IIf you don’t live in Big Sur, or even if you do, but aren’t interested in Land Use Planning, skip this post. It is rather boring, though I do try to lighten it up, a tad. I had written a very factual report, but even I could not stand to read it!

South Coast LUAC (Land Use Advisory Committee or Council or Cuckolds (I’m kidding here, I’ve never been clear on which) meetings are generally pretty boring. We are supposed to “advise” the County Planning and Building Commission about building projects. Typically, only Cal-Trans is going through the process. Gorda does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without regard to the rules or repercussions. (of which I have seen absolutely zilch.) This is the South Coast, after all.

Anyway, there are five of us on this LUAC: Jerry Provost, President; Harry Harris, Secretary; and general members – Robert Willett, Ken Harlan, and yours truly. Most have been on this LUAC for decades. I am a newcomer. Most of the time, Jerry has to talk one of the three general members into coming, so he can get a quorum. This meeting, I had planned to attend, so Ken and Robert were off the hook. Jerry, Harry, and I show up for an 11:15 am meeting. It starts at 11:50. This is Cal-Trans, remember.

Anyway, there are 4 items the Planning Department and Cal-Trans wants to discuss. Two are minor changes. But two, are significant. Cal-Trans wants to take away the office trailer to free up that space for a 7th residence, and build a new office down below. Granted, this has been in the plans for about 25 years, and the State of California is drowning in debt, and it is not likely to be funded. (If they do, I’ll be asking why it is I can’t get paid for the $$ the state is making me front, and all the work I am not getting paid for!!) But it is a significant change from the status quo. One that deserves some thought. What’s wrong with the current office?? I’ve been in it many times. It is nice.

But, the kicker is, in order to accomplish the building of the new office, of course, the County wants CT to get the designation changed from “viewshed/watershed” zoning to Gorda Rural Community Center zoning. Cool, now Cal-Trans can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, just like Gorda. (I’m sorta kidding here, I think.) CT claims that the County said it was left out of the contentious General Plan (I think it is #5, now?) by accident, and should have been changed with the CP. Of course, the CP hasn’t been adopted, yet, because there have been so many difficulties and fighting factions.

Sure, it doesn’t matter that Cal-Trans has been at this same location since the mid-30’s or over 70 years, now they need to change the zoning on this historical place. (I used this time to let them know if they tried to tear down the original bunk house, I would come after them!) As to “grandfathering” in this old location, there is a reason it cannot be done, but I’ll be damned if I understood it.

Being the new kid on the block, and being an attorney who engages in argument just for fun, I don’t want to “rubber-stamp” the project, as I have seen done at all the prior LUACs I have attended, few though they may have been. I want to ask questions, seek answers — engage in dialogue. I think this change in zoning requires some dialogue. I suggested that a public meeting be held down on the South Coast, with adequate notice, so that South Coasters can be involved, if they want to be. At least they should have the opportunity. What could it hurt? A little time wasted, right? Probably no one gives a hoot and wouldn’t attend. We all love CT down here. They keep the road open for us, fer gawd’s sake. That’s serious business to us South Coasters. Really serious. We’ll give them whatever they want. Always have, always will. But could we talk first? (hm … reminds me of some partners I have had.)

Apparently not. Jerry & Harry voted to advise the County to approve the zoning change without further input, while I voted against. Democracy in action. You know, I probably would vote to give my blessing, eventually, after I was confident that this was not going to bite me in the ass sometime in the future. I just don’t think we had enough information to make an informed decision. But when has that stopped us? Americans prefer ignorance.

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. That’s how this damned state got in this mess in the first place, in my opinion. Voters voting for short term, without thinking of long-terms repercussions and possible solutions. That’s tough and requires thinking, which is work. Please, lord, don’t make me think!!

Okay, this is one of my rare (hopefully) rants, and I thank those of you who bothered to take the time to read it. For the rest of you, who aren’t reading this anyway, I’ll go back to some visuals soon, or reporting on local events, or doing what you’ve come to expect from me.

Bigsurkate, 6/23/09

Many proposals are on the table to resolve the continuing budget crisis in California. Notices have been sent to Med-Cal recipients that their benefits will be cut off in 30 days. The elderly and disabled are worried about whether they will losing their housing. 220 of our state parks may be closed, including Point Lobos, Pheiffer State Park, JP Burns, the Lighthouse, and many more. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We all want services, schools, parks, prisons, etc. But no one wants to pay for them. 

For Big Sur, this could spell disaster, increasing the fiscal losses suffered as a result of the Basin and Chalk fires, the mudslides, and closures, to a level from which some will not be able to recover. We are mobilizing, and many are going to Sacramento tomorrow to testify about the impacts the closures would have on this community. 

Per MSNBC: 

“A parks spokesman calls the plan “a worst-case scenario,” and says officials will try to keep as many parks open as possible. If adopted, the plan would mean layoffs for at least 2,000 park rangers, lifeguards and other workers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget calls for cutting $70 million in parks spending through June 2010. About $143.4 million more would be saved in following fiscal year by keeping the parks closed.”

The parks closures is simply one proposal. There are many other cuts being proposed also. But what about our prison population? It is the largest fiscal drain California faces.

We have 177,000 inmates we are all supporting, at a minimum of $25K a year — each. That’s $4,445,000,000 a year. Every year. And every year the numbers increase, both the number of inmates, and the cost of supporting them. Our “lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key” policy is costing us dearly. One of my colleagues proposed a great retirement plan, for those with no other. Of course, it was tongue-in-cheek, but the prison system is fast becoming the one place where housing, food, clothing, medical and dental can be obtained for no cost to the recipient.

“Three-strikes and you are out” was ill-conceived. Voters jumped on the band-wagon without regard to the consequences of their actions. We have done that over and over. This is only one example, the one with which I have the most familiarity. We have to learn to look beyond the immediate and see the future of the actions we so cavalierly take. WE, as voters, must start thinking, rather than reacting. We need innovative ideas, if we are to survive this melt-down.

Along those lines, what if the Big Sur community were to mobilize our vast creative resources and come up with solutions, such as managing our own state parks? Run them ourselves. Perhaps lease them from the state and set up a mechanism whereby they become self-sustaining? Let’s start thinking of ways WE can implement a plan to keep them open, without dependency on a completely dysfunctional governmental agency like the state.