Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?

Published

on

Commentary: Half a century ago, Californians saved the coast. Will Trump threats spark another uprising?

In 1972, thousands of Californians came together in what was a defining moment in state history. They were united by fears that the spectacular coast was in danger of becoming overdeveloped, heavily industrialized, ecologically diminished and irreversibly privatized.

Rue Furch, a Sonoma State University student, signed on as a volunteer for Proposition 20, which called for a commission to “preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the environment and ecology of the coastal zone.”

“I was just one of the worker bees, and it felt great to be doing something positive,” said Furch, whose role was “collecting signatures and holding signs and showing up to rallies.”

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

Advertisement

In Sacramento, a young legislative assistant named Sam Farr (who would later become a U.S. congressman), helped organize a coastal bike ride, led by state Sen. Jim Mills, that galvanized Proposition 20 support and drew hordes of reporters as cyclists pedaled from Land’s End in San Francisco to Balboa Park in San Diego.

“The highway patrol kind of designed the route,” said Farr, who recalled that cyclists camped at state parks along the way and dined on food donated by supporters of the rolling “save our coast” call to arms.

In Los Angeles, teams of young environmentalists sabotaged dozens of campaign billboards, hung by the opposition, which originally said,“The Beach Belongs to You – Don’t Lock it Up. Vote No on Proposition No. 20.” The activists painted the word “Yes” over the word “No.”

Advertisement

So why am I telling you this a half-century later?

Steve Lopez finally realizes his childhood dream to surf in Santa Cruz.

Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, who traveled the California coast for several weeks in 2016, finally realizes his childhood dream to surf in Santa Cruz. The coastal tour marked the 40th anniversary of the Coastal Act. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

Because voter-approved Proposition 20 led to the 1976 California Coastal Act and the creation of the Coastal Commission, which is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.

In a January visit to Los Angeles after the devastating wildfires, Trump said the Coastal Commission is “considered the most difficult in the entire country” and said when it comes to rebuilding, “we are not going to let them get away with their antics.”

Advertisement

If that seems personal, it is. Trump, who bought a Ranch Palos Verdes golf course at a discounted price in 2002, after the 18th hole fell into the ocean, has had disputes with the Coastal Commission over waterfalls on the property and a 70-foot tall flagpole erected without a permit.

In February, Trump special missions envoy Ric Grenell painted a bullseye on the coastal commission, saying that fire relief assistance could be held up if California doesn’t bow to the administration’s wishes. He called the Coastal Commission “an unelected group of people who are crazy woke left” and said that “putting strings on them to get rid of the California Coastal Commission is going to make California better.”

The iconic Bixby Creek Bridge in Big Sur, California.

The iconic Bixby Creek Bridge in Big Sur. California’s Coastal Commission is now under threat like never before, targeted by the Trump administration, federal legislation and other critics.

(apollo(c)/beketoff – stock.adobe.com)

To be clear, the commissioners are selected by elected people, which is often how commissions work. And speaking of powerful unelected people, the name Elon Musk comes to mind, and Trump’s Oval Office playmate has his own beef with the Coastal Commission. Musk’s SpaceX company sued the commission last fall after commissioners rejected a bid to increase the number of rocket launches from the U.S. military’s Vandenberg Space Force Base near Lompoc.

Advertisement

Military officials have said in support of SpaceX that they’d like to increase the number of launches from a handful to as many as 100 annually. The commission argued that most of the launches are for private interests rather than for military purposes, and that sonic booms and environmental impacts are a problem.

And it might be wise to hold off on increased launches following Thursday’s explosion of a SpaceX craft that ripped apart after takeoff from Texas. A shower of debris led to the grounding of flights at several Florida airports, and this was the second such SpaceX disaster in seven weeks. At the very least, SpaceX employees — just like federal employees targeted by Musk should get memos asking what they had done in the seven days prior to each crash to justify keeping their jobs.

To be fair, the Coastal Commission staff and its commissioners are not beyond reproach, nor have commissioners always served with honor, so scrutiny and pushback ought to be part of the process. Nearly a decade ago, my Times colleagues and I examined the ways in which wealthy property owners and developers used lawyers, lobbyists and political connections in attempting to influence commission decision-making.

In the case of the recent SpaceX case, commissioners made bone-headed political comments about Musk in rejecting the bid for more launches, naively handing him lawsuit fodder.

And the commission — which is made up of more than 100 staff members and 12 voting commissioners — has a history of irritating property owners and even governors with painfully long reviews of applications (caused, in part, by decades of under-staffing) for everything from new coastal construction to property improvements of various types.

Advertisement
Dogs competed in the 14th annual Imperial Beach Surf Dog Competition in August 2019.

Dogs competed in the 14th annual Imperial Beach Surf Dog Competition in August 2019.

(Rick Nocon/For The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Several recent bills by Democratic legislators have tried (with limited success) to chip away at agency authority and clear the way for more housing, and Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed an executive order limiting commission oversight in the interest of speeding up rebuilding in the Palisades fire zone.

Republicans, meanwhile just want to tear it all apart. On March 5, U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) called for stripping the commission of its power, saying the agency is “out of control and has veered from its purpose of protecting the coast.”

Susan Jordan of the nonprofit California Coastal Protection Network, quickly sized up what that would mean.

Advertisement

“This is like the federal government putting a big for-sale sign on the California coast,” she said. “It basically takes away the state’s ability to comment on and provide feedback on projects … It’s like an open invitation to oil drilling, to any commercial venture, to liquefied natural gas terminals.”

There’s a reason that has not already happened, and it has a lot to do with that movement that began in 1972 (the story has been captured in a new documentary on the people who were determined to save the coast).

Jalama State Beach, CA - October 03:

A whimbrel flies along the beach at the Jalama creek estuary at Jalama State Beach.

(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

There’s a reason that as you travel the coast, you see all those roadside beach access signs.

Advertisement

There’s a reason that when beachfront property owners put up illegal “private property” signs or otherwise attempt to drive away those who have a right to enjoy the beach, they’re cited and fined.

There’s a reason the 1,100-mile natural wonder that stretches from the Oregon border to the Mexico border does not, for the most part, resemble the blighted, overdeveloped coasts of other states.

There’s a reason any and all development proposals are exhaustively reviewed, with the perils of sea level rise in mind, and in the interest of protecting marine and shore habitats.

The reason is the California Coastal Act of 1976, a people-inspired, legislatively approved framework that guides state and local governments on the use of land and water in the coastal zone, and embodies the idea that this natural wonder is not owned by anybody, but by everybody, and that it must be treated — with careful, unwavering stewardship — like the public treasure that it is.

One of the first directors of the agency, the late and legendary Peter Douglas, recognized that there would always be threats to the commission and to the shore.

Advertisement

It’s why he said:

“The coast is what it is because a lot of people worked really hard and sacrificed to protect it. And if we want it to be there for our children, we have to keep fighting to protect it. In that way, the coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.”

If it takes another bike ride, I’m ready to roll.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

Published

on

Video: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

new video loaded: Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

transcript

transcript

Democratic Lawmakers Say They Face New Round of Federal Inquiries

By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

I’m Senator Elissa Slotkin. Senator Mark Kelly. Representative Chris Deluzio. Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Houlahan. Congressman Jason Crow. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. He’s using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us. We took an oath to the Constitution, a lifetime oath. When we joined the military. And again, as members of Congress, we are not going to back away. Our job, our duty is to make sure that the law is followed.

Advertisement
By Wednesday, at least five Democratic lawmakers said they received new inquiries from federal prosecutors regarding a video they published in November. In the video, they urged military service members not to follow illegal orders.

By Jamie Leventhal and Daniel Fetherston

January 15, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

Published

on

Noem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday via X that longtime U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorney Charles Wall will serve as the agency’s new deputy director as enforcement operations intensify nationwide.

“Effective immediately, Charles Wall will serve as the Deputy Director of @ICEGov,” wrote Noem. “For the last year, Mr. Wall served as ICE’s Principal Legal Advisor, playing a key role in helping us deliver historic results in arresting and removing the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from American neighborhoods.”

Wall replaces Madison Sheahan, who stepped down earlier Thursday to pursue a congressional run in Ohio. Her departure left ICE leadership in transition at a moment when the agency has faced increasing resistance to enforcement efforts and heightened threats against officers in the field.

The move comes as the Trump administration intensifies immigration enforcement against murderers, rapists, gang members and suspected terrorists living illegally in the U.S., even as sanctuary jurisdictions and activist groups seek to block or disrupt ICE actions.

Advertisement

DHS DEMANDS MN LEADERS HONOR ICE DETAINERS, ALLEGES HUNDREDS OF CRIMINAL ALIENS HAVE BEEN RELEASED UNDER WALZ

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday that Charles Wall will serve as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director. (Getty Images/Alex Brandon)

ICE officials said Wall brings more than a decade of experience inside the agency.

“Mr. Wall has served as an ICE attorney for 14 years and is a forward-leaning, strategic thinker who understands the importance of prioritizing the removal of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from our country,” Noem added.

Wall most recently served as ICE’s principal legal advisor, overseeing more than 3,500 attorneys and support staff who represent the DHS in removal proceedings and provide legal counsel to senior agency leadership. 

Advertisement

He has served at ICE since 2012, previously holding senior counsel roles in New Orleans, according to DHS.

‘WORST OF THE WORST’: ICE ARRESTS CHILD PREDATOR, VIOLENT CRIMINALS AMID SURGE IN ANTI-AGENT ATTACKS

Madison Sheahan stepped down as ICE deputy director on Thursday. (Sean Gardner/Getty Images)

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities.

The leadership change comes as ICE operations have drawn national attention following protests in Minneapolis after the ICE-involved fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good on Jan. 7.

Advertisement

Administration officials have repeatedly emphasized that ICE’s focus remains on what they describe as the “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens, warning that local resistance and political opposition increase risks for officers carrying out enforcement duties.

ICE has recently created a specific landing page where these ‘worst of the worst’ offenders can be viewed with names and nationalities attached.

DHS has described the appointment as part of a broader effort to ensure ICE leadership is aligned with the Trump administration’s public safety priorities. (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“I look forward to working with him in his new role to make America safe again,” Noem concluded.

Advertisement

ICE did not immediately provide additional comment to Fox News Digital.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

Published

on

Trump administration’s demands for California’s voter rolls, including Social Security numbers, rejected by federal judge

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding California turn over its voter rolls, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal” and accusing the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Clinton appointee based in Santa Ana, questioned the Justice Department’s motivations and called its lawsuit demanding voter data from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber not just an overreach into state-run elections, but a threat to American democracy.

“The centralization of this information by the federal government would have a chilling effect on voter registration which would inevitably lead to decreasing voter turnout as voters fear that their information is being used for some inappropriate or unlawful purpose,” Carter wrote. “This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy.”

Carter wrote that the “taking of democracy does not occur in one fell swoop; it is chipped away piece by piece until there is nothing left,” and that the Justice Department’s lawsuit was “one of these cuts that imperils all Americans.”

Advertisement

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.

In a video she posted to the social media platform X earlier Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon — who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division — said she was proud of her office’s efforts to “clean up the voter rolls nationally,” including by suing states for their data.

“We are going to touch every single state and finish this project,” she said.

Weber, who is California’s top elections official, said in a written statement that she is “entrusted with ensuring that California’s state election laws are enforced — including state laws that protect the privacy of California’s data.”

“I will continue to uphold my promise to Californians to protect our democracy, and I will continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote,” Weber said.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called the decision another example of “Trump and his administration losing to California” — one day after another court upheld California’s congressional redistricting plan under Proposition 50, which the Trump administration also challenged in court after state voters passed it overwhelmingly in November.

The Justice Department sued Weber in September after she refused to hand over detailed voter information for some 23 million Californians, alleging that she was unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

It separately sued Weber’s counterparts in various other states who also declined the department’s requests for their states’ voter rolls.

The lawsuit followed an executive order by President Trump in March that purported to require voters to provide proof of citizenship and ordered states to disregard mail ballots not received by election day. It also followed years of allegations by Trump, made without evidence, that voting in California has been hampered by widespread fraud and voting by noncitizens — part of his broader and equally unsupported claim that the 2020 presidental election was stolen from him.

In announcing the lawsuit, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in September that “clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” and that the Justice Department was going to ensure that they exist nationwide.

Advertisement

Weber denounced the lawsuit at the time as a “fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” and as “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list”; and the dates of their removals.

It also demanded a list of all registrations that had been canceled due to voter deaths; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in California; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were canceled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

Carter, in his ruling Thursday, took particular issue with the Justice Department’s reliance on federal civil rights laws to make its case.

“The Department of Justice seeks to use civil rights legislation which was enacted for an entirely different purpose to amass and retain an unprecedented amount of confidential voter data. This effort goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the underlying legislation,” Carter wrote.

Advertisement

Carter wrote that the legislation in question — including Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 — was passed to defend Black Americans’ voting rights in the face of “persistent voter suppression” and to “combat the effects of discriminatory and unfair registration laws that cheapened the right to vote.”

Carter found that the Justice Department provided “no explanation for why unredacted voter files for millions of Californians, an unprecedented request, was necessary” for the Justice Department to investigate the alleged problems it claims, and that the executive branch simply has no power to demand such data all at once without explanation.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending