logo
South Fresno community groups score another victory with appeals court ruling

South Fresno community groups score another victory with appeals court ruling

Yahoo06-04-2025

For several decades, south Fresno residents were powerless in preventing polluting industries and distribution centers from getting shoved down their throats – regardless of the deleterious effects on their health.
Recently they've been fighting back. And in an increasing number of cases, fighting back and winning.
The latest example came in March when a state appeals court sided with community groups in their ongoing legal battle with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration over major expansions of the North Avenue and American Avenue freeway interchanges on Highway 99.
The appellate court granted a petition submitted in November by Friends of Calwa Inc. and Fresno Building Healthy Communities that should – without wading too deep into the legal muck – finally compel Caltrans to justify its environmental review for the $140 million project.
Opinion
The same environmental review which, as you may recall, conveniently left out Fresno County's proposed 2,940-acre industrial park east of 99 that can't proceed without improved freeway access and will unquestionably bring more air pollution and truck traffic to already overburdened neighborhoods.
In fact, Caltrans' analysis of the interchange expansion claimed there were no communities in the project area that would be impacted. Completely disregarding tens of thousands of south Fresno residents who live within breathing distance.
Such glaring omissions triggered Friends of Calwa and Fresno BHC in March 2023 to file a lawsuit against Caltrans and FHA in federal district court over the agencies' approval of the project that challenged the legality of the environmental review under state and federal laws.
Rather than defend its shoddy work, Caltrans restored to legal tactics intended to price out the opposition (i.e. cross-filing the federal suit in state court) and bickered over technicalities. In October, it scored a temporary victory when a Fresno Superior Court judge granted Caltrans' motion for summary adjudication to throw out any claims against the California Environmental Quality Act because the community groups filed their arguments too late.
Last month's California Fifth Appellate Court decision put an end to that nonsense. It ordered the Fresno Superior Court to vacate its October ruling and conduct further hearings to determine whether Caltrans' environmental review violated state law.
Now, at last, we might get somewhere.
Michael Claiborne, directing attorney for Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, one of the legal firms representing Friends of Calwa and Fresno BHC, said writs of mandate that seek review of a lower court's order are 'rarely granted.'
'My understanding is that more than 90% of petitions like this are denied,' Claiborne said. 'This is extraordinary relief reversing an order by the Superior Court prior to final judgment.'
This ruling, it must be noted, does not prevent Caltrans from expanding and improving the 99 freeway interchanges at North and American avenues. Nor was that the groups' ultimate aim.
Friends of Calwa and Fresno BHC simply wanted the project's environmental review to adhere to state and federal law – and for a massive industrial park near the freeway whose traffic will utilize those exits to be included in the study.
Neither request is unreasonable. Not when the negative public health effects of air pollution, including how noxious gas compounds disperse over wide areas, are well-established science.
'The communities of Calwa and Malaga are frustrated and tired of being treated as a dumping ground,' said Laura Moreno, executive director of Friends of Calwa. 'Our neighborhoods deserve transportation projects that don't completely disregard the needs of the people who live here.'
The appeals court decision is the latest in a string of victories by south Fresno residents and their legal teams against the actions of government agencies and municipalities, and the second involving the inadequacy of environmental reviews.
Last August, the same state appeals court ruled in favor of a group called the South Fresno Community Alliance in a lawsuit that successfully challenged the adequacy of the environmental review process the City of Fresno uses for new construction.
Dozens of projects throughout the city were reportedly halted as a result.
Though not in the legal arena, the string of victories by south Fresno residents and community groups includes the rejection of the Measure C transportation tax extension in the November 2022 election. And going back a few more years, the successful Measure P parks tax.
Among the powers-that-be, this recent shift has caused no small amount of consternation. For example, Fresno City Councilmember Mike Karbassi accused law firms like Leadership Counsel of 'economic terrorism' and questioned the motives of 'some people' opposed to the 99 interchange expansion.
'This is straight up about killing economic development in Fresno – that is the goal,' Karbassi said during a December 2023 council meeting.
Instead of making silly statements, why not create economic development that doesn't ignore state and federal laws and worsen living conditions in marginalized neighborhoods?
Is that too much to ask?
'What Caltrans did was illegal – that's what the (appeals) court said,' Moreno said. 'Now we're hoping for them to fix it. Caltrans can still make this right.'
Those don't sound like the words of someone who wants to kill economic development. They sound like someone looking for a solution.
Perhaps that's why south Fresno residents are fighting back, and winning.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan
Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Commission recommends Kern supes OK oil review, permitting plan

A high-stakes effort to resume local oil permitting advanced this week as Kern's Planning Commission voted Thursday night to recommend approval of the county's third attempt at a massive environmental review. The board voted 4-0 with Commissioner Joe Ashley, a local oil executive, absent. Next the controversial measure will head to the county Board of Supervisors, which is scheduled to consider certifying the review and adopting a related ordinance during a special meeting June 26. Because the board is seen as likely to approve the proposal over the objections of climate and environmental justice activists, the bigger challenge for the county may be getting the approval of state appellate court judges. They have ruled, as recently as two years ago, that the county's efforts violate the California Environmental Quality Act. Kern's latest attempt includes new concessions that would raise the costs oil companies face when applying for permission to drill in the county. If the legal bid falls short, permitting will remain in the hands of Sacramento, where producers complain that the process is slow and hobbled by politics. People attending Thursday's commission meeting spoke up in opposition and support for revisions that would allow the county to permit up to 26,970 new wells by 2035. The county estimates that, based on past experience and depending on barrel prices, it will give out no more than about 19,000 drilling permits during that time, and that many of those will merely replace other wells set to be idled. Relatively few people criticized the county effort on Thursday; if history is a guide, a much greater number of opponents will weigh in when the Board of Supervisors takes up the issue. Many groups see the permitting process as overly broad "fast-tracking" at a time when oil production should be curtailed for climate and health reasons. Policy Director Ema De La Rosa at the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability urged the commission Thursday night to reject the proposal. She said oil and gas has historically impacted poor people and communities of color she said suffer disproportionately from illnesses including asthma, cancer and high-risk pregnancies. "Residents in Kern County already endure the worst air quality in the nation … and expanding these operations will only worsen the public health crisis and further burden already impacted communities," she said. Later she added, "Doubling down on fossil fuel reliance is a step in the wrong direction as the state is working toward a clean energy future." Director Lori Pesante of Sierra Club's Kern-Kaweah Chapter said in a statement ahead of Thursday's meeting it's time for the county to move past oil production. 'Kern's Planning Commission should prioritize clean air, new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector, and protecting the public from dangerous leaks and spills," she stated, "not double down on a failed approach that would give the oil industry a free pass to pollute our neighborhoods.' The architect of the county's effort, Director Lorelei Oviatt of Kern's Planning and Natural Resources Department, made the point oil production is still legal in the state, and that permitting done in Sacramento does not incorporate the 89 mitigation measures and standards Kern's system would impose for the protection of local air, water and biological and cultural resources. Oviatt said by email Friday the benefits of oil and gas production in Kern extend beyond the county, including to Southern California refineries that rely on local petroleum. "Returning Kern County to full environmentally protective permitting is critical for providing gasoline to consumers at prices we can all afford, stabilizing our local business community and providing investor confidence," she wrote. Since before it was initially adopted in 2015, the measure has been a top concern for local oil producers, which more recently are also dealing with a new state law forbidding oil work within 3,200 feet of a home, school or other sensitive site. Kern's proposed ordinance does not attempt to change that regulation. CEO Rock Zierman of the California Independent Petroleum Association trade group expressed support for the county's actions in an email Friday. "If we want any hope of saving the local oil industry and reducing gas prices, Kern must be empowered to take over permitting from the state, which is refusing to process permits in a timely manner' he stated. One of the county's newly proposed mitigation measures, included to address the appellate court's concerns, would prohibit new wells on farmland until old oil-field equipment is removed. Oil producers would also have to secure an ag easement within the county measuring the same size as any lost farmland. Additionally, oil companies applying for permits would have to pay into a fund that would match state investments in water systems serving local disadvantaged communities. Fees for each new oil well would amount to $9,732. It is projected to raise between $17.3 million and $25.9 million per year.

United States Congressional Candidate Peter Coe Verbica Unveils 25-Point Federal Plan to Help Make California Affordable Again
United States Congressional Candidate Peter Coe Verbica Unveils 25-Point Federal Plan to Help Make California Affordable Again

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

United States Congressional Candidate Peter Coe Verbica Unveils 25-Point Federal Plan to Help Make California Affordable Again

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. and SAN JOSE, Calif. and SANTA CRUZ, Calif. and MONTEREY, Calif., June 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- US. Congressional Candidate Peter Coe Verbica, author of Hard-Won Cowboy Wisdom and a CFP® professional, releases a comprehensive plan outlining 25 federal initiatives to combat California's growing affordability crisis. Verbica is running for US Congress, California District 19, which includes Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. While many of the cost drivers (such as housing, gas, utilities, and insurance) are the result of decades of restrictive state policies, Candidate for Congress Verbica emphasizes that federal lawmakers still have powerful tools to ease the burden on California families and businesses. "California's affordability crisis is pushing out teachers, nurses, firefighters, small businesses, and young families," states Peter Coe Verbica. "While Sacramento bears responsibility for many of these cost pressures, if elected, I will focus on delivering federal solutions that can provide real relief." STATE POLICIES AT THE ROOT OF THE CRISIS US. Congressional Candidate Verbica notes several long-standing California-specific issues that have contributed to the affordability problem: Housing shortages caused by decades of underbuilding and abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Gas prices inflated by abnormal fuel blend mandates and layered state taxes; Utility rate hikes driven by wildfire liability and lack of infrastructure modernization; Water scarcity and costs worsened by failure to build new dams or reservoirs in over 50 years, despite voters approving Proposition 1 which allocated $7.5 billion to water infrastructure in 2014; Insurance market instability due to rigid regulatory frameworks like Prop 103; Punitive labor laws such as the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), making it riskier to hire workers; An overall anti-business climate marked by overregulation and litigation threats. 25 ACTIONS A FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE CAN TAKE TO HELP Despite these state-level challenges, Candidate for Congress Verbica lays out 25 actionable federal strategies aimed at reducing costs and improving conditions for California residents: Housing Tie the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding to local zoning reform and faster permitting. Expand Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocations. Reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to streamline federal land development. Repurpose federal surplus land for housing. Fund scalable modular housing technology. Pilot CEQA-exempt housing projects on federal land. Create federal grants for local governments that & Transportation Standardize clean fuel blends nationally. Request EPA waivers to allow broader gasoline availability. Investigate fuel market manipulation. Expand EV charging networks in low-income areas. Incentivize remote work through federal tax & Wildfire Resilience Increase Federal Emergency Management (FEMA)/ Department of Energy (DOE) grid-hardening grants. Launch a federal wildfire reinsurance or bond market. Fund fuel reduction on federal forest land. Modernize interstate grid connectivity through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).Water Infrastructure Fund critical storage projects like Sites Reservoir. Invest in desalination and recycling initiatives. Direct United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Interior support to agriculture efficiency. Reform federal Environmental Species Act (ESA) water-use rules to balance & Business Climate Consider the preemption of harmful labor regulations for interstate commerce. Establish a federal "safe harbor" employment category for startups, gig workers, and agricultural employees. Hold hearings on the economic impact of PAGA. Provide tax incentives for reshoring California manufacturing. Expand Small Business Administration (SBA) legal and compliance resources for small businesses. A FEDERAL PARTNER IN STATEWIDE REFORM "The cost of living in California shouldn't be a reason to leave," US. Congressional Candidate Verbica adds. "We can't solve everything in Washington, but we can be a strong partner in turning things around. This plan is just the beginning, and we look forward to the very real possibility of working in cooperation with a Republican governor in California." US. Congressional Candidate Verbica plans to introduce or support legislation aligned with these recommendations, while coordinating with local officials, stakeholders, and agencies to ensure federal support is targeted where it's most needed. Incumbent politicians had their chance, and they refused to structurally fix social security for current and future generations. They are not the solution; they are part of the problem. Vote for Peter Verbica for Congress. Peter Coe Verbica is a fiscal conservative running for United States Congress, California District 19. The district covers Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. Verbica grew up on a cattle ranch and graduated from Bellarmine College Prep, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara University School of Law, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Peter Verbica is a CFP® professional and a Principal and Managing Director at Silicon Private Wealth. He has four adult daughters. He and his wife enjoy hiking, playing tennis and horseback riding. His family donated the heart of Henry Coe State Park, the largest state park in Northern California. For more information on the campaign, please visit Paid for by Verbica for Congress. Contact:Peter Coe Verbica***@ Photo(s): Press release distributed by PRLog View original content: SOURCE Verbica for Congress

The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation
The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into Media Matters for America, a progressive nonprofit dedicated to "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," for its role in an advertising boycott of X in May. On Monday, the FTC expanded the investigation to major advertisers, including Omnicron Group and the Interpublic Group, both of which are founding members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The FTC's investigation follows not only Elon Musk's intimate involvement with the Trump administration but also lawsuits filed by X Corp. against Media Matters and the WFA. In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas accusing the nonprofit of making false and malicious statements disparaging the quality of X, which led to the subsequent loss of advertising contracts. In its complaint, X Corp. accuses Media Matters of publicly smearing the company by "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images [of] advertisers' posts…beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content." X Corp. cites "99% of [its] measured ad placement in 2023 [appearing] adjacent to content scoring above the Global Alliance for Responsible Media's [GARM] brand safety floor" as contradicting Media Matter's portrayal of the platform. X Corp. filed an antitrust lawsuit against GARM's parent organization, the WFA, in August 2024. After Musk acquired Twitter (now X) in November 2022, members contacted GARM for advice on whether to continue advertising on the platform. At this time, the suit alleges, GARM "conveyed to its members its concerns about Twitter's compliance with GARM's standards"—concerns exacerbated by critical coverage from progressive nonprofits like Media Matters—prompting a boycott that caused revenues to dip 80 percent below forecasts. X Corp. alleges that WFA members violated the Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition of conspiracies in restraint of trade by "withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter." Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests this allegation is meritless. Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat, both professors at the University of California, Davis School of Law, cite NAACP v. Claiborne (1982) as evidence that the First Amendment applies to politically motivated boycotts. Amar and Bhagwat explain that, in Claiborne, "the Court insulated the boycotters from liability under state laws seeking to protect fair economic competition and held that 'the nonviolent elements of [the boycotters'] activities [were] entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.'" Amar and Bhagwat also invoke 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), where the Court ruled that "a seller of inherently expressive services…can't be compelled [by a consumer] to provide speech." It stands to reason that consumers (like advertisers) may not be forced to buy expressive services they disagree with. Forcing companies to pay for speech with which they disagree is unconstitutional. The FTC's advertising boycott investigation is a waste of the commission's time and taxpayers' money because, even if advocacy groups and advertisers colluded to boycott X, the First Amendment forecloses antitrust prosecution given the expressive nature of the X platform and its advertising service. The post The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation appeared first on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store