Uncategorized

Environmental Groups’ Legal Action Could Halt Coal Terminal

Published

11 years ago

October 23, 2015

Environmental and community groups—Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and San Francisco Baykeepers—have filed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) action in Alameda County Superior Court challenging the export of coal through the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT).

According to Earthjustice, which filed the claim on behalf of the other groups, the original CEQA review of the city’s Army Base development, performed over a decade ago, “failed to include any discussion or analysis of the impacts of transporting, handling, or exporting coal from Oakland on surrounding neighborhoods or the environment.”

It was not until April 2015 that the public learned that the bulk terminal’s developer, Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS), had plans to use the OBOT to export coal coming from Utah.

Prior to this revelation, Phil Tagami, owner of California Capital & Investment Group (CCIG), with whom the city had signed the original agreement to build the terminal, had publically promised that coal was not an option as an export commodity.

After public outcry this year, the City Council has agreed to study whether the export of coal through Oakland poses “health and safety” hazards to adjacent communities and those working at the terminal.

A clause in the development agreement between Tagami and the city allows Oakland to halt shipments of a commodity on the property if those shipments would place workers and neighboring communities “in a condition substantially dangerous to their health and safety.”

The environmental groups’ CEQA challenge gives anti-coal activists significant bargaining power, since the entire Army Base development could be halted for up to two years if the groups decide to call for an injunction.

The environmentalists say they do not want to halt a project that is overall good for Oakland but may be forced to do it f the city fails to regulate or mitigate the impact of transporting coal through Oakland.

“Our goal in this process is to make sure the public really truly knows what will happen if a coal terminal goes up in their backyards and that the city complies with their desires,” said Irene Gutierrez, an attorney at Earthjustice’s California regional office.

“There was not an environmental review for a project like this (involving coal) and new information has come up, and CEQA allows you to sue if that is the case,” she said.

Meanwhile, the environmental and community organizations have written a letter to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) opposing what they see as a misuse of the public grant that was used to fund half the project.

They have also requested that the CTC provide an extension to the grant’s deadline, which will allow the project to find required matching funds to replace the money the project is hoping to receive from Utah.

The bulk terminal project was funded by $242 million from a voter-approved Proposition 1B Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF), which allocated $20 billion in bonds to “advance infrastructure projects and air quality improvements throughout the state,” according to the letter.

CTC funding supports “projects that improve trade corridor mobility while reducing emissions of diesel particulate and other pollutant emissions,” according to TCIF guidelines.

“The $242 million from Prop 1B is meant to protect communities from further being polluted and impacted from these industries,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter.

“The fact that the money is being used to build a coal export terminal flies in the face of (the proposition’s) intentions and is not the right use of that public fund that would make the Port of Oakland host dirtier operations,” she said.

Because $53 million in matching funds for the OBOT would be coming from parts of Utah where the coal is mined, developers claim that regulating or prohibiting coal—or filing an injunction through CEQA—would leave the development stranded without necessary matching funds, thus shutting down the entire project.

To avoid a shutdown, the environmental groups have asked for the extension on the deadline for securing matching funds.

“It’s important to affirm that the groups that are participants in the (CEQA) lawsuit are supportive of job creation and economic revitalization in Oakland,” said Gutierrez of Earthjustice. “But they want to make sure the city is informed and takes the measures it can to protect the public and keep the public informed.”

While the City Council has until Dec. 8 to make a final vote on its regulatory options surrounding coal, a number of people are challenging whether the city has the authority to regulate commodities that are being transported on federal railways.

“If this city were to take a position that coal could not be transported in interstate commerce, that would be a problem and would be (federally) preempted,” said Kathryn Floyd, a lawyer for Tagami’s company, CCIG, speaking at a Sept. 21 public hearing.

Disagreeing, Gutierrez says the council does have the power to regulate commodities on city-owned property.

Seeking clarification of the city’s rights, the Post has asked City Attorney Barbara Parker, an elected public official, whether “a simple majority (is) needed in the City Council to determine whether or not the export of coal would constitute a health and safety danger to Oakland residents.”

Parker’s office responded that she “can’t disclose legal advice. Any advice or opinions we provide to clients is privileged and confidential, and in fact we can’t disclose whether or not we have provided advice on any given issue. We can disclose only if the Council waives its privilege.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Not Just a Southern Issue: Advocates Say SCOTUS Voting Rights Decision Has Already Started to Reshape Black Political Power

OAKLAND POST — Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, constitutional amendments expanded Black citizenship and voting rights across the South, leading to dramatic increases in Black political representation. But those gains were quickly met with violent backlash and the rise of Jim Crow laws designed to suppress Black voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other “race-neutral” restrictions.

Published

2 months ago

June 17, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

U.S. Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) whose district spans parts of Los Angeles County, joined fellow CBC member U.S. Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA-2) for a May 21 briefing with Black media outlets in California.

The lawmakers highlighted what they describe as a mounting threat to Black political representation resulting from an April 29 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened key protections under the federal Voting Rights Act.

Kamlager-Dove and Carter warned that the decision, which narrowed the role of race in redistricting, is already reshaping congressional districts across the South and undermining Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice.

“While we are a super blue state, we have far to go when it comes to Black representation; we tend to take that for granted,” Kamlager-Dove said of California, noting that the Golden State has the fifth largest Black population in the country and only has three Black members of Congress.

“While I support building coalitions, we have to make sure that as a Black community we are not yielding our power,” she added.

Calling the fight “not unique to the South,” Carter urged Black communities nationwide to recognize the broader implications of the legal and political battles unfolding in Southern legislatures and courtrooms.

The Supreme Court ruling centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the portion of the law that prohibits voting systems or district maps that dilute the voting strength of racial minorities. For decades, Section 2 allowed civil rights groups to challenge district maps that weakened Black political representation even when lawmakers did not openly state discriminatory intent.

Now, advocates fear that standard has fundamentally changed.

“You have to have smoking gun evidence,” said Mitchell Brown, senior voting rights counsel at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, during a recent media briefing hosted by American Community Media on May 15. “Legislators are not going to say the quiet part out loud.”

The implications could stretch far beyond congressional elections, Brown said.

Section 2 protections have historically applied not only to U.S. House districts, but also to state legislatures, school boards, county commissions, judgeships, and local governing bodies. Voting rights advocates warn that weakening those protections could reshape political representation throughout the South, particularly in states with large Black populations.

“This is not just a Southern issue,” said Amir Badat, manager of Black Voters on the Rise and voting special counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Badat described the current moment as part of a much longer historical pattern.

Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, constitutional amendments expanded Black citizenship and voting rights across the South, leading to dramatic increases in Black political representation. But those gains were quickly met with violent backlash and the rise of Jim Crow laws designed to suppress Black voting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and other “race-neutral” restrictions.

“This is the same move,” Badat said.

Advocates also emphasized that the consequences of weakened voting protections extend into everyday life.

Local elected offices such as school boards, city councils, county commissions, and judgeships often determine funding priorities, public safety policy, education standards, and infrastructure investments.

“These are not abstract numbers,” Badat said. “These have real political consequences and policy consequences on people’s day-to-day lives.”

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Uncategorized

Rest in Peace: A.M.E. Pastor and L.A Civil Rights Icon Cecil “Chip” Murray Passes

The Rev. Dr. Cecil L. “Chip” Murray, former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church (FAME) in Los Angeles, died of natural causes April 6 at his Windsor Hills Home. He was 94. “Today, we lost a giant. Reverend Dr. Cecil Murray dedicated his life to service, community, and putting God first in all things. I had the absolute honor of working with him, worshiping with him, and seeking his counsel,” said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of the dynamic religious leader whose ministry inspired and attracted millionaires as well as former gang bangers and people dealing with substance use disorder (SUD).

Published

6 months ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

The Rev. Dr. Cecil L. “Chip” Murray, former pastor of First African Methodist Episcopal Church (FAME) in Los Angeles, died of natural causes April 6 at his Windsor Hills Home. He was 94.

“Today, we lost a giant. Reverend Dr. Cecil Murray dedicated his life to service, community, and putting God first in all things. I had the absolute honor of working with him, worshiping with him, and seeking his counsel,” said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of the dynamic religious leader whose ministry inspired and attracted millionaires as well as former gang bangers and people dealing with substance use disorder (SUD).

Murray oversaw the growth of FAME’s congregation from 250 members to 18,000.

“My heart is with the First AME congregation and community today as we reflect on a legacy that changed this city forever,” Bass continued.

Murray served as Senior Minister at FAME, the oldest Black congregation in the city, for 27 years. During that time, various dignitaries visited and he built strong relationships with political and civic leaders in the city and across the state, as well as a number of Hollywood figures. Several national political leaders also visited with Murray and his congregation at FAME, including Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Murray, a Florida native and U.S. Air Force vet, attended Florida A&M University, where he majored in history, worked on the school newspaper and pledged Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. He later attended Claremont School of Theology in Los Angeles County, where he earned his doctorate in Divinity.

Murray is survived by his son Drew. His wife Bernadine, who was a committed member of the A.M.E. church and the daughter of his childhood pastor, died in 2013.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Uncategorized

Court Throws Out Law That Allowed Californians to Build Duplexes, Triplexes and RDUs on Their Properties

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional. Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

Published

6 months ago

February 3, 2026

Oakland Post

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional.

Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the cities, pointing out that SB 9 discredited charter cities that were granted jurisdiction to create new governance systems and enact policy reforms. The court ruling affects 121 charter cities that have local constitutions.

Attorney Pam Lee represented five Southern California cities in the lawsuit against the state and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“This is a monumental victory for all charter cities in California,” Lee said.

However, general law cities are excluded from the court ruling as state housing laws still apply in residential areas.

Attorney General Bonta and his team are working to review the decision and consider all options that will protect SB 9 as a state law. Bonta said the law has helped provide affordable housing for residents in California.

“Our statewide housing shortage and affordability crisis requires collaboration, innovation, and a good faith effort by local governments to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said.

“SB9 is an important tool in this effort, and we’re going to make sure homeowners have the opportunity to utilize it,” he said.

Charter cities remain adamant that the state should refrain from making land-use decisions on their behalf. In the lawsuit, city representatives argued that SB 9 eliminates local authority to create single-family zoning districts and approve housing developments.