The California Coastal Commission has now reached the parody stage.
In the "Star Trek" TV shows and movies, Starfleet Headquarters is depicted as being across the Golden Gate from San Francisco, in the Marin Headlands. It's a longstanding joke among those who know about the regulatory overreach of the California Coastal Commission that -- ha, ha -- Trek really is science fiction because the Commission would never allow a development like this in the coastal zone (especially in Marin County). Even in the 23d century. And even for an enterprise as noble as the exploration of space.
Now life is imitating humor: as the Los Angeles Times reports in "California officials reject more SpaceX rocket launches, with some citing Musk’s X posts." We know that Space X isn't quite Starfleet, but it is getting pretty close (and this is reality, not some fanciful TV show).
Yet the Coastal Commission is up to its usual shenanigans. As the LA Times notes:
SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on X and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.
The military also vowed to mitigate the reach of sonic booms that often span across 100 miles of coastline, an issue that has caused controversy.
Members of the California Coastal Commission commended Space Force and Air Force representatives for reaching an agreement, but some cited their concerns about Musk, the owner of SpaceX, before rejecting the plan.
Among the issues raised were Musk’s decision to insert himself in the presidential race, his spreading of conspiracy theories, the labor record of his companies and derogatory comments he has made about the transgender community.
“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” commission Chair Caryl Hart said.
You may ask yourself "why are Coastal Commissioners voting no based on their 'concerns' about things like elections, conspiracies, and the CEO's comments?" Indeed. That shouldn't play any part in a process that is supposed to be about use, development, and protection of coastal resources while also considering property rights (all things the California Coastal Act charges the Commission with).
But that's the state of play at what may be the nation's most out-of-control, unsupervised, unaccountable, autocratic, government-within-the-government, agency-on-steroids. It says something that several Commissioners felt it was just fine to publicly announce their "concerns" about these things. We suppose that decades of courts letting the Commission get away with things that would make your toes curl has taught them that there's likely to be little blowback or consequences for the denial and their public statements.
Mr. Musk has said he will sue, and we'll see if that develops. In the meantime, there may be some (non-humorous) reckoning on the horizon: as we reported here, the California Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case (one of ours) which could curb the Commission's unprecedented regulatory overreach. This case highlights how and why the Commission has been one of the largest impediments to the construction of housing in California.
So stay tuned. Our colleague Jeremy Talcott (who chairs our Coastal Initiative) will be arguing the case. We'll report updates as they occur. Or follow along on your own on the court's docket.
So what do you think -- Starfleet may blast the Klingons, but could it overcome the California Coastal Commission?