ebook img

Can Regulation Work?: The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative PDF

392 Pages·1983·11.15 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Can Regulation Work?: The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative

CAN REGULATION WORK? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT, AND PUBLIC POLICY Aseries of volumes under the general editorship of Lawrence Susskind, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge, Massachusetts ENVIRONMENTA L POLICY AND PLANNING Series Editor: Lawrence Susskind, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge, Massachusetts THE LAND USE POLICY DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES edited by Judith I. de Neufville CAN REGULATION WORK? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative Paul A. Sabatier and Daniel A. Mazmanian PATERNALISM, CONFLICT, AND COPRODUCTION Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Western Europe Lawrence Susskind and Michael Elliott Other subseries: CITIES AND DEVELOPMENT Series Editor: Lloyd Rodwin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts PUBLIC POLICY AND SOCIAL SERVICES Series Editor: Gary Marx, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts CAN REGULATION WORK? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative Paul A. Sabatier University of California, Davis Davis, California and Daniel A. Mazmanian Pomona College Claremont, California PLENUM PRESS • N EW YORK AND LONDON Lihrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Sahatier, Paul A. Can regulation work? (Environment, development, and puhlic poHcy. Environmental poliey and planning) Bibliography: p. lncludes index. 1. Coastal zone management-Califomia. I. Mazmanian, Daniel A., 11. Title, 1II. Series. HT393.C3S21983 333.91711'09794 ISDN 978-1-4684~1157_7 ISDN 978-1-4684-1155-3 (cßoQk) 001 10.10071978- 1-4684- 1155-3 @ 1983 Plenum Press, New York Softcover rcprint ofthc hardcovcr 1s I cdition 1983 A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation 233 Spring Street, New York, N.Y, 10013 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, slored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, meehanical, photocopying, mierofilming, recording, OT otherwise, withoul written perm iss ion from the Publisher Dedicated to Dolores, without whose skill and dedication this book would never have come to fruition. PREFACE Although loeal governments have traditionally exereised almost exclusive regula- tory eontrol over land development within their jurisdictions, throughout the 1970s state governments began to amass eonsiderablc authority over loeal land use deeisions. Studies of the implementation of these new programs, however, have generally had the drawbacks of not being integrated into theoretieal litera- tures in the soeial seien ces and suffering from substantial mcthodologieal prob- lems. On the basis of a review of literatures on poliey making by regulatory ageneies, the implementation of federal soeialldistributive programs, and the situational variables affecting ageney behavior, in this study we develop a general eoneeptual framework of the implementation proeess of regulatory statutes. The framework is then applied to the implementation of one of the more novel and eomprehensive state-levclland use statutes, the California Coastal Zone Conser- vati on Act of 1972. In this undertaking we reeeived eonsiderable assistanee in the design stage and later in review of preliminary drafts of our report from aNational Advisory Committee eomposed of persons actively involved in the implementation ofland use poliey, representatives of groups affected by land use regulation, and seholars in the field. For serving on the eommittee we are indebted to James Carroll, California Couneil for Environmental and Eeonomie Balance; Paul Culhane, Department of Politieal Seience, U niversity of Houston; Grant Dehart, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D.C.; Erwin Hargrove, Institute for Publie Poliey, Vanderbilt University; Hclen Ingram, Department of Politieal Seience, University of Arizona; Kar! Kurtz, National Conferenee of State Legis- latures, Denver, Colorado; Rob MaeDougall, National Conferenee of State Legislatures, Washington, D.C.; Daniel Mandclker, Scl1001 of Law, Wash- ington University, St. Louis; H. Milton Patton, Couneil of State Governments, Lexington, Kentueky; Donald Priest, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.; Lettie Wenner, Department of Politieal Seience, University of Illinois at Chi- eago Circle; and Lawrenee Susskind, Department of Urban Studies and Plan- ning, Massaehusetts Institute of Teehnology. Vll Vlll PREFACE The extensive interviewing and data collection central to the study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the California Coastal Com- missions, their staff, related governrnent agencies, concerned groups and cit- izens, and the sampie of the public surveyed. While it is impossible to mention individually all who cooperated, we would particularly like to acknowledge thc invaluable assistance of Bob Brown, Joseph Bodovitz, Melvin Carpenter, Nor- bert Dall, David Dubbink, Bruce Haston, Donald Hedrick, Jack Lahr, Melvin Lane, Celia von der MuhlI, Don Peterson, Joseph Petrillo, Rick Rayburn, Jack Schoop, Stan Scott, Bob Testa, Bill Travis, Lucille Vinyard, and, especially, Peter Douglas and Judy Rosener. Finally, we are grateful for the dedication and resourcefulness of our con- sultant on economic impacts, Robert Kneisel; our research assistants, who worked with us at various stages of the study, Dana Aiden, Dean Curry, Jack Meek, and Sara Wyant; and our sccretaries, Dolores DuMont, Susan Reames, Jane RusselI, Beverly Biedenbach, and Penny Arns. This report is based upon research supported by the National Science Foun- dation under Grants No. DAR77-14589, DAR77-14589 AOI, and DAR77- 20077. We gratefully acknowledge the encouragement and assistance of our program manager, Terry Sopher. All opinions, findings, and conclusions ex- pressed in the study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Paul Sabatier Daniel Mazmanian CONTENTS 1. The Prospeets for Effective Irnplernentation of Regulatory Poliey ................................................ . I. Governmental Regulation of Economic Behaviar, with Special Reference to Land Use Control ............... . 2 11. Criteria for Effective Implementation of a Regulatory Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III. Selection of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative as a Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IV. Synopsis of Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. The California Coastal Cornrnissions: Genesis and a Prelirninary Irnplernentation Assessrnent ............................. . 27 I. Perceived Coastal Land Use Problems and Possible Solutions, c. 1971-1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 11. The Struggle for Coastal Regulation: Frustration in the Legislatme 1970-1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 III. The Struggle for Coastal Regulation: The 1972 Coastal Initiative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 IV. Prospects far Effective Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3. Beyond the Reaeh of the Coastal Act: External Faetors Affecting the Coastal Cornrnissions ................................ . 69 I. Needs and Resomees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11. Publie Opinion and the Mass Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 UI. Citizen Activists and Interest Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 IV. Agency Sovereigns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 IX x CONTENTS V. Peer Agencies and Their Local Counterparts. . . . . . . . . . . . 87 VI. Summary......................................... 90 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4. The Internal Proeess of Poliey Implementation: Poliey Preferenees and Relationships among Ageney Offieials. . . . . . . . . 95 I. The Selection Process and Policy Preferences of Coastal Commissioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 11. Personal Characteristics, Appointing Authority, and Commissioner Behavior-A Preliminary Look. . . . . . . . . . . 102 III. The Background, Selection, and Policy Preferences of Commission Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 IV. Internal Commission Dynamies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 V. Relations Between the State and Regional Commissions . . . 117 VI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5. Permit Review by the Coastal Commissions: Deeisions and the F actors Affecting Them ................................. . 131 I. Permit Review: A Descriptive Overvicw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 11. Consistency of Permit Decisions with Statutory Objcctivcs . 141 III. A Model of Commissioner Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 6. Impacts-Regulation to What End? ...................... . 193 I. Compliance with the Coastal Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 11. Access and Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 III. Wetlands......................................... 204 IV. Housing.......................................... 206 V. Conclusions. ......... .......... ..... .............. 210 N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 7. The Califomia Coastal Plan: Its Development and Consisteney with Statutory Objectives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 I. The Strategy of Plan Devclopmcnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 11. The Planning Process in Operation ............... _. _. . 219 CONTENTS XI III. The 1975 Coastal Plan: Consisteney with Statutory Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 IV. Summary......................................... 242 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 8. Evaluation and Refonnulation of the Commissions' Mandate: The 1976 Legislative Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 1. The Politieal Context of the 1976 Legislative Session: Publie and Elite Opinion and Resourees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 11. The 1976 Legislative Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 III. The Reformulation of the Commissions' Mandate: A Comparison of the 1976 Coastal Act with the 1972 Initiative and the 1975 Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 9. Epilogue: Sustaining Coastal Conservation in a Different Political Environment, 1977-198l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 1. An Overview of the Implementation Proccss, January 1977-June 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 11. The Commissions' Performance on Selected Major Issucs. 317 III. Conclusions....................................... 340 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 10. The Implications of the California Coastal Commissions for the Effective Implementation of Regulatory Policy . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 1. Applieation of the Framework to the Califomia Case . . . . . 353 11. Implieations of the Case Study for the Adequaey of the Coneeptual Framework and the Possibility of Effectivc Regulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Appendiees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 A. Prineipal Data Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 B. The Califomia Coastal Zone Conservation Aet of 1972 .. . 377 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.