Politics
Opinion: A 20-year struggle for environmental justice — and a public park — in one California city
Just up the road from Oakland and Berkeley, the city of Richmond is a minority and low-income community of 115,500 people — mainly Latino, Black and Asian American — with a major Chevron refinery whose pollution has been an ongoing source of conflict (the city just reached a $550-million settlement with Chevron to mitigate health and lifestyle effects of the refinery). It’s also home to an active port and soon — finally — a world-class park.
Point Molate exemplifies the struggle for environmental justice in under-parked and over-polluted minority communities. Political support in Sacramento and Washington helps, but the battle to guarantee the future of 413 acres of city-owned headlands relied on bottom-up organizing and determined citizen engagement that encompassed protests, local candidacies, ballot initiatives, neighborhood meetings, bilingual mailings, public testimony, photo and art exhibits, billboards, site tours and, of course, lawsuits. Democracy, in other words.
The headlands site, Point Molate, a former World War II Navy fuel depot largely reclaimed by nature since its closure in 1995, lies just north of the Richmond Bridge. It deserves its tagline: “The most beautiful part of the Bay Area no one’s ever heard of.” Yet it was almost lost to various development schemes until this summer, when the Richmond City Council voted to approve a $40-million deal to establish it as a fully protected park. The state will provide $36 million (in part through Gov. Gavin Newsom’s 30×30 initiative, which like national and global efforts aims to protect 30% of the state’s lands and waters by 2030), with the balance coming from the East Bay Regional Park District.
Richmond got possession of Point Molate from the Navy in 2003 for $1, and the city quickly began bargaining over development rights to the site. A sliver of beach opened to the public in 2014, and at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was a magnet for local families. For more than two decades, Richmonders fought for the other 97% of the fenced-off site to become a public park.
Point Molate, originally Ohlone land, is home to sea hares, bat rays, leopard sharks and river otters in its offshore eelgrass beds, one of the last healthy nurseries for herring and Dungeness crab in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Its native grasses and forested hillsides host nesting ospreys and more than 200 other bird species, along with mule deer, wild turkeys, coyotes and the rare pipevine swallowtail butterfly. Before the Navy arrived, Point Molate was famed for Winehaven, a red-brick winery, worker housing and a shipping port constructed to keep California wine flowing after the 1906 earthquake destroyed much of San Francisco. Winehaven’s buildings are now on the National Register of Historic Places.
Developers, in collaboration with a band of Pomo Indians from Mendocino County, first proposed a mega-casino for the site, with 4,000 slot machines and Las Vegas-style amenities, including a convention center, a high-rise parking structure and a ferry. Despite the promise of thousands of jobs and significant annual revenues, Richmond residents feared that the project would generate crime, encourage problem gambling and create constant traffic jams. In 2010, the city’s voters rejected the casino proposal 58% to 42%.
With the casino defeated, another development plan emerged: a luxury housing estate — as many as 1,450 homes and condos with price tags in the $1.2-million range, for buyers with incomes around $250,000. The median income for Richmond’s residents is just under $80,000. The city would be required to build and staff a fire and police substation and float a $300-million bond to fund the development’s water, power and sewage infrastructure.
Once again, the community rallied. Housing advocates objected to the city’s making a hefty, ongoing investment at Point Molate; they wanted affordable, mixed-use units built downtown, where infrastructure is already in place and housing is desperately needed. Richmonders, environmental groups and others — including commercial fishermen — joined together in the Point Molate Alliance (full disclosure: I’m a member), which took the lead in the effort.
The coalition held community meetings, testified at City Council meetings and, with pro-bono legal help, filed a California Environmental Quality Act lawsuit arguing that the developer’s environmental impact report failed to account for the consequences of building on a sensitive site, with no provision for protecting Ohlone sacred sites and no evacuation plan for an area the state classified as a “High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.”
In June 2024, the California Court of Appeals unanimously sided with the community activists’ CEQA suit, ruling that the luxury housing EIR was fatally flawed and had to be rescinded, effectively canceling the city’s obligation to the developers.
Except for the claim of the Guidiville Rancheria Pomo, who had been part of the original casino plan. In July, the tribe and its developer partner agreed to the $40-million settlement offer from the city, state and park district.
“Point Molate Park Now!” T-shirts have gone from protest gear to collectibles. The last approval needed, from the California State Coastal Conservancy, is expected by November, when the East Bay Regional Park District can begin to take down miles of fencing and open the park to the public. Community members plan to work with the district to see soccer fields, hiking trails and a home for the annual Richmond Powwow established there in the near future.
When the people lead, the leaders follow. Stubborn, vigilant community activism won a tangible victory at Point Molate that can be repeated in other under-parked communities. Remember: River otters and herring can’t sign petitions. Butterflies can’t vote and mule deer can’t testify at City Council meetings. It’s up to us humans.
David Helvarg is a Richmond resident; executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group; and co-host of “Rising Tide: The Ocean Podcast.”
Politics
California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds
California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.
The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.
The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.
The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.
Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.
“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”
Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”
“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.
Politics
Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
transcript
transcript
Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.
-
“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”
January 8, 2026
Politics
Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget.
“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening.
“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”
The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”
SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE
President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.
CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE
This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.
Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.
The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)
Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.
Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders.
“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said.
“Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”
U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023. (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)
He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.
An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios