
Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?
Rue Furch, a Sonoma State University student, signed on as a volunteer for Proposition 20, which called for a commission to 'preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the environment and ecology of the coastal zone.'
'I was just one of the worker bees, and it felt great to be doing something positive,' said Furch, whose role was 'collecting signatures and holding signs and showing up to rallies.'
In Sacramento, a young legislative assistant named Sam Farr (who would later become a U.S. congressman), helped organize a coastal bike ride, led by state Sen. Jim Mills, that galvanized Proposition 20 support and drew hordes of reporters as cyclists pedaled from Land's End in San Francisco to Balboa Park in San Diego.
'The highway patrol kind of designed the route,' said Farr, who recalled that cyclists camped at state parks along the way and dined on food donated by supporters of the rolling 'save our coast' call to arms.
In Los Angeles, teams of young environmentalists sabotaged dozens of campaign billboards, hung by the opposition, which originally said,'The Beach Belongs to You – Don't Lock it Up. Vote No on Proposition No. 20.' The activists painted the word 'Yes' over the word 'No.'
So why am I telling you this a half-century later?
Because voter-approved Proposition 20 led to the 1976 California Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission, which is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.
In a January visit to Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires, Trump said the Coastal Commission is 'considered the most difficult in the entire country' and said when it comes to rebuilding, 'we are not going to let them get away with their antics.'
If that seems personal, it is. Trump, who bought a Ranch Palos Verdes golf course at a discounted price in 2002, after the 18th hole fell into the ocean, has had disputes with the Coastal Commission over waterfalls on the property and a 70-foot tall flagpole erected without a permit.
In February, Trump special missions envoy Ric Grenell painted a bullseye on the coastal commission, saying that fire relief assistance could be held up if California doesn't bow to the administration's wishes. He called the Coastal Commission 'an unelected group of people who are crazy woke left' and said that 'putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better.'
To be clear, the commissioners are selected by elected people, which is often how commissions work. And speaking of powerful unelected people, the name Elon Musk comes to mind, and Trump's Oval Office playmate has his own beef with the Coastal Commission. Musk's SpaceX company sued the commission last fall after commissioners rejected a bid to increase the number of rocket launches from the U.S. military's Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc.
Military officials have said in support of SpaceX that they'd like to increase the number of launches from a handful to as many as 100 annually. The commission argued that most of the launches are for private interests rather than for military purposes, and that sonic booms and environmental impacts are a problem.
And it might be wise to hold off on increased launches following Thursday's explosion of a SpaceX craft that ripped apart after takeoff from Texas. A shower of debris led to the grounding of flights at several Florida airports, and this was the second such SpaceX disaster in seven weeks. At the very least, SpaceX employees — just like federal employees targeted by Musk — should get memos asking what they had done in the seven days prior to each crash to justify keeping their jobs.
To be fair, the Coastal Commission staff and its commissioners are not beyond reproach, nor have commissioners always served with honor, so scrutiny and pushback ought to be part of the process. Nearly a decade ago, my Times colleagues and I examined the ways in which wealthy property owners and developers used lawyers, lobbyists and political connections in attempting to influence commission decision-making.
In the case of the recent SpaceX case, commissioners made bone-headed political comments about Musk in rejecting the bid for more launches, naively handing him lawsuit fodder.
And the commission — which is made up of more than 100 staff members and 12 voting commissioners — has a history of irritating property owners and even governors with painfully long reviews of applications (caused, in part, by decades of under-staffing) for everything from new coastal construction to property improvements of various types.
Several recent bills by Democratic legislators have tried (with limited success) to chip away at agency authority and clear the way for more housing, and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order limiting commission oversight in the interest of speeding up rebuilding in the Palisades fire zone.
Republicans, meanwhile just want to tear it all apart. On March 5, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) called for stripping the commission of its power, saying the agency is 'out of control and has veered from its purpose of protecting the coast.'
Susan Jordan of the nonprofit California Coastal Protection Network, quickly sized up what that would mean.
'This is like the federal government putting a big for-sale sign on the California coast,' she said. 'It basically takes away the state's ability to comment on and provide feedback on projects … It's like an open invitation to oil drilling, to any commercial venture, to liquefied natural gas terminals.'
There's a reason that has not already happened, and it has a lot to do with that movement that began in 1972 (the story has been captured in a new documentary on the people who were determined to save the coast).
There's a reason that as you travel the coast, you see all those roadside beach access signs.
There's a reason that when beachfront property owners put up illegal 'private property' signs or otherwise attempt to drive away those who have a right to enjoy the beach, they're cited and fined.
There's a reason the 1,100-mile natural wonder that stretches from the Oregon border to the Mexico border does not, for the most part, resemble the blighted, overdeveloped coasts of other states.
There's a reason any and all development proposals are exhaustively reviewed, with the perils of sea level rise in mind, and in the interest of protecting marine and shore habitats.
The reason is the California Coastal Act of 1976, a people-inspired, legislatively approved framework that guides state and local governments on the use of land and water in the coastal zone, and embodies the idea that this natural wonder is not owned by anybody, but by everybody, and that it must be treated — with careful, unwavering stewardship — like the public treasure that it is.
The first director of the agency, the late and legendary Peter Douglas, recognized that there would always be threats to the commission and to the shore.
It's why he said:
'The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved, it's always being saved.'
If it takes another bike ride, I'm ready to roll.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump weaponization czar urged New York Attorney General James to resign over mortgage probe
NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump's political weaponization czar sent a letter urging New York Attorney General Letitia James to resign from office 'as an act of good faith' four days after starting his mortgage fraud investigation of her. Then he showed up outside her house. Ed Martin, the director of the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, told James' lawyer on Aug. 12 the Democrat would best serve the 'good of the state and nation' by resigning and ending his probe into alleged paperwork discrepancies on her Brooklyn townhouse and a Virginia home. 'Her resignation from office would give the people of New York and America more peace than proceeding," Martin wrote. "I would take this as an act of good faith.' Then last Friday, Martin turned up outside James' Brooklyn townhouse in a 'Columbo'-esque trench coat, accompanied by an aide and New York Post journalists. He didn't meet with James or go inside the building. A Post writer saw him tell a neighbor: 'I'm just looking at houses, interesting houses. It's an important house.' James' lawyer Abbe Lowell shot back on Monday, telling Martin in a letter his blunt request for James' resignation defied Justice Department standards and codes of professional responsibility and legal ethics. The Justice Department 'has firm policies against using investigations and against using prosecutorial power for achieving political ends,' Lowell wrote. 'This is ever more the case when that demand is made to seek political revenge against a public official in the opposite party.' 'Let me be clear: that will not happen here,' Lowell added. Lowell also blasted Martin's visit to James' home as a 'truly bizarre, made-for-media stunt' and said it was 'outside the bounds' of Justice Department rules. He included an image from security camera footage showing Martin, in his trench coat, posing for a photo in front of James' townhouse. He said Martin looked as if he were on a 'visit to a tourist attraction.' The Associated Press obtained copies of both letters on Tuesday. A message seeking comment was left for Martin's spokesperson. James' office declined to comment. The letters were the latest salvos in a monthslong drama involving Trump's retribution campaign against James and others who've battled him in court and fought his policies. James has sued the Republican president and his administration dozens of times and last year won a $454 million judgment against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he lied about the value of his assets on financial statements given to banks. An appeals court has yet to rule on Trump's bid to overturn that verdict. Earlier this month, the AP reported, the Justice Department subpoenaed James for records related to the civil fraud lawsuit and a lawsuit she filed against the National Rifle Association. Martin's investigation stems from a letter Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi in April asking her to investigate and consider prosecuting James, alleging she had 'falsified bank documents and property records." Pulte, whose agency regulates mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cited 'media reports' claiming James had falsely listed a Virginia home as her principal residence, and he suggested she may have been trying to avoid higher interest rates that often apply to second homes. Records show James was listed as a co-borrower on a house her niece was buying in 2023. Lowell said records and correspondence easily disproved Pulte's allegation. While James signed a power-of-attorney form that, Lowell said, 'mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James' principal residence," she sent an email to her mortgage loan broker around the same time that made clear the property 'WILL NOT be my primary residence.' Pulte also accused James of lying in property records about the number of apartments in the Brooklyn townhouse she has owned since 2001. A certificate of occupancy issued to a previous owner authorized up to five units in the building, where James lives and has rented out apartments. Other city records show the townhouse has four units, a number James has listed in building permit applications and mortgage documents. On Aug. 8, Bondi appointed Martin, a former Republican political operative, to investigate. Martin, the current U.S. pardon attorney and former acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., is also investigating mortgage fraud allegations against Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Schiff's lawyer called the allegations 'transparently false, stale, and long debunked." Lowell said it appears the working group Martin leads 'is aptly named as it is 'weaponizing'" the Justice Department "to carry out the President's and Attorney General's threats.' Solve the daily Crossword


Time Magazine
28 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Californians Say AI Is Moving 'Too Fast'
Hello and welcome to the Tuesday edition of In the Loop. I'm writing to you while looking out over the sunny city of San Francisco, where I'm spending the week on a reporting trip. If you're working on something cool here and want to say hi, feel free to shoot me an email at What to Know: Californians are fearful of AI Californians are more concerned than excited about the future of AI, by a margin of 55% to 33%, according to new polling shared exclusively with TIME ahead of its publication this Tuesday. Of the 1,400 adults polled, 48% said the technology was progressing 'too fast,' compared to 32% who said the pace was 'about right' and just 4% who said it was 'too slow.' And 59% of respondents said they believed AI would benefit the wealthiest corporations and households most, compared to 20% who said it would most benefit working people and the middle class. The poll was funded by TechEquity, a progressive non-profit. Support for regulation — The new data shows that 70% of Californians believe in the need for 'strong laws to make AI fair.' But the data also reveals high levels of skepticism that those laws will ever be enacted. 59% of those surveyed say they don't trust the California state government to control AI. Even more — 64% — said they do not trust the federal government. A picture emerges — The poll adds to a growing collection of data from around the world suggesting that ordinary people are worried about the impact of AI on their lives. In January, I wrote about a U.K. poll that showed 60% of Brits favoring a ban on the development of 'smarter-than-human' AI models. And in April, the Pew Research Center found that 43% of U.S. adults believed AI was more likely to harm than benefit them, compared to 24% who expected the benefits to outweigh the harms. Ground zero — California is emerging as a key battleground for efforts to legislate on AI, as the state where most top American AI companies are based. Last year a bill that aimed to regulate so-called 'frontier' models cleared the state legislature, only to be vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. That hasn't stopped other efforts to regulate AI in the state, however. California 'is a place where you can still legislate and govern with a semi-functioning legislative process, which is not something you can say about D.C., particularly on this topic,' says Catherine Bracy, the CEO of TechEquity. 'The federal government has made it clear that they are going to be completely hands-off, if not creating rules that unleash the industry even more,' Bracy says. '[So] it is incumbent on the states to pick up the slack and make sure that real people who are going to be impacted by these tools are protected.' Who to Know: Dean Ball, former White House advisor on AI For a stint in office, it was an unusually impactful one. Dean Ball joined the Trump Administration in April—headhunted based on an essay he had written titled 'Here is what I think we should do' about AI policy. What followed was a whirlwind five months in government, in which he played a key role contributing to the AI Action Plan, Trump's AI policy, which was announced in July. Earlier this month, Ball announced he was leaving the government to focus on his own research. Action planning — Trump's Action Plan won praise for its emphasis on bolstering U.S. energy grid capacity, plus onshoring datacenters and the production of the chips that power them. The document also urged U.S. companies to focus more on developing open-weight AI models, to prevent the world from coming to rely on Chinese models (which are currently the best in class). The document framed these recommendations, and more, in terms of the escalating AI race with China. Exit interview — In an interview with TIME, Ball emphasized the importance of AI to the Trump administration. 'AI is the President's number one technology policy priority, by a significant margin,' he said. At the same time, Ball says, there is a lot of skepticism inside the Administration toward AI industry projections that superintelligent machines are some two to five years away. 'The diffusion of AI is going to take a really long time,' Ball says. 'I've lived through technology revolutions before, where I was young and bright-eyed and thought it was all going to happen in two or three years. And it turns out a lot of it did happen, but it took 15.' AI in Action: Should you delete your old emails to save water? An official U.K. government document, published last week, has caught a lot of heat online for suggesting that users should 'delete old emails and pictures' to save water during a drought, because data centers 'require vast amounts of water to cool their systems.' It is true that many data centers use water for cooling, but let's get a sense of perspective here. Andy Masley, a blogger who has written several illuminating pieces about the energy and water expenditure of AI systems, ran the numbers. Fixing a leaking toilet, he wrote, can save 200-400 liters of water per day. 'To save as much water in data centers as fixing your toilet would save, you would need to delete 1.5 billion photos, or 200 billion emails. If it took you 0.1 seconds to delete each email, and you deleted them nonstop for 16 hours a day, it would take you 723 years to delete enough emails to save the same amount of water in data centers as you could if you fixed your toilet. Maybe you should fix your toilet.' As always, if you have an interesting story of AI in Action, we'd love to hear it. Email us at: intheloop@ What We're Reading 'Meta's flirty AI chatbot invited a retiree to New York. He never made it home' by Jeff Horwitz in Reuters A relentlessly bleak story from Jeff Horwitz, the best Meta reporter in the business. 'Bue's story, told here for the first time, illustrates a darker side of the artificial intelligence revolution now sweeping tech and the broader business world. His family shared with Reuters the events surrounding his death, including transcripts of his chats with the Meta avatar, saying they hope to warn the public about the dangers of exposing vulnerable people to manipulative, AI-generated companions.'


The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Alaska summit shows Trump always chickens out when facing Putin
An important part of American political folklore is that presidents in trouble travel. So it wasn't terribly surprising that President Trump announced he was flying to Alaska to meet fellow strongman Vladimir Putin. Trump hoped the much-hyped trip would divert public attention from the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal and allow him to come home a hero with a Noble Peace Prize for himself and a peace deal carving up Ukraine. A peace deal would have been a feather in his cap and a new chapter in his famous ghostwritten book, 'The Art of the Deal.' Instead, the meeting became an epilogue that could called 'The Art of the Kneel.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky learned the hard way about another old political proverb which reads, 'When you not at the table, you're on the menu.' Before the conference started, Trump announced he would take 'severe' measures against Russia if the former Soviet strongman didn't agree to a ceasefire. Then, the acronym 'TACO' took effect — Trump Always Chickens Out — when he declared after the meeting that he supported Putin's position for an immediate peace conference while the war still raged. Trump melted like hot butter in the warm Anchorage summer sun and threw Zelensky and millions of brave Ukrainians under the wheels of Russian tanks. Reportedly, Trump accepted Putin's demands for territorial annexations. All Ukrainians got from Trump's travels was a lousy tee shirt with the imprint 'Putin Came and Trump Caved.' Americans were lucky that the president didn't give back Alaska to Russia as a bon voyage gift to Putin. Even Fox News anchor Marie Harf declared that Putin 'steamrolled' Trump. Russian military forces are steadily making inroads into Ukraine. The absence of a ceasefire is a boon to Putin and a problem for the undermanned Ukrainians who have held off the invaders for years against all odds. Trump pulled the rug out from under them during the talks in Anchorage. Why didn't Trump stand up to Putin? Inquiring minds want to know. Did the former Soviet KGB agent gain access to dirt on the U.S. leader in the top-secret Epstein files? Does Trump for all his bully bluster just turn to jelly when he confronts a leader with a stronger will? Monday, Zelensky met the U.S. president in the White House along with European leaders who came along to help the Ukrainian leader stiffen Trump's spine against the Russian dictator. The all-star cast of Ukrainian supporters included French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The European contingent pushed Trump for U.S. guarantees against Russian expansion. Those leaders are rightfully fearful of Russian expansion into their backyards and don't trust Trump to keep the hungry bear at bay after it devours a slice of Ukraine. NATO heads of state still maintain a vivid memory of another fateful summit meeting long ago when British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain went to Munich, homburg in hand, and surrendered Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler's not so tender mercies. That was the beginning of the end for the rest of continental Europe. Other countries could be on the menu to fill another dictator's insatiable appetite to reconstitute the old Soviet bloc that he so faithfully served for so many years. Letting the Russian strongman take Eastern Ukraine would simply reward Russian aggression and encourage him to take even more territory. Joining Trump at this meeting was his Vice President JD Vance who is a vocal opponent of military support for Ukraine. Before the Alaska meeting, the veep undermined his own president's bargaining power when he announced that we're out of the Ukraine war funding business. So, who does Putin fear from the United States in his relentless and reckless quest to return central Europe to the Soviet, excuse me Russian fold? Certainly not Trump or Vance. Most Americans don't pay much attention to national security problems. Especially when the cost of living is so high. But the public should worry and worry hard when it has a president who can't stand up to foreign dictators. Freedom abroad and democracy in the U.S. are not safe with Trump in charge. Federal troops occupy Washington, D.C. and Russian forces control the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. Tyranny is on the march across the world. Americans can't expect Trump to stop it.