Simple Explanation on Why Banning Ranch Development was Denied

How did Big Money lose at Banning Ranch?

1. Citizen involvement.

Despite the power of big companies and local officials whose main priority seems always to be financial in some way, shape or form, the Coastal Act originated with the public, and somehow has managed to stay true to its origins. We heard this clearly during the hearing from Commissioners themselves.

2. Coastal Staff skill and commitment.

When it comes right down to the single most important factor, the staff of the commission took all the habitat evidence in, even that which arrived late in the process on the Burrowing Owls, and used it all with great skill and preparation. Their writing, reasoning and the case report they prepared was superb by any measure.

3. Development interests bet on spin, not facts.

Throughout the presentations by NBR, all we heard was that they were the only way the area could be cleaned up, restored and opened to the public. While this may be the fastest way to get that result, "restoring" a relatively small area of habitat by paving and fragmenting it is contrary to logic and ecological science. Banning may be large in one sense at 400 acres, but in comparison to what nature once provided in this area and what long-term viability of ecosystems require, it is pretty small.

4. Media focus on developer influence over the commission

Its an impossible factor to quantify, but the many articles on the firing of the exec director a few months ago seems to have encouraged commissioners to be more concerned with the purpose of their agency. And this is a great thing since it is one of the most progressive and responsive agencies around. Speaking from my experience with them, they were always careful, always balanced and intelligent in the way things were handled.

More Nature Commission info on Banning Ranch, Newport Beach, Coastal Commission