War Over Marina Del Rey Remake

The Coastal Commission has no Jurisdiction in Marina del Rey !!!This is due to the fact that Marina del Rey was once part of a Mexican Land Grant.Wake up Illiterates. Look, I know that most of you couldn't read your way out of a wet paper bag, so I want to make this very simple for you simpletons.Don't Take My Word for it. Call the California State Lands Commission, and ask them directly if the Costal Commission has Jurisdiction in Marina del Rey. I called, and I got the answer from the top person there. ... Curtis Fossum is the Senior Attorney / Executive Officer for the Ca State Lands Commission. His phone number is (916) 574-1800. He told me that the Coastal Commission has no Jurisdiction in Marina del Rey. For those of you who think you're not simpletons, here is the reason why the Coastal Commission has no Jurisdiction in Marina del Rey: The Coastal Commission is the result of the Federal Submerged Lands Act. Mexican Land Grant lands are exempted from the Submerged Lands Act, therefore the Coastal Commission has no Jurisdiction in Marina del Rey, since Marina del Rey sit right in the middle of Ranch Ballona, a Mexican Land Grant. Again don't take my word for it ... call up the California State Lands Commission, and ask them yourself. While you have Curtis Fossum on the phone, ask him how it is that the county of Los Angeles can claim to own Marina del Rey. The county of Los Angeles does not own Marina del Rey. The land belongs to the heirs of the original Mexican Land Grant. This is the ruling of the US Supreme Court in 1984. See: Summa Corp. v. Cal. State Lands Comm'n, 466 U.S. 198 (1984). The City of Los Angeles, along with the State of California tried to acquire the land where Marina del Rey is in a lawsuit filed in 1965 (the same case mentioned above) ... they tried to argue that the land was subject to the Public Trust due to it's Tideland characteristics. That lawsuit was a sham that was designed to create an erroneous belief in the mind(s) of the true owner(s) that they had lost their interest in the land. In fact they never did lose interest. Marina del Rey used to be a part of the City of Los Angeles, and it still should be ... The fact that the land was severed from the city and unincorporated would seem illegal. The land was unincorporated for the purpose of trying to circumvent the ruling of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the City of Los Angeles and the State of Ca had no business there. Until you people bother to understand the true underlying issue of Marina del Rey you will never be able to sort it all out. Los Angeles County doesn't have the authority to put in a gumball machine in Marina del Rey. Don't take my word for it ... I'm just a guy who can read. Call the California State Lands Commission, and ask them Yourself. If you don't then your just another moron wasting everyones' time.

Apple mac books 280- 520 USD

Iphone 4S 320 USD

Ipad 64gb + wifi + 3G 250 USD

my best friend makes $78/hour on the internet. She has been without work for 8months but last month her paycheck was $7251just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site http://alturl.com/7hezg

The nesting and roosting birds lost their legal protection this past Thursday at the Coastal Commission hearing. The small boat owners - especially sailors - lost a significant number of boat slips. The visitors to the marina - the public - lost three IMPORTANT parking lots - including one next to a lagoon (Oxford) and one that is the only free parking lot near the water anywhere on the Los Angeles coast. And residents, as well as visitors, lost any semblance of quality of life at what WAS the most important coastal recreation resource in Los Angeles County. How did this happen?

Earthquakes.

That's the first thing that I thought about as I read this article. Yet I did not read one word about the earthquake risks that come with developing Marina del Rey. When an earthquake strikes, structures built on alluvial soil tend to pancake. If you want proof of my words, simply survey the damage from the Bay area quake in 1989.

Marina del Rey is not a suitable site for heavy commercial development because of the nature of the soil and because of the earthquake risks. You couldn't pay me to live there. Turn Marina del Rey back into a wetland. That's the best and the only possible land use.

Either way, locals or developers, sounds like Marina Del Rey will remain, as it is, an intensely boring place with a view of some rich peoples yachts and that seems to be just how everyone around there wants it.

Rumpelstiltskin is hard at work--but our county officials are not spinning straw into gold; their spin will turn our public treasure into private riches.

For most LA County residents, Oceanside might as well be the far side of the moon. It's as close as the county could come to a closed hearing. (i.e., as far as they could get)

ACTION NEEDED: Please email the Coastal Commissioners TODAY to protest the hearing's inaccessibility, and request continuance to a location where you will be able to participate. January is the next opportunity for LA County; June has already been booked at the Marina del Rey Hotel. Please hurry, the meeting starts at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

Subject line: "November 3, 2011 - Items 11a, 11b and 12a"

Addresses for the Commissioners who accept emails: richard@bloomlaw.net esanchezccc@aol.com mark.stone@co.santa-cruz.ca.us mmcclureccc@co.del-norte.ca.us zimmerccc@gmail.com sblank@KandSranch.com Brian.Brennan@ventura.org skinsey@co.marin.ca.

Please CC the following Commission Staff: slester@coastal.ca.gov jstaben@coastal.ca.gov

There is absolutely NOTHING simple about this LCP Amendment. In a nutshell:

There are only two types of land in the Marina: public land, and public land subject to private leaseholds. There are 17 public parking lots identified in the current LCP, all of which are protected exclusively for public park or parking development. (section The LCPA identifies only 12 public lots and one "temporary" lot, and reduces overall parking capacity.

The LCPA increases private leasehold acreage from 260 to 292. That's 32 acres added to the private leasehold category. Smoke & mirrors account for the "added parkland"--most of which is slivers of "passive parks" surrounding wetlands, flood control infrastructure and/or bird conservation areas. In other words, Look but don't Play.

Bottom line: What county officials are "giving" to the public in this LCPA already belongs to us. Please join us in defending our guaranteed right to full participation in the planning decisions that affect all of us (section 30006 of the California Coastal Act).

Together,Nancy

If you would like to testify on Thurdsay in Oceanside, but will be unable to because of the distance/ travel time involved, let our local CCC member, Richard Bloom, know. His email address is richard@bloomlaw.net.

He needs to know about your concerns right away - so don't hesitate in emailing him. When you do that, cc CCC staffer: Apadilla@ca.coastal.gov

The county fail to understand that you do not have a commercial value in Marina Del Rey unless you have a recreational value.How the county came to the conclusion that there would be a net increase in traffic trips was that they have been eliminating small boat slips and that way freeing up thousands of traffic trips and parking spaces.Why have a slip that you only make $300.00 on when you can have an apartments that you get $3000.00 for.Beaches and harbor only takes in about $60 million and their budget is about $40 million so very little goes to the county general fund.B&H one of the counties most bloated agencies with a terrible reputation.The county gave the developer of del rey shore a rent credit for $11 million and expedited their building permit so the developer could avoid the latest building codes at a additional cost for the developer of $2 million,the developer also got $125 million from HUD and only had to provide 50 affordable housing.When they tore down the old building we lost 225 affordable housing.The 1% is stealing again from the 99% ,when the coastal act and our local coastal plan says the counties plans are in violation you would think that the county would do the right thing and respect and uphold the law. Instead they hire consultant for hundred of thousands of dollar to change the law.What the county super visor lacks is morals,integrity,ethics and a total lack of understanding and respect of the law and needs of our residents in our county and surrounding counties.