Several times over the past many years, I’ve ended a column about California’s greatest natural asset with the same words:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
Today I’m beginning with that thought.
The words are not mine. The late Peter Douglas, former executive director of the California Coastal Commission, uttered them many years ago. He was pointing out that it would take constant vigilance to fend off repeated attempts to chip away at the protections he helped enshrine in the Coastal Act.
Over the last few days, the person doing the chipping was Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed a bill that would have shredded a page of the Coastal Act in a way that would have benefited a longtime campaign donor.
Odious, yes, but if you’re thinking of running for president one day, why not go for broke?
Coastal protection advocates held their breath late into the night Friday as the clock ticked at the end of the legislative session. But before I let you know how it played out, I’m going to back up a bit.
I’d just returned last week from a trip back east, where I’d taken photos of signs blocking my access to some beaches in Connecticut and New York. A typical under-handed tactic they use is to prohibit parking in beach lots unless you show proof of residence.
If you’re not a resident, goodbye. The parking lot could be nearly empty and they’ll send you away, and then you’ll discover there is nowhere else to park within easy or safe walking distance. It’s a surefire way to essentially privatize beaches.
So I came home eager to remind everyone that we have something special in California, and that we should all be lighting candles on the cake celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
That’s the framework that established guidelines regarding public access, conservation and development. And it came about because more than half a century ago, when it appeared that the coast was becoming too privatized and industrialized, a citizen uprising led to the protections we enjoy today.
Now back to Gov. Newsom.
I’d barely unpacked my vacation bags when a gaggle of sources and news reports grabbed my attention, and the Calmatters story and headline neatly summed things up:
“Newsom pushes environmental carve-out for campaign donor’s Santa Monica project.”
The project, Calmatters reported, “belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife, Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records.”
Susan Jordan, of the California Coastal Protection Network, was aghast.
“You don’t expect to have a governor do something so under-handed as this, and now that it’s out in the open, there’s no shame about it,” she told me. ”And he would be the first person to carve out an exemption in the Coastal Act, that has survived all these other attacks over the last 50 years.”
Nice timing, Mr. Governor. I’d just written last month about how President Trump has launched his own attempt to torpedo the Coastal Commission and California’s long-established authority on matters of coastal conservation and development.
You’d like to see the California governor stand tall rather than come off like Trump’s caddy, kicking sand in the faces of those who have taken up stewardship of the coast.
Look, not everyone loves the Coastal Act or the Coastal Commission, which is seen by many as obstructionist and slow-footed. Sometimes, finding the right balance between sensible development and coastal conservation can be complicated.
But in essence, California is about the idea that the coast is not owned by anyone, it’s owned by everyone.
In the case of the Santa Monica project, Jordan asked the right question.
“Why the exemption?”
Is there something so odious about a reworked design that the only way to hustle it across the finish line is to give it a free pass?
“If you want to build in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act,” Jordan told me. “That’s why we have the Coastal Act, and I don’t think it should be corrupted by this developer or by the governor.”
Newsom, when asked recently by a reporter to explain what he was up to, had this to say:
“I’m not going to comment about any pending bills.”
Why not? If you’re going to tear up the rule book on coastal development, doesn’t the public deserve an explanation, even if you’ve already got one foot out the door?
The Worthe project would sit just up from the beach in Santa Monica, and, in previous incarnations, it has included a luxury hotel, apartments and a Frank Gehry museum. The Coastal Commission signed off on it a few years ago after extended tussles and finally an agreement regarding low-cost housing provisions. After getting the green light, Worthe pulled back, and his permit expired.
But then Newsom came to the rescue with a trailer bill that aides were still pushing as of Thursday, sources tell me. It would have allowed for an unnamed project in that same location to be put forward again, this time without normal regulatory review in the event that Santa Monica failed to complete its own local coastal plan (LCP) by 2028
And since it could be difficult to meet that deadline, Newsom’s bill essentially provided a way to escape the kind of critical review demanded by the Coastal Act.
In anticipation of a Friday meeting between Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Santa Monica) rallied legislators to implore the governor to back off.
Zbur, who had been working on his own coastal development and public access bill and helping assemble Santa Monica’s LCP, was one of a dozen legislators who signed a salty missive that was sent Friday to Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.
“We are frustrated that, once again, we must devote time and energy to working to defeat this harmful proposal that creates unprecedented exemptions from the Coastal Act,” the letter said.
It must have made an impact. Late Friday night, when the last whistle blew at the sausage factory, the Newsom exemption had been pulled back.
Victory for the coast.
Zbur told me Saturday morning that it was not clear how the matter had played out when the governor met with the two legislative leaders Friday, but Zbur was grateful to all three of them for letting the matter drop.
“This wasn’t about the project,” Zbur said. “It was about the precedent that would have been set on having people come in and exempting a certain project from the Coastal Act. It would have been a terrible precedent.”
Despite this threat and the recent big-footing by Trump, there’s a silver lining in all of this.
“As long as there are people who want to monetize the coast for their own benefit, you’re going to need people to rise up and say no,” said Kim Delfino, an environmental attorney and founder of Earth Advocacy.
And people did rise up.
Last week, dozens of organizations signed a letter to the governor opposing any “last-minute legislation to create dangerous exemptions to the Coastal Act.” Among them were Heal the Bay, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, L.A. Waterkeeper, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation and Orange County Coastkeeper.
I can think of several ways to end this column, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think I can do better than to lean on this reminder:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Commentary: Southern Section needs to regain credibility in dealing with schools violating rules
The Southern Section has no authority to tell a school to get rid of a coach. It has no control over personnel matters. But there’s precedent that when a coach knowingly plays an ineligible player, it expects a school district to take appropriate action.
In the case with Inglewood football coach Mil’von James, he has a history of using ineligible players. James came to Inglewood, which is 4-1 this season, after being fired at Hawkins in 2016 following the discovery of ineligible players, resulting in Hawkins forfeiting all of its games to finish 0-13. Since then, the City Section established a rule that teams must exchange rosters before games to verify that players are eligible, known as the “Hawkins rule.”
Inglewood Unified School District administrator James Morris told the Daily Breeze that James is scheduled to return to coach on Friday after missing last week’s game against Long Beach Poly at SoFi. That means he received a two-game suspension for using two ineligible players in a game last month, since it is believed he also didn’t coach a game against Elk Grove Franklin.
James appears to have knowingly played two players listed on the Southern Section transfer portal that had not been cleared when Inglewood played in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 28. Video obtained by The Times shows the players in the game.
Add to that, both players’ names and numbers were missing from Inglewood’s MaxPreps’ roster, something that was also a tactic when James coached at Hawkins and resulted in the new City Section rule to exchange roster before games.
Shame on the Inglewood Unified School District for failing to hold its coach accountable for a serious violation of CIF rules.
If the two-game suspension stands, shame on the Southern Section, too. The message being sent to other coaches and other schools is that it’s OK to cheat as long as you don’t get caught, and if you get caught and only get suspended for two games, it’s worth it.
The Southern Section, under commissioner Mike West, went out of its way to try to catch those breaking transfer rules last year. It was a sign maybe things were changing and people were paying attention to the games being played with more than 17,000 transfers in California. But if the Southern Section settles for a two-game suspension for James, it will lose credibility among coaches and programs trying to follow CIF rules.
Southern Section spokesman Thom Simmons has declined comment and declined to make West available.
As always, they’re afraid of legal action. And it must be pointed out again the Southern Section has no authority to discipline coaches. But at some point, to save credibility, they will need to address this breaking of rules that goes to the core of what the CIF is supposed to guard against.
The Southern Section Council has a meeting on Thursday. If any of the representatives have concerns, maybe then they’ll get to ask West how this could be acceptable.
In 2014 Long Beach Unified suspended Long Beach Poly basketball coach Sharrief Metoyer for one year for after he was caught using an ineligible player during a state basketball playoff game. He did it on purpose being frustrated at the CIF transfer policies. The CIF could not tell administrators what to do. But if they did nothing or put in only a two-game suspension, there’s no doubt that the Southern Section leadership had the authority to take action.
According to Southern Section’s Blue Book rule 500.5, “Any school knowingly or unknowingly violating the rule may be suspended from membership in the CIF Southern Section.”
Hopefully the Southern Section is keeping its options open, but it’s time for West, the commissioner since 2023, to get his credibility back. If not, it’s up to the Southern Section Executive Committee to launch its own investigation of what the section is supposed to do when schools and districts don’t take their rules seriously.
Source link
Commentary: New CTE study renews parental concerns about teenagers playing football
New headlines this week are raising concerns for parents of high school football players.
According to a study published from researchers at Mass General Brigham, Boston University and the Concussion & CTE Foundation, one in four former NFL players who died between 2016 and 2021 might have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). There were 338 brains donated to study, and 315 of them had evidence of CTE, a brain disorder that can happen because of repeated injuries to the head.
Allan Walsh, a sports agent and lawyer, said in a tweet: “This is a crisis.”
Parents have previously debated among themselves the risks and rewards in letting a son or daughter play a contact sport, but this new study regarding football head injuries is once again going to rattle, if not cause a retreat, from some allowing family members to participate in football.
“It causes concern,” said Mike Hamilton, a former high school football and basketball coach who has a son playing football at Chatsworth High. “Sometimes I’m like, ‘Do I want him to play?’ I’m apprehensive. He has a passion for the game. He’s conscience about his health. What gives me relief is knowing that practices are going well. There are protocols parents should abide by. We didn’t let our son play football until he got to high school because of the hits.”
Tim Moscicki, an athletic trainer at Loyola High for 38 years, said much has changed for the better in protecting football players from concussions and other head injuries. He said new policies, improved equipment, a focus on tackling fundamentals and new protocols are all having an impact.
Loyola athletic trainer Tim Moscicki doing baselining of students in 2014 to help diagnose concussions.
(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)
He remembers the days when coaches would say, “He got his bell rung.” The player would sit out a few plays, then get put back in. Now that term is barred from everyone’s vocabulary. New rules requiring players to sit out a minimum of seven days following a concussion while needing clearance from a doctor to return and tackling restrictions put in during weekly practices show the CIF is taking CTE concerns in a serious matter for high school sports.
“To me. football has gotten a lot safer,” Moscicki said. “Right now, given what’s in place, it’s safe to play football. Kids are being held out now when they develop any kind of symptom. Back in 1990, if a kid had a concussion and they were free of symptoms for 24 hours, we’d give them their helmet back, ‘You can play.’
“My thing it’s still up to parents if they want their sons to play football. My youngest played football, oldest played lacrosse. There’s always a risk. There’s a risk riding a bike. There’s risk playing baseball. It’s a just a little higher in the full-contact sports. The standards have changed so much. There really wasn’t a return to play protocol in the ‘70s ‘80s and ‘90s.”
Moscicki was one of the first high school athletic trainers to do baselining of all students, giving them tests of their balance and brain functions so it can be used and compared with a similar exam if the student is suspected of having a concussion. Loyola also started a return-to-school program because students with concussions have headaches that also affects their school work.
Parents must understand “you cannot prevent a concussion,” Moscicki said.
“If you get hit hard enough, there’s nothing out there that would 100% prevent a concussion,” he said. “A concussion happens as a result of your brain hitting the inside of your skull.”
The good news is everyone seems to be endorsing funding research into head injuries, including the NFL. It’s still too early to conclude where the research is headed.
That’s where parental choice comes into play.
“Football is a sport,” Moscicki said. “You don’t have to play it. You don’t have to watch it.”
And yet, the Super Bowl is the most watched annual television broadcast in the United States, with lots of monetary rewards for those who participate.
There are many challenges ahead. Pierce College and Orange Coast College paused their junior college football programs this year for lack of players. Junior varsity programs at lots of high schools have been discontinued for lack of players. A CIF participation survey for 2025-26 found 11-man football is the most popular boys sport with 87,718 participants, a drop of 4% from last school year.
“Anything that’s a contact sport runs a risk,” Hamilton said. “You want to protect your son.”
Source link
Commentary: Gov. Newsom backs off from shameful gambit, and it’s a victory for California coast
Several times over the past many years, I’ve ended a column about California’s greatest natural asset with the same words:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
Today I’m beginning with that thought.
The words are not mine. The late Peter Douglas, former executive director of the California Coastal Commission, uttered them many years ago. He was pointing out that it would take constant vigilance to fend off repeated attempts to chip away at the protections he helped enshrine in the Coastal Act.
Over the last few days, the person doing the chipping was Gov. Gavin Newsom, who pushed a bill that would have shredded a page of the Coastal Act in a way that would have benefited a longtime campaign donor.
Odious, yes, but if you’re thinking of running for president one day, why not go for broke?
Coastal protection advocates held their breath late into the night Friday as the clock ticked at the end of the legislative session. But before I let you know how it played out, I’m going to back up a bit.
I’d just returned last week from a trip back east, where I’d taken photos of signs blocking my access to some beaches in Connecticut and New York. A typical under-handed tactic they use is to prohibit parking in beach lots unless you show proof of residence.
If you’re not a resident, goodbye. The parking lot could be nearly empty and they’ll send you away, and then you’ll discover there is nowhere else to park within easy or safe walking distance. It’s a surefire way to essentially privatize beaches.
So I came home eager to remind everyone that we have something special in California, and that we should all be lighting candles on the cake celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act.
That’s the framework that established guidelines regarding public access, conservation and development. And it came about because more than half a century ago, when it appeared that the coast was becoming too privatized and industrialized, a citizen uprising led to the protections we enjoy today.
Now back to Gov. Newsom.
I’d barely unpacked my vacation bags when a gaggle of sources and news reports grabbed my attention, and the Calmatters story and headline neatly summed things up:
“Newsom pushes environmental carve-out for campaign donor’s Santa Monica project.”
The project, Calmatters reported, “belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife, Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records.”
Susan Jordan, of the California Coastal Protection Network, was aghast.
“You don’t expect to have a governor do something so under-handed as this, and now that it’s out in the open, there’s no shame about it,” she told me. ”And he would be the first person to carve out an exemption in the Coastal Act, that has survived all these other attacks over the last 50 years.”
Nice timing, Mr. Governor. I’d just written last month about how President Trump has launched his own attempt to torpedo the Coastal Commission and California’s long-established authority on matters of coastal conservation and development.
You’d like to see the California governor stand tall rather than come off like Trump’s caddy, kicking sand in the faces of those who have taken up stewardship of the coast.
Look, not everyone loves the Coastal Act or the Coastal Commission, which is seen by many as obstructionist and slow-footed. Sometimes, finding the right balance between sensible development and coastal conservation can be complicated.
But in essence, California is about the idea that the coast is not owned by anyone, it’s owned by everyone.
In the case of the Santa Monica project, Jordan asked the right question.
“Why the exemption?”
Is there something so odious about a reworked design that the only way to hustle it across the finish line is to give it a free pass?
“If you want to build in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act,” Jordan told me. “That’s why we have the Coastal Act, and I don’t think it should be corrupted by this developer or by the governor.”
Newsom, when asked recently by a reporter to explain what he was up to, had this to say:
“I’m not going to comment about any pending bills.”
Why not? If you’re going to tear up the rule book on coastal development, doesn’t the public deserve an explanation, even if you’ve already got one foot out the door?
The Worthe project would sit just up from the beach in Santa Monica, and, in previous incarnations, it has included a luxury hotel, apartments and a Frank Gehry museum. The Coastal Commission signed off on it a few years ago after extended tussles and finally an agreement regarding low-cost housing provisions. After getting the green light, Worthe pulled back, and his permit expired.
But then Newsom came to the rescue with a trailer bill that aides were still pushing as of Thursday, sources tell me. It would have allowed for an unnamed project in that same location to be put forward again, this time without normal regulatory review in the event that Santa Monica failed to complete its own local coastal plan (LCP) by 2028
And since it could be difficult to meet that deadline, Newsom’s bill essentially provided a way to escape the kind of critical review demanded by the Coastal Act.
In anticipation of a Friday meeting between Newsom and the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Santa Monica) rallied legislators to implore the governor to back off.
Zbur, who had been working on his own coastal development and public access bill and helping assemble Santa Monica’s LCP, was one of a dozen legislators who signed a salty missive that was sent Friday to Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas.
“We are frustrated that, once again, we must devote time and energy to working to defeat this harmful proposal that creates unprecedented exemptions from the Coastal Act,” the letter said.
It must have made an impact. Late Friday night, when the last whistle blew at the sausage factory, the Newsom exemption had been pulled back.
Victory for the coast.
Zbur told me Saturday morning that it was not clear how the matter had played out when the governor met with the two legislative leaders Friday, but Zbur was grateful to all three of them for letting the matter drop.
“This wasn’t about the project,” Zbur said. “It was about the precedent that would have been set on having people come in and exempting a certain project from the Coastal Act. It would have been a terrible precedent.”
Despite this threat and the recent big-footing by Trump, there’s a silver lining in all of this.
“As long as there are people who want to monetize the coast for their own benefit, you’re going to need people to rise up and say no,” said Kim Delfino, an environmental attorney and founder of Earth Advocacy.
And people did rise up.
Last week, dozens of organizations signed a letter to the governor opposing any “last-minute legislation to create dangerous exemptions to the Coastal Act.” Among them were Heal the Bay, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, L.A. Waterkeeper, Azul, the Surfrider Foundation and Orange County Coastkeeper.
I can think of several ways to end this column, but at the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think I can do better than to lean on this reminder:
The coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
steve.lopez@latimes.com
Source link