny. If this occurs, basically, it removes monitoring of the Coast via the internet, all transgressors will request "privacy".

Back to T.O.C. 3