In the midst of a burgeoning environmental movement, California voters in 1972 approved Proposition 20, which created the California Coastal Commission and gave it nearly dictatorial powers over development decisions along the state’s coastline.

Like with most state bureaucracies, Californians have come to accept it as part of the reality of life. Lawmakers have done little, even when the agency abuses its power by, say, fighting a disabled resident’s effort to build a wheelchair-friendly home or quashing a proposed desalination plant over concerns about its impact on plankton. The commission exerts power to reject projects as far as five miles inland.

Over the years, most of the complaints about the commission have come from conservatives and libertarians given the impact of its decisions on private property rights. In 2001, a judge found the agency to be unconstitutional because it wielded executive, legislative and judicial powers. The Legislature reacted quickly by changing the terms of commission appointments – and it has continued along its merry way ever since.

But now the commission is finally getting much-deserved scrutiny from other ideological factions. In recent years, YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yarders) have battled against NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yarders) over development issues. The former have noted that the latter have used environmental laws to stop housing construction and transit projects that advance the state’s climate goals.

A new report, “A Better Coastal Commission,” from an urbanist group called Circulate San Diego has launched a direct critique of the Coastal Commission. And while we don’t fully agree with the group’s pro-transit and high-density land-use goals, we believe it makes crucial points about how no-growth rules drive up housing prices by limiting supply. They also force people into longer commutes, thus undermining the state’s climate and transportation goals.

The report rehashes widely known statistics about housing affordability in the coastal zone – and notes that commission regulations significantly increased housing costs in coastal communities. Soaring coastal housing costs, it adds, has a ripple effect on prices even in non-coastal areas. That situation also has led to racial segregation, it explains, with home prices and rents in coastal areas becoming unattainable for large segments of the population.

The researchers provide “numerous examples where the Coastal Commission has resisted, opposed, and delayed the construction of deed-restricted affordable homes. … Similarly, this report documents examples where the Coastal Commission opposes projects that the Legislature encourages as a part of California’s efforts to combat climate change,” including bicycle lanes and infill developments. This offers fodder for YIMBYs who have battled the commission over bills to expand by-right development approvals to the coastal zone.

The commission took umbrage to the allegations, per a San Diego Union-Tribune report. For instance, commissioners argued that most of the highlighted projects ultimately gained approval. However, the Coastal Commission and its no-growth attitudes have no doubt slowed many projects – and discouraged developers from proposing them in the first place. It’s no surprise that regulations that limit development end up limiting the high-density, transit-oriented projects that many people on the Left seem to like.

Our solution is simple: Reduce the commission’s power and respect property rights. Then developments of all sorts can proceed. California might then gain the chance to address a housing-affordability crisis that is spiraling out of control.

The “suicidal” California doctor accused of intentionally driving his Tesla off a cliff with his wife and two young children inside won’t face trial for attempted murder as he is instead set to begin a mental health diversion program.

Dharmesh Patel, who was granted admission into the two-year program last Thursday at the San Mateo County Court, will remain in jail for “several weeks” before he’s released, the San Mateo District Attorney told NBC News.

The radiologist, who has spent the last 18 months behind bars. will be released from jail to his parent’s home where he will be ordered not to leave.

He will also have to report to court weekly for a progress report.

Patel will be ordered to be tested twice a week “to show medication compliance,” and will have to abstain from drugs and alcohol while also forfeiting his driver’s license and passport, the outlet reported.

The doctor will return to court on July 1 where details of his release will be determined, a spokesperson for District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe told NBC News.

Judge Susan Jakubowski granted Patel admission to the program while the DA’s office “intensely” opposed it.

The radiologist appeared “by all accounts a kind and loving” father, said Jakubowski on Thursday, adding that Patel would be better served in treatment than in jail, the Mercury News reported.

Last week’s ruling was made after evidence was found showing Patel has major depressive disorder.

In April two doctors testified in court that Patel suffered from “major depressive order” and experienced a “psychotic” break during the attempted murder-suicide on Jan. 2, 2023.

The Tesla Model Y plummeted off the 250-foot cliff off “Devil’s Slide” on Highway 1 and landed on the shore of the Pacific Ocean.

Miraculously, Patel, his wife and their two children — a 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son — all survived.

Patel was arrested and later charged with three counts of attempted murder. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges saying the Tesla experienced a malfunction causing the car to careen off the cliff.

His wife Neha later told investigators her husband had suffered from depression before the crash.

“He’s depressed. He’s a doctor. He said he was going to drive off the cliff. He purposefully drove off,” Neha told rescuers.

During his testimony, psychologist Mark Patterson said Patel’s delusions were provoked by the nation’s fentanyl crisis, the war in Ukraine and feared his children could be kidnapped and molested, which appeared to have been connected to Patel’s worries about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

In May, Neha Patel begged prosecutors to drop the charges and admit her husband into the program.

“We need him in our lives and it has been over a year and a half since my children or I have seen or spoken to Dharmesh,” she said.

The doctor was deemed a good candidate for the program because he’s at low risk of injuring anyone else and has shown progress with his treatment since the crash, Patterson said.

“While SCA 2 was one of many efforts to help address the housing crisis, the November’s ballot will be very crowded, and reaching voters will be difficult and expensive,” Allen said in a statement. “In addition, the legislature recently passed my SB 469, which substantially addresses some of the most significant concerns about how Article 34 might be impacting housing production.”

SB 469 clarifies that the use of state affordable housing dollars does not trigger Article 34’s requirement for voter approval. Allen said his focus is on determining whether these efforts are “making a significant dent in addressing the problem,” adding that quickly building more affordable housing is a priority.

Backed by the California Real Estate Association, the forerunner to the current California Association of Realtors, Article 34 was first adopted by voters in 1950. Realtors played on voters’ fears that affordable housing would lead to greater racial integration of exclusively white neighborhoods.

CAR issued a formal apology in 2022 for its past support of Article 34, with association President Otto Catrina condemning the actions and vowing to address the legacy of its “discriminatory policies and practices.”

The organization “remains a strong supporter of the repeal of Article 34 … which adds unnecessary hurdles and costs to the creation of affordable housing,” CAR spokesperson Sanjay Wagle said in a statement.

Wagle noted that a majority of Californians support repealing the provision but cited research showing a voter education campaign would be needed to explain the article’s effects.

“The cost of such a campaign in an election year with so many initiatives on the ballot made this campaign more costly and difficult, thus making it more logical to pursue a repeal on a future ballot,” Wagle wrote. “We thank Sen. Allen and Sen. Wiener for their efforts on this repeal effort and look forward to working [with] them and other stakeholders on this issue in the future.”