Page 1 of 1

More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:33 am
by ATrain
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-b ... 44.html?dr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lynch says she has been trying for a decade to get approval from the Coastal Commission to build something to better restrain the bluff from collapsing.



Source: Cliff Collapses, a Homeowner Begs for Help | NBC San Diego
Basically, a homeowner has been trying for 10+ YEARS to get permission to shore up the cliff that her house sits on, and the government hasn't given it to her. Now, due to the storms in California, she's begging for an emergency approval.

Folks, this is just another example of why we need LESS government regulation, not more.

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:50 am
by kalm
And here are a few out of thousands of examples of why we need good regulation and not neccessarily less or more:

Image

Image

Image

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:56 am
by mebison
ATrain wrote:http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-b ... 44.html?dr
Lynch says she has been trying for a decade to get approval from the Coastal Commission to build something to better restrain the bluff from collapsing.



Source: Cliff Collapses, a Homeowner Begs for Help | NBC San Diego
Basically, a homeowner has been trying for 10+ YEARS to get permission to shore up the cliff that her house sits on, and the government hasn't given it to her. Now, due to the storms in California, she's begging for an emergency approval.

Folks, this is just another example of why we need LESS government regulation, not more.
Any more to that story? What has the Coastal Commission said in response for 10 years? Have they said "no" and given reasons, or just ignored her? What has she proposed doing?

While there are plenty of examples of building permits and rules and such that are ridiculous, I don't see enough details in this situation to classify it as ridiculous.

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:57 am
by dbackjon
Sorry ATrain - but you build your house on an eroding cliff, too bad.

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:45 pm
by ATrain
dbackjon wrote:Sorry ATrain - but you build your house on an eroding cliff, too bad.
But she OWNS the cliff...as for the rest of the details people have inquired about, the reporter did not say whether or not the coastal commission said yes or no, but if the CC says yes she still has to go to the city following that.

As for me, if my hillside starts eroding the City of Salem, VA has no restrictions regarding what I can do to in order to save my house. At least that's what my realtor told me. However, the last inspection showed my hilltop was solid.

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:23 pm
by CID1990
kalm wrote:And here are a few out of thousands of examples of why we need good regulation and not neccessarily less or more:

Image

Image

Image
We need the government to tell us that we have been cleaning fish the right way all along?

Re: More government inefficiency

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:28 pm
by kalm
CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:And here are a few out of thousands of examples of why we need good regulation and not neccessarily less or more:

Image

Image

Image
We need the government to tell us that we have been cleaning fish the right way all along?
I would never keep a native fish from a flowing stream like the Spokane River. But I can tell you that when it comes to trout, that there method is wasteful.