I read an editorial by the Los Angeles Daily News over the weekend about how Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Donald Trump have found agreement on their dislike for the California Coastal Commission.

The editorial basically takes issue with the Commission’s power when it comes to regulating housing — specifically following the devastating wildfires in Southern California. Democrats in the state Legislature are trying to curb the Commission’s “authority of over housing redevelopment.”

The Daily News editorial argues the “real problem is the Commission is over-reaching its authority, including hurting the state’s struggle to ease a severe housing crisis.”

It cites as an example a “casita” — an Attached Accessory Dwelling — which a couple wanted to do to their home in Laguna Beach. The city gave its approval and casitas are allowed by state law and the Commission’s own regulations without a Coastal Development Permit. But the Commission disallowed the casita.

The couple are, of course, suing and are being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Decades ago, while working on the Mendocino Coast, I became familiar with the Coastal Commission when alerted by then-Congressman Doug Bosco that Commission members were visiting a site north of Fort Bragg, where a family was trying to build the house.

Although the family had the necessary permits, Commission members got involved in “siting” the structure, determining the paint color, and a variety of other things, any of which added to its overall cost.

My “best” experience with over-reach, however, was the Mendocino Historic Preservation Commission, which “ruled” over housing development in Mendocino. The Commission members were harsh, forbidding anything that would alter the appearance of that historic little community, even contradicting past precedence in terms of paint colors.

Commission members preferred “raw wood,” that would age as it was exposed to sun, the salt coming off the sea and winter rains. But other homes in the community were painted in bright yellows, reds, greens and more.

The attitude of the Commissioners was also irritating, if now outright rude. At one hearing, which stands out in my mind, a person who wanted to add a room onto his single-family residence. One of the commissioners, after looking over the proposal, asked the applicant how long he had lived in Mendocino? It was an odd question because I was reasonably sure both people knew one another.

“Fifteen years,” replied the applicant.

“Oh, so you’re a newbie,” the commissioner stated dismissively.

Still, there is a purpose for some city and county commissions. They’re necessary to see building appearances don’t get too out of hand or out of place, and growth isn’t excessive, straining limited resources. And they provide the public an opportunity to weigh-in on changes in a community.

But sometimes I think local commissions are not fully utilized. Take, for example, that wonderfully, colorful mural on Dog Gone Alley, west of Second Street. It was painted one weekend on the back side of the old Cranston Building. It’s a beautiful piece of art, but it was painted on a historic structure.

I’m certain there were no public hearings, or input, on the mural. Whether public input was needed or necessary is another question, considering Dog Gone Alley is recognized as part of the city’s history, as is the Cranston Building.

It’s one thing for the California Coastal Commission to deny housing where it has been deemed necessary and by those who have followed the rules.

It’s another, albeit smaller, question of whether modern art should “decorate” historic areas without public oversight. Of that, I’m not so certain.

Jim Smith is the former editor of The Daily Democrat, retiring in 2021 after a 27-year career at the paper.