AgdaPkt 2003-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8"4.17 NATIVE AMERICAN "SACRED SITES" BILL THREATENS LOCAL LAND USE AUTHORITY _ The League remains strongly opposed to SB 18 (Burton), which would establish a powerful new regulatory agency to protect Native American sacred sites. While cities remain sensitive to ensuring that land use planning and decision- making processes make every reasonable effort to respect and preserve Native American sacred sites, the League has numerous concerns with the bill's effects on local land use authority, and on cities' ability to process housing and other development applica- tions in a timely manner. The League is joined in its concerns by more than 50 other organizations, including chambers of commerce, the Association of Environmental Professionals, building and development associa- tions, the California First Amendment Coalition, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Forestry Association, the California Chapter of the American Planning Association and many others. governments, developers and businesses to comply with new, complex regulations and mitigation mea- sures?" San Die"to Union Tribune, 8/5/03, Jus' How Far Should Sacred Sites Bill Go? "Hasn't any- one done the math? ... at a minimum each site would affect a circle 10 miles in diameter, which calculates to over 50,000 acres per site." The Fresno Bee, 7/30/03, Nothing Sacred. "SB 18 is overbroad and unnecessary." Sacramento Bee, 7/28/03, Still a Bad Bill. "The bill would give enormous power to an unelected body at the expense of local elected officials." Torrance Daily Breeze, 7/21103, Sacred -Sites Bill Worrisome. "If Californians want to protect Indian sites outside of reservations, then we first need a definitive survey of what those sites are. Now several news organizations have joined the chorus in opposition to the bill. Below are clips of some recent editorials and articles. San Diego Union - Tribune, 8/26103, Secret Regulation — Sacred Sites Bill Could Create a Monster. "The answer to protecting sacred sites need not be a powerful new state regulatory commission whose costs will be borne by property owners and local governments. San Jose Mercury News, 8/26/03, Sacred Lands Bill is a Minefield. "There must be ways to help protect sacred lands, but this bill is a nightmare. It requires serious debate." Riverside Press Enterprise 8/17/03, Proposed "Sacred Sites" Law Bad for Growth. "Minor modifications to existing law could accomplish sacred sites protection without taking local plan- ning rights away from local communities and without transferring unprecedented land czar authority to a single state commission dominated by one special interest." For more information on the bill, please visit the League's website at www.cacities.oro /lea trackin& or call League Legislative Representative Dan Carrigg at 916.658.8222, email: dcarrigg @cacities.org. LEGAL BRIEFS from page 2 • " " " " • • • " land. The landowner claimed that the local agency's actions were retaliatory and violated his constitutional right to free speech because he spoke out against the agency in public and in written articles. The trial court concluded that because the landowner failed to state that the agency's action resulted in a "taking" of his property, his constitu- tional claim did not meet the standard to be heard by a court. The court of appeals reversed the trial court and concluded that the landowner's constitu- tional claim was independent of his "takings" claim, and could be heard by the court. The name of the case is Carpinteria Valley Farms v. County of Santa Barbara, 334 F.3d 796 (9 Cir. Jun. 25, 2003). San Diego Union - Tribune, 8/14/03, Indian Sacred Sites – Governor Pushes a Nebulous, To view these and other recent filings visit: Costly Bill. "Who is going to cover costs to local www.cacities.ora /recentfilinas. PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org