A few years ago, a Jewish-American activist in California was trying to make sure his home in a predominantly Arab area of the city didn’t become a haven for the Israeli settlement movement.
He called the Bureau of Land Management to tell them that he didn’t like the name of his property, and they sent him a letter saying that his land was part of an Israeli compound, and he was therefore required to take out a lease.
This wasn’t the first time that this happened to me.
A few months later, the same activist, in his effort to protect his family’s home from gentrification, contacted the California Coastal Commission to complain about the name he had given his property.
He was told that he was required to put up signs that read “The Coastal Commission owns the property” and “The Board of Supervisors has declared this land a ‘settlement.'”
I have heard that this is not a legal issue, but the facts are as follows.
The Coastal Land Use Review Board (CLUB) is an agency of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CLUB is a nonprofit agency, with a budget of about $1.5 million, made up of members from the coastal community and environmental groups.
It has been the agency responsible for the management of California’s coastal waters for nearly three decades.
In addition to its role in protecting the health of the state’s coastal ecosystems, CLUB’s Board of Directors includes representatives from the California State Parks System and the California Fishery Conservation Commission, as well as environmental organizations.
In the past, CLAB has been critical of the settlement movement and has voted to reject its petitions for approval of new development.
Last year, the California Secretary of State’s office issued a warning letter to a Jewish family, which said the family was in violation of CLUB policies.
The letter also said that the family could face “criminal prosecution for attempting to protect the health and welfare of the environment.”
At the time, I was not aware of any case where a group of people in my community, with the support of the Coastal Land Management Board, had sued CLUB to stop the Coastal Commission from issuing a lease for a large portion of their property.
Now, the CLUB board has issued a statement saying that it was not acting on behalf of the public interest, but in response to the California Commission’s actions.
“In our view, the Coastal Board’s action is unconstitutional and unjustified,” CLUB Chairman Dan Karpowitz said.
CLUB has received no complaints about the Coastal Conservation Board’s actions since its resolution.
According to the Coastal Conservancy, CLUE is a separate entity and is exempt from state law.
But it does have the same powers as a local authority.
As the Coastal Commissioner explained, CLUES board is responsible for administering the Coastal Program, a federal grant program which pays the costs of managing coastal waters and promoting tourism.
CLUE also has the power to decide whether land in California is commercial or residential.
If a developer wants to build a new housing complex or a golf course on land the Coastal Agency regulates, CLUC will determine if the land meets the definition of a commercial property.
If not, the developer will have to pay CLUC fees for permitting and for building permits.
As far as I know, there are no cases of a local or state agency acting on CLUE’s behalf, but it is the local agency’s job to decide if the Coastal Act applies to the land.
When I first heard of the controversy, I asked if there was any precedent for an agency deciding whether land is residential or commercial.
The Coastal Commission’s press release about the controversy said, “CLUE has the authority to decide, as an independent agency, whether the land is commercial, or not.”
I have heard this argument repeatedly.
What is it about the designation of a parcel of land as “residential” or “residentially zoned” that is causing this conflict?
The California Coastal Act, Section 17.7 states that “[t]he designation of real property as a residential property for residential purposes is not subject to state, county, or local taxes, fees, or assessments, and may not be subject to the requirements of a special tax assessment, special assessment or special assessment for any purpose.”
This is an important provision because in some situations, a property is considered residential even if it is not commercial.
It is also important to note that CLUE has jurisdiction over commercial properties in the state, and the Coastal Lands Management Act specifically says that the Coastal Authority “may assess a fee or other penalty on any real property which has been designated as a commercial real property for purposes of determining the tax or fee due to the owner of such real property, if such real owner fails to pay such fee or penalty within one year after the assessment is made.”
What happens if a developer tries to develop on land CLUE doesn’t own?