Readers React: Chairman’s recusal from Banning Ranch vote doesn’t restore confidence in Coastal Commission

To the editor: California Coastal Commission Chairman Steve Kinsey needs to understand the concepts of conflict of interest and bias when it comes to ex-parte communications. There should be no excuses for failure to report such meetings. (“Coastal Commission chairman recuses himself from Banning Ranch vote,” June 8)

Kinsey has recused himself from voting this time only (on the Newport Beach Banning Ranch project) because of all the media hype that has surrounded the Coastal Commission since the ouster of former executive director Charles Lester last year. Otherwise, I bet he would end up voting to approve Banning Ranch.

While on the subject of building 900 homes and a hotel on an old oil field, haven’t the developers heard of Porter Ranch and that community’s problems? If you develop or buy on or near an old oil field, you should lose your right to bring lawsuits or lodge complaints of headaches or sickness at a later date. You have been forewarned of the dangers that lie ahead.

Glen Kacena, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook