.jpg)
By taking on the California Coastal Commission head on, this riveting and intelligent documentary from Richard Oshen exposes the archaic and unbending rules of power on the lives of ordinary homeowners.
The story unfolds naturally as we first sympathize with the rule makers in preventing the destruction of habitat by homeowners until the CCC quite remarkably shoot themselves in the foot as dogmatic rules and corruption unfold. The film shows all sides with interviews from couples that have fought the CCC for years, ex CCC staff that believe in the Commission but not their strict laws, and the Commissioners themselves who are absolute and unwavering.
No one is denying the purpose of a commission that protects Southern California’s rich landscape. Oshen’s film dares to question authority and in doing so ignites the kind of investigative journalism that has been sadly missing during Bush years.
Directed by Richard Oshen
Comments
oshen is a wanted criminal; who is running from the law and was paid by overzealous law firms to promote their clients interest via a fake docu-drama; the elaborate cuts and edits should not full the public; most of the negative comments are from persons who have destroyed the environment for their own gain - from Geffen to Marine Forest Society; the quick flip and turning of property for capitol gain is similar to the AIG fiasco- in this case they were caught for their wrong-doings.
Sadly, Lopsided is living up to his moniker, ovbiously keen to wax poetically in his (or her) dellusional world...ovbiously a paid supporter who sucks the teet of the bloated cow himself. - A fox smells his own hole first.
Ben
A wanted criminal? and running from the law? how cool is that?
Sounds incredibly romantic! Do you know if he's single, Lopsided? He looks attractive enough, judging by the photo on the film's website, but other than that, what charges have been brought against him? Tell us! Tell us quick!
Where are the limits to the powers of the Coastal Commission? Where are the checks and balances? Why can we not elect "our" Commissioners? "Our" Coastal Commission is the most powerful land use authority in the USA, so why are they jamming up all the people living in the Coastal Zone? Mr Oshen's film--- Hoo-Ray! Put some bright sunlight on the Commissioners.
Thank you Ms. Liu. As this film is considered seditionistic by folks who don't think too deeply, your middle-of-the-road stance is a welcome breath of fresh.
It is so interesting to me that people love to attack the messenger, and thereby avoid the pesky chore of confronting the message. Militant green-washing of the issue is the tool at hand, and class warfare the plan. This way, the true issues are obfuscated and warped.
People NEED to see this movie. They need to judge what is going on in their name, and being paid for by their tax dollars.
p.s. Mr. Oshen is not a criminal. That accuser is slanderous. Accountability is a door that should swing both ways. The accuser is the one actually crossing the line into the arena of criminal behavior.
pG
it's high time someone took the CCC to task, but, as we've come to expect, any mention of this sacred cow in any-but-glowing terms sets off a shrill cacophony of outraged alarm from the green meanie glee squad. all behind the gesticulating red herring of the mythical "destroyed environment".
here's a clue, kids: the earth is resilient! ask yourself, does it grow back after a wildfire or not?
why can't we have a discussion about what's wrong with the coastal commission that isn't immediately quashed and silenced by ideologues? why is it that the same dogmatic demographic that wants privacy rights upheld and fought for [when they are threatened by THAT branch of government] pushes so hard to have the same rights waived by THIS branch of government?
Having had the opportunity to view this film, it seems the California Coastal Commission has far much over-riding authority over the 5 miles (approx 8km) from the coast... There is a serious danger of wildfires in the region that can isolate homes and probably even whole communities.
After recent devastating fires (200+ deaths by fire) here in Australia it has become apparent that more stringent back-burning must occur on a regular basis. Fire action plans are also needed, all of this should be done in league with local council AND the CCC. Of course the other option is that- if these forest areas are that valuable to the greater American community land owners should be compensated at market value and the entire section resumed.
Big issues, yes, though the "criminalisation" of general care of one's own land certainly seems un-American, to me a non-American...
Watch it, and decide for yourself.
Sins of Commission is full of distortions and outright lies. Shame on you for giving it unwarranted credibility.
hmmm, it seems to me in reading these comments from one single review that the strongly opposed are those that didn't simply "just see the movie" but are rather involved in the Coastal Commission itself. Is it fair to say then Doulliard and Lopsided, that you may have a biased view? It's just a little obvious...
And as for the movie, well done to those who are pioneering a war with a "brand" that is undoubtedly a wolf in sheep's clothing.
One would logically, assume a person in Mr. Schmitz' position as an "expediter" serving clients with a huge project in front of the commission (See: the Edge of Destruction in LA WEEKLY)that he would want to distance himself from a film that exposes serious wrongdoing of the commission. It just goes to show what awesome power this bunch has over people's lives. If the film exposes only that, it is enough for me. As for Francis Drouillard's website, it is a sorry site which is probably the reaon no one pays attention to it. He seems desparate to get people to hit his site, and read his brackish swill.
My blog contains links to Coastal Commission staff reports, which serve to refute the erroneous implications and statements in Mr. Oshen's film. And there are many.
One must ask how many lies he's entitled to before he loses credibility. Every thing he claims that I've looked into has turned out to be demonstrably untrue.
Sorry to hear that the courageous commenter "on the edge" is more impressed with eye candy than facts.
SHILL:
noun; an accomplice of a hawker, gambler or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
Does that help?
Aaah, the irrepressible Mr.Drouil-lard has shown up. With his spittle and outraged vitreolic phlegm, he just drips with self-righteous indignation. As per usual, he portrays himself as someone who has seen the film. But of course, that is not true, is it, darling?
Mr. Drouil-lard has made it his pet goal in life to destroy the credibility of this film, 'Sins of Commission'. My feeling is that if it is indeed such a myopic, short-platted distortion, it would not be gaining traction. But it is. And that really palls for you, doesn't it, Frannie?
Your continued rant that this film deals in lies and distortions is correct. The California Coastal Commission is the purveyor, however, and the folks in this film are just a teaspoon-full of the the buckets of slop that the CCC has created in its full bore agenda to destroy private citizens. Through these real losses, the CCC will destroy the Bill of Rights.
And I am sure you are all for that.
How's the building process going for you? Got all your permits in place? As a CCC pet, I am sure that they should all have been 'fast track expedited'.
Anon -- Care to debate facts, or did you just need another opportunity to misspell words longer than one or two syllables? While you're at it, please tell us how many lies you allow someone before they lose credibility with you? One? Two? Maybe we should measure them by the dozen. Just for you.
Mr. Douil-lard... what am i misspelling?
Careful, Mr. Drouillard.
The whole world is watching...
You know, it's kinda interesting. 'Facts' are not debatable. Their effect may be, but a 'fact' is, by definition, irrefutable. Mr.Drouillard's position that they are debatable, throws into sharp contrast his definition of 'fact' and the definition provided in any pocket edition dictionary one would care to use. Therefore, one must conclude that Mr.Drouillard's facts are, in actuality, merely opinions. And you know the adage about opinions.... everyone's got at least one.
Just to dispel any misconceptions intentionally perpetrated by pG, I did not state or imply the facts are debatable.
What is debatable is whether or not Mr.Oshen's work accurately characterizes the efforts of the Coastal Commission. I do not believe it does, and I present facts to make my case. Insults and naming-calling by pG and Anon, as well as thinly veiled threats from Live Bait, do not refute those facts.
Mr. Oshen is spreading lies about Coastal Commission staff and commissioners to glorify gross violators of the Coastal Act and make a buck. In that regard, he's no better than Michael Moore or Al Gore.
I neither perpetrate nor perpetuate misconceptions. You do that enough for us all.
I see you're up to your old tricks again, Frank, just like the last time anyone dared to mention Sins of Commission on the web.
My bet is that you still haven't seen the film, but at least now you're not lying and saying that you did, and that you've discussed it with Mr. Oshen, like, you know, last time, and I see that as an improvement, really, tiny as it is.
But you're still using CCC staff reports to show that the staff doesn't lie, and therefore...what? A film you haven't seen is all lies and conjecture because it questions your favorite authority?
Shame on you again, Francis Drouillard, for continuing to be a shill and a toadie for the CCC. What are they giving you in return? A permit?
Maybe amnesty?
Outside of the CCC's staff, you are the only person I've ever encountered who supports these merciless thugs. Everyone else I've encountered is deathly afraid of their retaliation, a fact that all should find deeply disturbing.
For you folks reading this: Frank is never going to allow criticism of the CCC or the Coastal Act, no matter what. Why would he? Frank is an engineer dealing in state bridge-building contracts, and we're criticizing his cash cow. He's just elbowing everyone away from his spot at the trough.
The nub of the matter is that Mr. Oshen did not give anyone a script to follow. Every person interviewed for the film simply spoke, in their own words, with their own cadence. That this alone is enough to show the CCC as it truly is, is not a result of the victims voices, or even the voice of their combined experiences. It is a result of what commissioners, staff, and Peter Douglas himself chose to say in their interviews. THAT is what tells the viewer what is happening here, today, and everyday, for thousands of people up and down the California coast. That this is the first that has been filmed of some of these experiences speaks to the atrociousness of the CCC's policies, and the public's fear of reprisals by the CCC. Because the CCC does punish. Severely. And Richard Oshen has been the only one brave enough to take them on.
.... And you want him to HUSH UP??? Which he won't. So YOU are going to try to make him? By attempting to belittle his work? Puh-lease.
Thank you, Richard! Thank you, Richard! Thank you, Richard!
pG -- I don't think you'd know a fact if one hit you in the face. You certainly haven't attempted to address any facts regarding the topic at hand, namely Mr. Oshen's film. You have yet to back up any of the claims you've made in this thread, including:
_this film is considered seditionistic by folks who don't think too deeply,
_Militant green-washing of the issue is the tool at hand, and class warfare the plan
_I neither perpetrate nor perpetuate misconceptions
You present yourself as a gatekeeper of facts, but shy away from discussing them. Why is that?
Could it be that you don't have any relevant facts worth discussing?
Could it be that you don't have a clue what the Commission does and the legal basis for their actions?
Perhaps you disagree with certain provisions of the Coastal Act, or disagree with certain decisions of the Commission. There's plenty of room to have a civil discussion on those issues, but it requires a knowledge of the facts -- all the facts -- which are not present in the clips and trailers of Mr. Oshen's film. I've tried to share some that were missing from the film as well as provide another point of view.
Once you have a rudimentary command of a few facts, you'll be capable of having a reasoned debate. Better yet, you won't need to remain anonymous!
Did I call that or what, folks?
Francis Drouillard has NEVER SEEN THIS MOVIE!
djn -- I have never said I saw the entire film. In fact, I've made in clear both here and at the HMB review that I am responding to clips and film trailers provided by Mr. Oshen at his "Sins of Commission" website. At mendonomaDOTblogspotDOTcom I link to those clips and provide additional information that refutes the assertions made in the film.
So, if you consider providing a way for others to verify the veracity of Mr. Oshen's claims on their own rather that swallow all the drivel he serves, then I'm guilty as charged.
You too are guilty of failing to address any of the specific allegations of wrong-doing by the Commission. I've looked beyond the clips and trailers and found it to be largely a fabrication. What have you done to verify anything in the film? Perhaps you're a violator, too, and simply refuse to acknowledge that the Commission's actions are well-founded in state and federal law.
Let's take one account presented by Mr. Oshen -- the case of Peg and Dan. Have you read the staff report? If you did, and were capable of thinking for yourself, you'd quickly see that Peg and Dan of Wildcrews Playground LLC aren't the victims they pretend to be. They tried to conceal their development from all authorities, including the Coastal Commission. When busted by a neighbor, they first agreed to apply for a CDP after-the-fact. They then began to harass commission staff who tried to enforce state law. One thing missing from the film is that commission staff initially agreed to filming of their inspection, so long as they were allowed to film as well. The reason was so that would have a video record to thwart any attempts by Mr. Oshen to use editing techniques to mischaracterize the site visit. Peg and Dan refused to allow them to film. Why would they refuse to reciprocate on the issue of videotaping?
I have my suspicions, and those suspicions are reinforced by Mr. Oshen leaving that fact out of his clips and trailers.
djn -- You should print this thread and give it to your mother. She might put it on her refrigerator.
Actually, Frank, you did say that you had seen the film. Look in your archives, silly. And then we busted you for being a liar, and now you're lying again.
And calling people stupid. Again.
And bringing up staff reports. Again.
It's a MOVIE, Frank, not the end of the world.
Unless, that is, the Coastal Act and the CCC IS your world?
Have you considered playing the stock market?
I? A gatekeeper? THE gatekeeper? Don't be ridiculous. That is your claim, the one you claim for you. I merely advocate seeing the movie.
The statements I made are o-pin-ions. That I made them is a fact. That you don't like them is another fact.
See? All cleared up now?
I've seen this film.
It's very, very good and LONG overdue.
I want everyone to see it.
I want there to be a very public, very serious and very meaningful conversation about how to fix the CCC, and then I want that repair to be enacted.
djn -- Other than ad hominem attacks, name-calling, changing the subject and avoiding facts relevant to the topic at hand, do you have anything meaningful to add the discussion? You say "I want there to be a very public, very serious and very meaningful conversation," yet you fail to do so time and time again.
I'm beginning to believe you're just as disingenuous as Richard Oshen and Don Schmitz. That, or you're the guy that said he could beat Obama in a bowling match.
Mr. Drouillard,
I am not affiliated with anyone in or having to do with this film, but was given the opportunity to watch it through aquaintances. I want you to realize now, that you have come across as not only childish but extremely nervous at the potential of this film. If I were your superior, I would be very intent on keeping my distance from YOU now, as well as this movie. You have been careless is mere accusations and your "fact refuting" due to your emotions, and they are being worn on your blood-drenched sleeve.
I sat down to watch this documentary because I was asked to, not because i sought it out, and had no prior conception of the Coastal Commission other than that of the general public knowledge. Now however, because of your rants I am keenly interested, and intend to forward this to those who also make it their job to inform the public of such eye-opening situations.
Thank you Mr. Droulliard, for making it perfectly clear that this is not some minor drab of a documentary, but one of great interest to all parties involved.
A brush fire wouldn't stand a chance in here. I can say, without getting too involved, is that somewhere in the middle of all this is the truth. As everyone knows, all-powerful government is corrupt. On one side of the coin this commission champions the environment. Good. But championing the enviroment also serves as it's calling card to ransack the ordinary guy. No doubt people have suffered severely - and that is the untold story. Any sins Mr. Oshen may or may not have committed seems like those of ommission, rather than commission. I for one look forwad to seeing the film
BW -- Like so many others that have demonstrated they don't know how to have a meaningful discussion on this important topic, you've chosen to make me the issue rather than the movie. Like so many others, you have failed to discuss any specifics, nor have you provided any evidence that you're willing to independently verify the claims and implications made in the movie's clips and trailers.
If you're going to base your opinion of the Coastal Commission solely on Mr. Oshen's movie, then you will be just as misguided as the others when it comes to the Coastal Act.
I've tried to provide facts that supplement those presented by Mr. Oshen, and they tend to refute his claims. If you want to ignore those facts and stay willfully ignorant of the commission's purpose and actions, then there is no reason to discuss the issue any further with you.
Ahh, Mr. Drouillard, I even contemplated on writing this rebuttal as I really was just interested in the banter which ensued due to mainly what looks like your provocation.
However, your strange emotional writing compels me.
As far as my lack of addressing "facts" I am writing an opinion of a movie on a review. Did you not understand this small detail?
...And as for your schoolyard he-said she-said facts which you claim to have refuted on this COMMENT BOARD, you might want to stick to your day job...oh wait, this is it isn't it?
Precisely why I thought this might get interesting.
Thank you Drouillard, you've saved me from researching just who will be the best person to contact on the Coastal Commission's behalf, do they know this?
Best,
BW
Mr. Oshen is no better than Michael Moore or Al Gore? Cool. Where do I get this film?
BW -- If I understand you correctly, you want Mr. Oshen to perpetuate misconceptions about the Coastal Commission and that you enjoy trolling message boards to bring discussions to the lowest level possible.
I've watched 4 clips or trailers from the movie "Sins of Commission." After a modest amount of research, I've found that every single one of them has either omitted relevant facts or otherwise skewed the truth about the Coastal Commission. I would walk you through each scenario, but since you don't care about whether or not Mr. Oshen is truthful, it really doesn't matter.
What misconceptions you mean? That the coastal commission is not holy? That the CCC don't walk on water? (probably a violation),and that they don't urinate honey? From watching the trailer, the only thing I have to go by - and the comments here- it looks to me that your comment about the commission not having cameras is a glaring omission- Everyone in that section of the clip had a camera. Cops had cameras, commissioners had cameras. The only guy who didn't is the on guy who should have - the guy who owned the property. If I read you right, at the very worst, Oshen is guilty of omission, but you are too.
Film Guy -- I didn't see any clips with commissioners in it. Perhaps you can point it out. I did see a deputy AG and one enforcement staff from the Coastal Commission, and neither had a video camera. If you want more background, I can refer you to the staff report, which fully documents the actions of Wildcrew's Playground. Their actions were clearly intended to circumvent the law and thwart efforts to force them to comply with the law. If that won't sway you, perhaps you can tell me where in California that one can build roads without any permits whatsoever.
The CCC staff greatly enjoy benefits-of-doubt that unfairly tilt the scales of justice in their favor:
1) the Substantial Evidence Rule, and
2) Presumption of Correctness.
These two Administrative Law holdings result in citizens being presumed guilty until those same citizens prove their own innocence, at their own expense. Such holdings run counter to the legal foundation that any civilized country is built upon.
CCC staff are not required to swear an oath that they will be truthful, yet their reports are given the weight of sworn expert testimony. In the case of Wildcrew's Playground, LLC, what is the expertise the CCC's Veesart possesses, that FD finds his staff report so compelling as to settle FD's argument on this board? What did Veesart do, before being hired as chief enforcement officer for half of the CCC's jurisdiction?
Veesart was a leading organizer for the Sierra Club, a for-profit corporation.
What were his enforcement duties in that job?
Actually, Francis, a careful reading of the Coastal Act will help you understand that REPAIRING and MAINTAINING an EXISTING driveway doesn't require a CDP, as it is EXEMPT activity.
When you read the word "unpermitted", try substituting "exempt", see if that makes it easier to wrap your head around it.
Engineering a little slow today?
djn -- You would benefit from reading pages 20 thru 26 of 31 of the staff report. Those refute every assertion made by Wildcrew's Playground LLC. (They also have a boilerplate look to them.) Also, make sure you follow the link to the exhibits on page 30 of 31 of the staff report. An examination of the photos will provide strongly suggests the work was new. Reading thru the letters also serves to destroy the claims of Wildcrew's Playground LLC.
They needed a permit. They could have gotten one, and still could.
Jeez, Frank - you still here?
Um, Frank?
The staff report is a 29 page document, promulgated by a Sierra Club organizer. Not reliable as evidence, insufficient for establishing culpability, especially since you're sending me to pages 30 and 31.
Have you had dinner?
Geez, I'm sorry , Frank, you were trying to send me to the letter, from Zumbrun to Veesart of the CCC, asking him about who trespassed on Wildcrew's property (couldn't be seen from elsewhere) and pointed out that the whole thing was either a cover-up of wrongdoing, or entrapment, or both. I see now, you said 'staff report' and meant 'exhibits'.
I still don't understand how illegal trespass and entrapment (on the part of CCC staff) prove the Wildcrew needed a permit, though. Are you saying the CCC is above the law?
And, having said that, let me try to help you understand the underlying principle of this film, this review of it, and this comment thread:
People are AFRAID of the CCC, and all of the 'fact' in the world can't dispel that fear, when in their gut, people feel that the CCC, and therefore you, have been lying.
You might change minds, Frank, but you're never going to change feelings.
Oh, wait, silly me...
...you were referring to pgs. 20-26 of the staff report, sorry.
This is the "wildcrew's defense/staff response" section of the festivities.
Yes, we're on the same pages now, again, sorry for my confusion with your posting.
Anyway, here we have a)Wildcrew's and b)staff, laying out each side of the story, and, like any potential juror, I presume someone is lying.
Care to hazard a guess as to which of these parties I automatically presume to be the liars?
I don't know about you, Frank, but I, for one, have been reading newspapers all my life, and have been in hearings where government personnel were testifying.
To presume that they always tell the truth is the height of naivete. And from what Wildcrew's accuses them of in these pages, they're most likely lying.
And nobody likes a liar, Frank.
djn -- At least you took a look an another side of the story. That's all I've been asking folks to do.
As for being skeptical of government bureaucrats, that's healthy. But to assume they're all despicable power-grabbing liars and that Peg and Dan are as pure as the driven snow is not. What about the neighbors that provided written and photographic evidence that supports staff's position? Are they all liars too? Are those photos altered? And the judge?
The Commission may have its shortcomings, but not in the the Wildcrew's Playground case. It doesn't supports the idea of a commission out of control, let alone one that is solely responsible for the devasting wildfires in our state.
Francis-
What judge?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!