Home > environment > Peter Douglas gets nod from Oprah

Peter Douglas gets nod from Oprah

Former California Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas is featured in a short video on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Below is a screen-grab. Watch the 63 second clip on the OWN site here: Peter Douglas, Coastal Preservation Pioneer.

Douglas describes the success of the Coastal Commission like this:

“It’s the public access that hasn’t been lost. It’s the subdivisions that weren’t approved. It’s the wetlands that weren’t filled. It’s the scenic vistas that weren’t destroyed. It’s what we don’t see that is our major accomplishment.”

  1. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Don’t forget the projects that were going to be approved but cost 10X more because of your red tape, and I am talking about the little guy, not big developers. Thanks for what you do sometimes, but not others. Please look at each project with fresh eyes.

  2. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    Oprah is as F’ing dumb as she is rich. Just goes to show you how bullshit is rewarded by those that don’t know a damn thing. Prop 20 was a great idea and this Ahole (PD) bastardized it into the worst facist organization since ——– fill in the balnk yourself. Truth is stranger than fiction!!!!!!!!

  3. Grindhog
    February 7, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    ^^^^^ Robin Alkley speaks!!! Triv is stanger than fuction!

  4. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Little people all over coastal Cali were f’d over by Douglas and his wrecking crew. His main buut boy Ralphie is screwing Humboldt County folks too!!

  5. February 7, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    “It’s the jobs that weren’t created……”

  6. jr
    February 7, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Peter Douglas helped to preserve the lands around Lake Earl in which Pacific Shores subdivision was being planned by southern California developers. These lots had no services to them and were mostly underwater at high tide. They were sold to unsuspecting people looking for coastal property. Because of Peter’s work, we now have Tolowa Dunes State Park which protects the coast lagoons of Lake Tolowa and Earl. He is a true steward of the coast (and also a part time resident of Del Norte County.

  7. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    jr you are a complete dumb ass , kool aid drinker. Those were private property lots at Pacific Shores. Douglas is a thief. Local people owned those lots too. Some still do. This is a prime example of the power lust and horror of the great Peter Douglas. Bullshit! No duck hunting anymore in the ponds at Tolowa and state parks did illegal property swaps all to further the loss of public access and use. He has a house that no one else could have. Typical power mad marxist.

  8. jr
    February 7, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    He helped save this region for all Californians, not just those who can afford to buy lots that will never get water, sewer or electricity. Any body can now walk among the coastal dunes for free and without worry about getting shot by a duck hunter or run over by an ATV.

  9. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Peter Douglas is one of the prime reasons that California is facing economic collapse and we have bureaucrats like the planning department terrorizing kids over tree forts instead of tackling illegal dope greenhouses and related environmental issues.

  10. Cristina Bauss
    February 7, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    “Opera Winfrey Network”? Love it!

  11. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    you and jr and Peter the great should spend lots of time watching the O network. Then many a few duck hunters and some local kids can go play at the beach without fear of the re-education camps.

  12. February 7, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Hey, at least the headline was right.

  13. jr
    February 7, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    What is this about “re-education camps”? Young children need more environmental education to counter-act what they hear and learn in today’s schools and media. As it has been said, “there is no life on a dead planet.” The Earth needs all the stewards it can get.

  14. no buena
    February 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    Try to build a 100sf shed in the coastal zone on private property.
    You will learn fast that the CC has far outgrown it’s original charter…

  15. so predictable
    February 7, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    so predictable that someone would say – “It’s the jobs that weren’t created……”

    ………. by the unspoiled coasts, bays, lagoons, trails, sustainable businesses that “exploit” the natural treasures by providing services for learning, adventure, health, rest and respite.

    …….what a shame we don’t have a privatized coast with little public access.

  16. Anonymous
    February 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    you are all F’ing fools. The public has maybe 10% access to any of the coast line. You anti everthing clones want to exclude us from using even that meger 10%. Look but don’t touch. See that place over there? Don’t touch. What we have is a socialized coast with little public use.

  17. Scott
    February 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    10% access? Maybe down in Los Angeles. Here in Humboldt, we have TONS of access, virtually unrestricted. Enjoy what we have. Don’t call people F’ing fools because of your ignorance.

  18. Ponder z
    February 8, 2012 at 5:40 am

    Anon 9:49 has it right. The rest of you ecofreaks and assclowns have no clue of reality. You all live in a dream world national park. Where nobody may tread, for fear of damaging the the very soil.

  19. neomoderate
    February 8, 2012 at 6:37 am

    CCC was a great idea-preserve access, preserve views. It has turned into some kind of a micromanaging monster. The original charter was good. We needed something like that to keep the entire coastline from looking like parts of LA. What it turned into does not resemble its original intent. Ask anyone that’s tried to get a permit from them.

  20. just middle class
    February 8, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Ask the people miles from the coast who were stopped from building because the hills could be seen from tje ocean. Ask the guy who had a ranch who wanted to build a house but was required to place the property in permanent agricultural easement to get a building permit. And more…..Yes the Marina Center “wetlands” which are equipment tire tracks, but must be protected!!!!

  21. Corps Ain't Peeps
    February 8, 2012 at 7:01 am

    http://www.lagunabeachproperty.net/index.cfm

    The Strand at Headlands – Dana Point, California

    Situated on 121 acres of pristine beachfront terrain, The Strand at Headlands is the last undeveloped oceanfront property in Orange County, Calif.

    Nestled between Laguna Beach and San Clemente, Dana Point maintains its small-town atmosphere and is characterized by nearly seven miles of prominent coastal bluffs and rolling hills along the Pacific Ocean.

    Virtually all of the home sites at this gated community have unobstructed ocean views, with the front row sitting a mere 25 feet above Strand Beach, with private staircases planned that will lead to the surfing haven below.

    Phase I lots are sold out; a second phase of 10 home sites was expected at press time to be released in early February, with prices ranging from $4 million to $8 million (for the dirt).

    The Strand homeowners will have private use of a 9,000-square-foot Beach Club.

    Sanford Edward’s two firms, Master Plan Developments and White Sand Realty, are currently the managing partner and broker of record that oversee the development activities at the Strand.

    Just think, for only a $10,000 campaign contribution, you too can buy a California Coastal Commissioner’s vote.

    December 31, 2009
    $10,000 campaign contribution from MPDSE Inc. (of Dana Point, CA) to Bonnie Neely

    Buy Local!

    Corps Ain’t Peeps!

    Support Measure T – no outside corporate money (unless you’re a Regressive candidate, then it’s OK)

  22. just middle class
    February 8, 2012 at 9:02 am

    Do you forget that measure T was unconstitutional?

  23. so predictable
    February 8, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Basically, the entire coast is open to the public from the Oregon border down to, and including, Sonoma County. There are very few places where public access is restricted.

    9:49 probably never goes to the ocean, except to drive his big truck through the sand dunes.

  24. Percy
    February 8, 2012 at 11:33 am

    All those rules and regulations being shoved down your throats when it would be so much easier to just drown it all in a bathtub and be done with it once and for all. And the jobs, the ones that every right wing pol, and at least one ex union leader promises but can’t deliver because of that evil CCC. “A socialized coast”, must be Hugo Chaves infiltrating the land of the free and home of the brave. Hold on there cheerleaders, I need to stock up on more kleenex.

  25. neomoderate
    February 8, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    Christ, Percy, it’s not black and white. The CCC should not be abolished – its intent is good. It IS out of hand, and IMO it could very well be a victim of its own zeal.

    Example – I spoke with a guy on the coast. Progressive, well-intentioned guy who wanted to build a house on his land. He was already thinking low-profile, min impact kind of stuff. Seven years to CCC permit approval. Are you kidding me? I don’t care what the conditions are, it should not take seven years of process a permit.

  26. Anonymous
    February 8, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    So Scott,the F’ing fools and you don’t know shit. Where do we have access? Drive from Clam Beach to Cresent City and tell me where we have even 10 % access? You are wrong dude. Flat out wrong. No commercial fishing access , no equestrian access, no OHV access, notta . Are you spinning in bliss on Peter the Greats peter?

  27. Anonymous
    February 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Anyone who thinks, “I’ll be back ” was bad for Cali FORN ia. Get a grip. Douglas is the monster of the century!!!!!

  28. February 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Do would-be coastal developers suffer some form of hysteria? This thread is Exhibit A.

  29. SunnyD
    February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Mission accomplished then, hey Heraldo?

  30. Anonymous
    February 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Exhibit-B, heraldo you B wrong again.

  31. Anonymous
    February 9, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Really Heraldo, what type of thread did you expect when you posted about this jackass.

  32. February 9, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    It takes very little to whip the fundamentalist developer crowd into fits and hair-pulling. Talk of coastal preservation is bound to get the spit flying.

  33. Anonymous
    February 10, 2012 at 6:36 am

    Well, some of us have experience with the Coastal Commission. Some of us are not developers, but people trying to improve their property.

  34. Percy
    February 10, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Yup 6:36, and the rest of us have experience in seeing what the Coastal Commission prevented from being built. Wish the CCC would have been around when Tahoe lake front property was gobbled up by the wealthy few who immediately denied access to anyone. Now only corporations can afford to have a private lakefront “retreat”. It must really urk you property rights aholes to be denied the opportunity to buy and sell a view that the socialist hordes have decided belongs to everybody. And the fortunes not being made by realtors and not trickled back down to the little people…..

  35. Anonymous
    February 10, 2012 at 9:20 am

    Thank goodness there those around preserving open space. Can you just imagine this place looking like the Coast of Southern California? If you don’t like seeing miles of our coast free from sprawl move to L. A.

  36. Anonymous
    February 10, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    We need both public and private spaces. Right now, many of the state and federal parks roads, buildings, and trails are falling apart an unusable due to lack of funding. The private areas in these very special places like Lake Tahoe are well cared for. Most of our architectural treasures were created by wealthy people. Money allows the arts to thrive. Come to the middle and see that we need the left as well as the right to balance our country.

  37. Anonymous
    February 10, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    9:20, I think if Samoa and Manila had some wealthy urban sprawl in a limited area it would have helped the property values there and a lot of it wouldn’t be a cardboard, drug invested village. If there were nice homes (only part, mind you) in a section of it, it would have brought a at least some gentrification to a slum. I wish the mills had never been built there. Even though they were economically important at the time, the net effect of them was that the area became a blight and depressed skeleton of a peninsula. There are a few nice places to be and some well cared for homes. It could have been so much more. More eco friendly, and more housing, less trash.

  38. Open access
    February 12, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Anonymous, wipe the spittle out of your eyes, get out of your car, consult a map and you might learn why your statement is so ridiculous. You said:
    “Where do we have access? Drive from Clam Beach to Cresent City and tell me where we have even 10 % access?”

    OK, starting at Clam Beach (completely accessible) going north you come to Little River State beach (completely accessible). Drive along Scenic Drive – many access points. Now you come to Trinidad State Park (completely accessible). Continuing north, there are several access points before arriving at Patricks Point State Park (completely accessible). From there you can drive or walk on the beach for miles before coming to the Humboldt Lagoons State Park (completely accessible). North of there is Prairie Creek State Park (completely accessible). Klamath River estuary (completely accessible), and so on.

    The only barrier to accessibility to the coastline between all these publicly owned spots is the rugged terrain. And in your case, ignorance.

  39. Open access
    February 12, 2012 at 11:25 am

    To be clear, I mean you can drive on the highway between Patricks Point State Park and Humboldt Lagoons State Park. You may not drive on the beach. Anonymous, you must get out of your automobile to access all these places.

  40. Plain Jane
    February 12, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The idea that we don’t have access to an abundance of beaches is absurd and we can thank the CCC for preserving access and view for a number of them as a condition for building permits. Additionally, they have successfully fought the PLF in court over property owners illegally blocking public access. Without the CCC we would certainly have fewer public beaches.

  41. Anonymous
    February 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    6:38 says gentrification like it’s a good thing. Expensive homes do not equate better living for the people around them, nor is more construction and all the utilities, pollution, population etc. environmentally friendly. On the contrary.

    In other words, image is not everything, not even close.

  42. Anonymous
    February 12, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    PJ & Oa, kool aid drinkers. Read all the signs that say “NO”

  43. Anonymous
    February 12, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    The CCC has never had the authority to create public access to 100% of the coastline, 2:47. If that’s what you want you should get to work to pass legislation to do so and good luck with that.

  44. Anonymous
    February 12, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    I know people who built a house overlooking the ocean and had to deed part of the property to a land trust in exchange for a building permit. I think the project would have turned out better if they hadn’t lost so much money over the years it took to get the permits. The upside? The public has access to the beach area and use of the owners’ road to walk down to the beach.

    Whatever happened to that guy in Trinidad who came up with every imaginable excuse to block public access across the front of his property, citing erosion and later Indian burial grounds as his reasoning?

  45. Anonymous
    February 12, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Legend has it that he finally reached his goal of making himself the absolute center of his own universe. Unfortunately for him, it happened to be a tiny little universe which was in the process of collapsing in on itself.

    Some say that as he winked out of existence, one could only see a brief, shimmering phantom afterimage similar in shape to an asterisk. Others had a slightly different interpretation of the shape, and claimed that if you had been listening closedly as it faded away, a faint phphphphhhhht could be heard.

  46. February 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    That “Kool Aid” stuff is so tiresome.

  47. Dan
    February 13, 2012 at 6:20 am

    Anon@3.26
    “The CCC has never had the authority to create public access to 100% of the coastline, 2:47. If that’s what you want you should get to work to pass legislation to do so and good luck with that.”

    Did not need to.
    Californians enjoy Civil-War era legislation that essentially guarantees access to established trails.

    What The Commission is charged to do is balance access with
    SUSTAINED or ENHANCED natural resources. Natural Resources come first,
    then uses dependent upon those resources then, access.

    Coastal Access Program
    California Coastal Act, Section 30001.5 states:
    “The legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to: . . .
    (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”

    The key point here is, “…consistent with sound resources
    conservation principles….”

    Take note, kirk, Steve, Trevor and Mark, wetlands are
    Californias’ #1 resource interest. Those are/were wetlands west of Manila’s Overlook. They no longer function due to overuse
    (kinetic through dune forest ESHA when not gutting vegetation).
    They need recharged now that a wasting process has begun.

    Manila used wetlands money and destroyed their wetlands.
    No oversight, no care and a lot of money….dead trees, erosion
    and a lot of lies.

  48. Dynamic Equilibrium
    February 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    See what you all think of this doc that shows current (green stop sign) and proposed beach access in Los Angeles
    http://www.coastal.ca.gov/access/va/sva-la.pdf

    Speaking of LA the Malibu Broad Beach access issue seems an appropriate case to discuss. Private property owners blocked access to the beach and hired security to keep the public off the public beach.

    As far as trusting those in power/with wealth to preserve natural resources for all is concerned there is much irony in what appears to be the loss of Broad Beach. The loss of the beach seems due to abuse of power that resulted in mismanagement of the environment (sea walls, sea level rise) and ultimate loss of the resource for all.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beach31-2008dec31,0,7928541.story

    Tragedy of the commons
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    Locally- Humboldt State is planning on filling wetlands at its Samoa storage facility
    http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/2/Th19b-2-2012-a1.pdf.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s