Politics
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.
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.”
So why am I telling you this a half-century later?
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.”
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’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.
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.
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.
“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).
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.
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.
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
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Detroit, MI6 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA14 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX21 minutes agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL24 minutes agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA29 minutes agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO36 minutes agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA39 minutes agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago
-
San Diego, CA44 minutes agoMater Dei Catholic rallies, beats Point Loma in rematch of last week’s final
