Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Pentagon plan pits U.S. Marines against California off-roaders and civilian pilots

News Feed
Wednesday, September 17, 2025

LUCERNE VALLEY, Calif. — The U.S. Marine Corps tried once to occupy this remote stretch of California desert beloved by off-roaders — but officials managed eventually to broker a deal that allowed both leathernecks and dirt riders to share the same rocky canyons and wrinkled mountains of Johnson Valley.Now, more than a decade later, the Marines are back — and this time, they want the skies.The Pentagon has proposed restricting civilian air traffic above much of the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area to expand and support training exercises. But those who frequent the area just west of the Twentynine Palms Marine base say the proposal would severely limit recreational access and reduce safety.They say the airspace restrictions could prevent rescue helicopters from evacuating injured motorists, and threaten the famed King of the Hammers off-road race that’s held there each year.And perhaps most crucially, they fear the proposal — which must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration — is just the first step toward the Marines ending public access to an area that was set aside by Congress for public use.“It feels like it’s literally just another way for them to take the land, but from above,” said Shannon Welch, vice president of the off-road group Blue Ribbon Coalition.The proposal has also drawn criticism from aviation officials, who say the restrictions could affect the operations of small local airports and add time and cost to commercial flights.The military says such fears are overblown.Recently, base officials said that the proposal would restrict the airspace for only up to 60 days per year. Project documents say the Marines are hoping the FAA will consider adding more days after the first year, but the base officials told The Times they would not seek additional days of activation over the portion of Johnson Valley that’s shared with the public. They are also working on mitigation measures that would enable them to share the skies even when the restrictions are active, they said.“There is no intention to restrict public access to Johnson Valley,” said Cindy Smith, land management specialist with the base’s government and external affairs. King of the Hammers founder Dave Cole walks along sand dunes in the Johnson Valley OHV Area where the military wants to impose restrictions on civilian aircraft. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) Johnson Valley devotee Dave Cole lives on 15 acres that back up onto the OHV area. From his front door, he can hop in a side-by-side and traverse miles of rolling sand dunes and rugged boulder piles. The vastness reminds him of the ocean, where constantly shifting tides mean that no two trips yield the same experience. And in the world of motorized recreation, the 96,000-acre riding area simply has no peer.“Going off-roading and those kinds of things, that’s surfing for me, and this is like Oahu. It’s beachfront,” Cole said.One recent afternoon, he stood on a ridge above a sprawling dry lakebed. There, in a few months, a temporary city called Hammertown would arise from the sun-baked sand. Some 80,000 people were expected to watch rock-crawling competitions and races, camp out and hear vendors pitch the latest in automotive technology. The King of the Hammers off-road vehicle competition is held each year in February. (Dennis Utt) Cole co-founded King of the Hammers in 2007 — in part to fend off a westward expansion by the Marine Corps. He thought an off-roading competition would draw attention to the Bureau of Land Management-maintained area and demonstrate the importance of keeping it open to the public.The two-week festival has since grown into one of the largest events on public land outside of Burning Man and a report commissioned by San Bernardino County estimated the race’s economic impact to be $34 million in 2023.As for the Marines’ expansion ambitions, they were addressed by a compromise in the 2014 defense bill. The legislation set aside about 43,000 acres of Johnson Valley for recreational use, 79,000 acres for the Marines and 53,000 to be shared. The Marines are permitted to close that shared-use area for two 30-day periods each year.The proposed airspace restrictions would stretch above much of the recreational area, including the entire shared-use area.King of the Hammers relies on helicopters and drones to respond to emergencies and to livestream the event worldwide. Welch, of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, described a potential loss of air support as “catastrophic.” King of the Hammers is an off-road race that combines desert racing and rock crawling. This race is held in February on Means Dry Lake at Johnson Valley. (Dennis Utt) Cole isn’t as worried about King of the Hammers. He believes a compromise to accommodate the event is possible and even likely. He’s more concerned that the proposal may mark the start of a broader takeover of the same area the Marines sought to annex years ago. “It’s a different bite; same apple,” he said.Military airspace restrictions above other public lands often result in ground closures with little notice, Welch said. Such areas include BLM-managed lands in the vicinity of the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, as well as the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona, she said.“These two areas are cautionary tales for what happens when the military gains control of the skies — even if the land underneath remains technically public,” she wrote in an email.Marine Corps officials said they are committed to honoring the shared-use agreement, but that they need additional restricted airspace for training involving both piloted aircraft and drones.Col. Benjamin Adams, assistant chief of staff for the base’s training directorate, pointed to a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that every squad must be armed with small drones by the end of fiscal year 2026. The Twentynine Palms base, with its 1,200 square miles of rugged training area, is one of the only places the Marines can perform large-scale combined-arms exercises, Adams said.“This is the golden jewel of the Marine Corps,” he said. “The training we complete here cannot be conducted anywhere else in the Marine Corps, period.”The Marines published a description of the airspace proposal in 2019, but multiple recreation advocates and local officials said they didn’t hear about it until the Marines released a draft environmental assessment last month.San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe questions whether federal officials have a full understanding of how the restrictions would affect local residents. At least 36 medical helicopters responded to the Johnson Valley area last year, according to statistics provided to Rowe by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.“Nobody really looks up to say, ‘what are we sacrificing on the other end of it?’ Is it public safety? Access to public lands and recreation? Private property rights of inholders?” she said. “That falls to us on the outside who want to coexist with the Marines, who we respect, but also want to preserve the areas we have known and enjoyed for years.”Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the proposal. Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the Marine air restriction proposal. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) An increase in military flights through the Yucca Valley Airport’s traffic pattern would raise public safety and noise concerns, wrote board director Tim Lewis. He noted the military already has 31 special use airspaces within a 100 nautical-mile range of the Twentynine Palms base, with restrictions running almost continually from Barstow to Prescott, Ariz.The addition of even more restrictions is likely to impact commercial air travel, potentially reducing the number of flights through a heavily-used corridor, he wrote. And it would restrict the use of multiple small airports, including the Yucca Valley Airport, Twentynine Palms Airport, Big Bear City Airport, Needles Airport, Barstow-Daggett Airport and Apple Valley Airport, he wrote.“I think ultimately the Marines will find that the public opposition they’ve encountered will require them to make some compromises,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), who is also a pilot.When it comes to Big Bear, the proposed restrictions overlap with a line of approach for pilots using instrument flight rules, said Obernolte, who previously served on the Big Bear City Airport board. If the proposal is approved, those pilots would not be able to land at the airport under current procedures, he said.Obernolte is seeking to have a provision added to this year’s defense bill that would condition any expansion on the Marines complying with a previous law that requires them to work with the FAA to better alert pilots to the status of restricted airspace. “This is a real sore issue,” pilot Jim Bagley said recently as he flew a small airplane through skies the U.S. Marine Corps is seeking to restrict. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) “This is a real sore issue,” said Jim Bagley from the cockpit of his 1955 Cessna 172 as it roared through the airspace that would be subject to restriction. Thousands of feet below, a smattering of old homesteads spread out like playing cards on a poker table.The former three-time mayor of Twentynine Palms, Bagley is now a recreational pilot and flight instructor who sits on the county Airport Commission. For him, backcountry flying is just another mode of sightseeing, like hiking through Yosemite or boating beneath Niagara Falls.Open areas like Johnson Valley — where you can race your side-by-side as fast as you want or land an ultralight on a dry lake bed — are unique American experiences that are growing rarer, he said.Yet even Bagley, a close watcher of the project who had given the draft environmental assessment a careful read, did not initially realize some of the restrictions would be limited to 60 days. That is explained in an appendix more than halfway through the 394-page document. The rest repeatedly frames the proposal as the establishment of permanent restricted areas. Smith said that notice of the project was published in local newspapers and sent to various stakeholders. Public feedback will be incorporated in both the final environmental assessment and a letter of procedure specifying how the proposal will be carried out, she said. The Marines are already working with the FAA on that letter, which will enable the public to use the airspace above the shared-use area for low-level flights, including rescue helicopters, even when the restrictions are active, provided the ground is open, she said. The letter will also accommodate all aircraft approaching Big Bear, said Andy Chatelin, director of the base’s range management and development division. Chatelin pointed out that the proposal has already gone through an FAA aeronautical study and safety risk management panel to determine its impacts on the National Airspace System. A final decision is expected in the fall of 2026, he said.Had the Marine Corps held public meetings on the proposal and publicized the 60-day cap, some of the backlash against it could likely have been avoided, Bagley said. He has no issue with the military using portions of the airspace for training when they need it, he said.“What I object to is taking away public access to the public lands — and those public lands include the airspace above them.”

A proposal by the U.S. Marines to restrict civilian flight traffic above Johnson Valley OHV Area has drawn outrage from off-roaders and civilian pilots.

LUCERNE VALLEY, Calif. — The U.S. Marine Corps tried once to occupy this remote stretch of California desert beloved by off-roaders — but officials managed eventually to broker a deal that allowed both leathernecks and dirt riders to share the same rocky canyons and wrinkled mountains of Johnson Valley.

Now, more than a decade later, the Marines are back — and this time, they want the skies.

The Pentagon has proposed restricting civilian air traffic above much of the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area to expand and support training exercises. But those who frequent the area just west of the Twentynine Palms Marine base say the proposal would severely limit recreational access and reduce safety.

They say the airspace restrictions could prevent rescue helicopters from evacuating injured motorists, and threaten the famed King of the Hammers off-road race that’s held there each year.

And perhaps most crucially, they fear the proposal — which must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration — is just the first step toward the Marines ending public access to an area that was set aside by Congress for public use.

“It feels like it’s literally just another way for them to take the land, but from above,” said Shannon Welch, vice president of the off-road group Blue Ribbon Coalition.

The proposal has also drawn criticism from aviation officials, who say the restrictions could affect the operations of small local airports and add time and cost to commercial flights.

The military says such fears are overblown.

Recently, base officials said that the proposal would restrict the airspace for only up to 60 days per year. Project documents say the Marines are hoping the FAA will consider adding more days after the first year, but the base officials told The Times they would not seek additional days of activation over the portion of Johnson Valley that’s shared with the public. They are also working on mitigation measures that would enable them to share the skies even when the restrictions are active, they said.

“There is no intention to restrict public access to Johnson Valley,” said Cindy Smith, land management specialist with the base’s government and external affairs.

A walks on a sand dune with an off-highway vehicle in the background.

King of the Hammers founder Dave Cole walks along sand dunes in the Johnson Valley OHV Area where the military wants to impose restrictions on civilian aircraft.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Johnson Valley devotee Dave Cole lives on 15 acres that back up onto the OHV area. From his front door, he can hop in a side-by-side and traverse miles of rolling sand dunes and rugged boulder piles. The vastness reminds him of the ocean, where constantly shifting tides mean that no two trips yield the same experience. And in the world of motorized recreation, the 96,000-acre riding area simply has no peer.

“Going off-roading and those kinds of things, that’s surfing for me, and this is like Oahu. It’s beachfront,” Cole said.

One recent afternoon, he stood on a ridge above a sprawling dry lakebed. There, in a few months, a temporary city called Hammertown would arise from the sun-baked sand. Some 80,000 people were expected to watch rock-crawling competitions and races, camp out and hear vendors pitch the latest in automotive technology.

Spectators on a desert ridge watch a motor vehicle contest.

The King of the Hammers off-road vehicle competition is held each year in February.

(Dennis Utt)

Cole co-founded King of the Hammers in 2007 — in part to fend off a westward expansion by the Marine Corps. He thought an off-roading competition would draw attention to the Bureau of Land Management-maintained area and demonstrate the importance of keeping it open to the public.

The two-week festival has since grown into one of the largest events on public land outside of Burning Man and a report commissioned by San Bernardino County estimated the race’s economic impact to be $34 million in 2023.

As for the Marines’ expansion ambitions, they were addressed by a compromise in the 2014 defense bill. The legislation set aside about 43,000 acres of Johnson Valley for recreational use, 79,000 acres for the Marines and 53,000 to be shared. The Marines are permitted to close that shared-use area for two 30-day periods each year.

The proposed airspace restrictions would stretch above much of the recreational area, including the entire shared-use area.

King of the Hammers relies on helicopters and drones to respond to emergencies and to livestream the event worldwide. Welch, of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, described a potential loss of air support as “catastrophic.”

King of the Hammers is an off-road race that combines desert racing and rock crawling.

King of the Hammers is an off-road race that combines desert racing and rock crawling. This race is held in February on Means Dry Lake at Johnson Valley.

(Dennis Utt)

Cole isn’t as worried about King of the Hammers. He believes a compromise to accommodate the event is possible and even likely. He’s more concerned that the proposal may mark the start of a broader takeover of the same area the Marines sought to annex years ago. “It’s a different bite; same apple,” he said.

Military airspace restrictions above other public lands often result in ground closures with little notice, Welch said. Such areas include BLM-managed lands in the vicinity of the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, as well as the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona, she said.

“These two areas are cautionary tales for what happens when the military gains control of the skies — even if the land underneath remains technically public,” she wrote in an email.

Marine Corps officials said they are committed to honoring the shared-use agreement, but that they need additional restricted airspace for training involving both piloted aircraft and drones.

Col. Benjamin Adams, assistant chief of staff for the base’s training directorate, pointed to a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that every squad must be armed with small drones by the end of fiscal year 2026. The Twentynine Palms base, with its 1,200 square miles of rugged training area, is one of the only places the Marines can perform large-scale combined-arms exercises, Adams said.

“This is the golden jewel of the Marine Corps,” he said. “The training we complete here cannot be conducted anywhere else in the Marine Corps, period.”

The Marines published a description of the airspace proposal in 2019, but multiple recreation advocates and local officials said they didn’t hear about it until the Marines released a draft environmental assessment last month.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe questions whether federal officials have a full understanding of how the restrictions would affect local residents. At least 36 medical helicopters responded to the Johnson Valley area last year, according to statistics provided to Rowe by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.

“Nobody really looks up to say, ‘what are we sacrificing on the other end of it?’ Is it public safety? Access to public lands and recreation? Private property rights of inholders?” she said. “That falls to us on the outside who want to coexist with the Marines, who we respect, but also want to preserve the areas we have known and enjoyed for years.”

Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the proposal.

A photograph taken from inside an airplane shows a wing flying above a desert landscape.

Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the Marine air restriction proposal.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

An increase in military flights through the Yucca Valley Airport’s traffic pattern would raise public safety and noise concerns, wrote board director Tim Lewis. He noted the military already has 31 special use airspaces within a 100 nautical-mile range of the Twentynine Palms base, with restrictions running almost continually from Barstow to Prescott, Ariz.

The addition of even more restrictions is likely to impact commercial air travel, potentially reducing the number of flights through a heavily-used corridor, he wrote. And it would restrict the use of multiple small airports, including the Yucca Valley Airport, Twentynine Palms Airport, Big Bear City Airport, Needles Airport, Barstow-Daggett Airport and Apple Valley Airport, he wrote.

“I think ultimately the Marines will find that the public opposition they’ve encountered will require them to make some compromises,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), who is also a pilot.

When it comes to Big Bear, the proposed restrictions overlap with a line of approach for pilots using instrument flight rules, said Obernolte, who previously served on the Big Bear City Airport board. If the proposal is approved, those pilots would not be able to land at the airport under current procedures, he said.

Obernolte is seeking to have a provision added to this year’s defense bill that would condition any expansion on the Marines complying with a previous law that requires them to work with the FAA to better alert pilots to the status of restricted airspace.

A pilot is silhouetted by blue sky as they fly a small airplane over the desert.

“This is a real sore issue,” pilot Jim Bagley said recently as he flew a small airplane through skies the U.S. Marine Corps is seeking to restrict.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

“This is a real sore issue,” said Jim Bagley from the cockpit of his 1955 Cessna 172 as it roared through the airspace that would be subject to restriction. Thousands of feet below, a smattering of old homesteads spread out like playing cards on a poker table.

The former three-time mayor of Twentynine Palms, Bagley is now a recreational pilot and flight instructor who sits on the county Airport Commission. For him, backcountry flying is just another mode of sightseeing, like hiking through Yosemite or boating beneath Niagara Falls.

Open areas like Johnson Valley — where you can race your side-by-side as fast as you want or land an ultralight on a dry lake bed — are unique American experiences that are growing rarer, he said.

Yet even Bagley, a close watcher of the project who had given the draft environmental assessment a careful read, did not initially realize some of the restrictions would be limited to 60 days. That is explained in an appendix more than halfway through the 394-page document. The rest repeatedly frames the proposal as the establishment of permanent restricted areas.

Smith said that notice of the project was published in local newspapers and sent to various stakeholders. Public feedback will be incorporated in both the final environmental assessment and a letter of procedure specifying how the proposal will be carried out, she said.

The Marines are already working with the FAA on that letter, which will enable the public to use the airspace above the shared-use area for low-level flights, including rescue helicopters, even when the restrictions are active, provided the ground is open, she said. The letter will also accommodate all aircraft approaching Big Bear, said Andy Chatelin, director of the base’s range management and development division.

Chatelin pointed out that the proposal has already gone through an FAA aeronautical study and safety risk management panel to determine its impacts on the National Airspace System. A final decision is expected in the fall of 2026, he said.

Had the Marine Corps held public meetings on the proposal and publicized the 60-day cap, some of the backlash against it could likely have been avoided, Bagley said. He has no issue with the military using portions of the airspace for training when they need it, he said.

“What I object to is taking away public access to the public lands — and those public lands include the airspace above them.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Roads can become more dangerous on hot days – especially for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists

We tend to adapt quickly to rain. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat.

Munbaik Cycling Clothing/UnsplashDuring heatwaves, everyday life tends to feel more difficult than on an average day. Travel and daily movement are no exception. But while most of us know rain, fog and storms can make driving conditions challenging, not many people realise heat also changes transport risk. In particular, research evidence consistently suggests roads, trips and daily commutes can become more dangerous on very hot days compared with an average day. The key questions are how much more dangerous, who is most affected, whether the risk is short-lived or lingers and how this information can be used to better manage road safety during extreme heat. Who is most at risk? The clearest picture comes from a recent multi-city study in tropical and subtropical Taiwan. Using injury data across six large cities, researchers examined how road injury risk changes as temperatures rise, and how this differs by mode of travel. The results show what researchers call a sharp, non-linear increase in risk on very hot days. It’s non-linear because road injury risk rises much more steeply once temperatures move into the 30–40°C range. It is also within this range that different travel modes begin to clearly separate in terms of their susceptibility to heat-related risk. This Taiwan study found injury risk for pedestrians more than doubled during extreme heat. Cyclist injuries soared by around 80%, and motorcyclist injuries by about 50%. In contrast, the increase for car drivers is much smaller. The pattern is clear: the more exposed the road user, the bigger the heat-related risk. The pattern is also not exclusive to a single geographical region and has been observed in other countries too. A long-running national study from Spain drew on two decades of crash data covering nearly 2 million incidents and showed crash risk increases steadily as temperatures rise. At very high temperatures, overall crash risk is about 15% higher than on cool days. Importantly, the increase is even larger for crashes linked to driver fatigue, distraction or illness. A nationwide study in the United States found a 3.4% increase in fatal traffic crashes on heatwave days versus non-heatwave days. The increase is not evenly distributed. Fatal crash risk rises more strongly: on rural roads among middle-aged and older drivers, and on hot, dry days with high UV radiation. This shows extreme heat does not just increase crash likelihood, but also the chance that crashes result in death. That’s particularly true in settings with higher speeds and less forgiving road environments. Taken together, the international evidence base is consistent: the likelihood of crashes, injury risk and fatal outcomes all increase during hot days. Why heat increases road risk, and why the effects can linger Across the three studies, the evidence points to a combination of exposure and human performance effects. The Taiwan study shows that risk increases most sharply for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. These are groups that are physically exposed to ambient heat and, in some cases, exertion. In contrast, occupants of enclosed vehicles show smaller increases in risk. This suggests that direct exposure to heat plays a role in shaping who is most affected. The Spanish study suggests that the largest heat-related increases occur in crashes involving driver fatigue, distraction, sleepiness or illness. This indicates that heat affects road safety not only through environmental conditions, but through changes in human performance that make errors more likely. Importantly, the Spanish data also show that these effects are not always confined to the hottest day itself. They can persist for several days following extreme heat, consistent with cumulative impacts such as sleep disruption and prolonged fatigue. High solar radiation refers to days with intense, direct sunlight and little cloud cover. In the US study, heat-related increases in fatal crashes were strongest under these conditions. Although visibility was not directly examined, these are also conditions associated with greater glare, which may make things even less safe. How can the extra risk be managed? The empirical evidence does not point to a single solution, but it does indicate where risk is elevated and where things become less safe. That knowledge alone can be used to manage risk. First, reducing exposure matters. Fewer trips mean less risk, and flexible work arrangements during heatwaves can indirectly reduce road exposure altogether. Second, risk awareness matters. Simply recognising that heatwaves are higher-risk travel days can help us be more cautious, especially for those travelling without the protection of an enclosed vehicle. We tend to adapt quickly to rain. As soon as the first drops hit the windscreen, we reduce speed almost subconsciously and increase distance to other vehicles. This, in fact, is a key reason traffic jams often start to develop shortly after roads become wet. But a growing body of research shows we also need to be more careful when it comes to travel and commuting during extreme heat. Milad Haghani receives funding from the Australian government (the Office of Road Safety).Zahra Shahhoseini does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

West Virginia Program That Helped Communities Tackle Abandoned Buildings Is Running Out of Money

A West Virginia program that helped communities demolish abandoned buildings is running out of money, and state lawmakers haven't proposed any new solutions

From their home on Charleston’s, West Virginia's West Side, Tina and Matt Glaspey watched the house on the corner of First Avenue and Fitzgerald Street go downhill fast. A family with a young daughter left because they didn’t feel safe. The next owner died. After that, the police were responding regularly as people broke into the vacant home. The Glaspeys say that in just two years, the small brick house went from occupied to condemned, left without power or water, repeatedly entered by squatters. “One day, we noticed a bright orange sticker on the door saying the building was not safe for habitation,” Tina said. “It shows how quickly things can turn, in just two years, when nothing is done to deal with these properties.” City officials say the house is following the same path as hundreds of other vacant properties across Charleston, which slowly deteriorate until they become unsafe and are added to the city’s priority demolition list, typically including about 30 buildings at a time. Until this year, a state program helped communities tear these buildings down, preventing them from becoming safety hazards for neighborhoods and harming property values. But that money is now depleted. There is no statewide demolition program left, no replacement funding, and no legislation to keep it running, leaving municipalities on their own to absorb the costs or leave vacant buildings standing. Across West Virginia, vacant properties increase while a state program designed to help runs out of money The state’s Demolition Landfill Assistance Program was established in 2021 and was funded a year later with federal COVID-19 recovery funds. Administered through the Department of Environmental Protection, the fund reimbursed local governments for the demolition of abandoned buildings that they couldn’t afford on their own. The state survey was the first step in the program to determine the scope of the need and assess local government capacity to address it. It was distributed to all 55 counties and more than 180 municipalities. However, the need is far greater. Carrie Staton, director of the West Virginia Brownfields Assistance Center, has worked with communities on abandoned buildings for about 14 years. She said most counties don’t have the resources, funding or staffing to manage dilapidated housing on their own. “We’re just so rural and so universally rural. Other states have at least a couple of major metro areas that can support this work,” she said. “We don’t. It just takes longer to do everything.” Charleston has spent millions demolishing hundreds of vacant buildings As the state’s largest city, Charleston has more tools than most local governments, including access to federal funds that smaller communities don’t have. That has allowed the city to spend more than $12 million over the past seven years demolishing over 700 unsafe and dilapidated structures.But John Butterworth, a planner for the city, said Charleston still relied on state demolition funding to help cover those costs, which averaged about $10,000 per property, including any environmental cleanup. “It’s a real cost,” he said. “It’s a necessary one to keep neighbors safe, but it is very expensive.”He said the city received $500,000 from the state program during its last round of funding to help tear down properties that drew repeated complaints from neighbors. “I think people are really relieved when we can say that the house that’s been boarded up for a year or more is coming down,” he said. “Where the concern often comes from neighbors is, what comes next?”One vacant home on Grant Street had fallen into disrepair before being demolished in May of last year. Cracks filled the walls. Dirt and moldy debris were caked on the floors. Broken glass and boarded-up windows littered the property as plants overtook the roof and yard. Eventually, the city was able to get the owner to donate the property, which was then given to Habitat for Humanity as part of its home-building program. Now, the property is being rebuilt from scratch. Construction crews have already built the foundation, porch and frame, and it is expected to be finished within the year after its groundbreaking last October. Andrew Blackwood, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Kanawha and Putnam counties, said the property stood for at least five years, deteriorating. The home had signs of vandalism and water damage and was completely unsalvageable. He said that of the 190 homes the organization has built in both counties, nearly 90% of them have been complete rebuilds after the previous structure was demolished. A statewide problem without a statewide plan Lawmakers have said they recognize the scale of the problem, but none have proposed other ways for tearing down dangerous structures. Fayette County used state demolition money as it was intended, which was to tear down unsafe buildings that had become public safety hazards to nearby residents. With help from the state program, the county tore down 75 dilapidated structures, officials said, removing some of the most dangerous properties while continuing to track the progress of others through a countywide system. County leaders hoped to expand their demolition efforts on their own this year, but those plans have been put on hold. The county had to take over operations of a local humane society after it faced closure and will need to fundraise, said John Breneman, president of the Fayette County Commission. Former Sen. Chandler Swope, R-Mercer, said that kind of budget pressure is exactly why he pushed for state involvement in demolition funding. Swope, who helped create the state fund for the demolition of dilapidated buildings in 2021, said the idea grew from what he saw in places where population loss left empty homes, which local governments had no way to tear down.“They didn’t have any money to tear down the dilapidated properties, so I decided that that should be a state obligation because the state has more flexibility and more access to funding,” he said.Swope said he’d always viewed the need as ongoing, even as state budgets shift from year to year.“I visualized it as a permanent need. I didn’t think you would ever get to the point where it was done,” he said. “I felt like the success of the program would carry its own priority.” But four years later, that funding is gone, and lawmakers haven’t found a replacement. Other states, meanwhile, have created long-term funding for demolition and redevelopment.Ohio, for example, operates a statewide program that provides counties with annual demolition funding. Funds are appropriated from the state budget by lawmakers. Staton said West Virginia’s lack of a plan leaves communities stuck.“Abandoned buildings are in every community, and every legislator has constituents who are dealing with this,” she said. “They know it’s just a matter of finding the funding.”And back on the West Side, the Glaspeys are left staring at boarded windows and an overgrown yard across the street. Matt said, “Sometimes you think, what’s the point of fixing up your own place if everything around you is collapsing?” This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Webinar: Cell Tower Risks 101 - What You Need To Know To Protect Your Community

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Featuring Theodora Scarato, MSW, Director of the Wireless & EMF Program at Environmental Health SciencesCell towers near homes and schools bring many health, safety and liability risks. From fire, to the fall zone, property value drops and increased RF radiation exposure, Theodora Scarato will cover the key issues that communities need to understand when a cell tower is proposed in their neighborhood.With the federal government proposing unprecedented rulemakings that would dismantle existing local government safeguards, it’s more critical than ever to understand what’s at stake for local communities and families.Webinar Date: January 7th, 2026 at 3 pm ET // 12 pm PTRegister to join this webinar HERETheodora Scarato is a leading expert in environmental health policy related to cell towers and non-ionizing electromagnetic fields. She has co-authored several scientific papers, including a foundational paper in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.” She will highlight key findings and policy recommendations from this publication during the webinar.To learn more about the health and safety risks of cell towers, visit the EHS Wireless & EMF Program website: Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and HomesCell Towers Drop Property ValuesThe FCC’s Plan to Fast Track Cell TowersOfficial Letters Opposing FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track RulesWatch our previous webinar: FCC and Congressional Proposals To Strip Local Control Over Cell Towers Webinar - YouTube youtu.be

Funding bill excludes controversial pesticide provision hated by MAHA

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental...

A government funding bill released Monday excludes a controversial pesticides provision, marking a win for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement for at least the time being. The provision in question is a wonky one: It would seek to prevent pesticides from carrying warnings on their label of health effects beyond those recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as Section 453 for its position in a House bill released earlier this year, it has drawn significant ire from MAHA-aligned activists. Opponents of the provision argue that it can be a liability shield for major chemical corporations, preventing them from facing failure-to-warn lawsuits by not disclosing health effects of their products. MAHA figures celebrated the provision’s exclusion from the legislation. “MAHA WE DID IT! Section 453 granting pesticide companies immunity from harm has been removed from the upcoming House spending bill!” MAHA Action, a political action committee affiliated with the movement, wrote on X. The issue is one that has divided Republicans, a party that has traditionally allied itself with big business.  “The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said earlier this year.  However, the growing MAHA movement has been critical of the chemical industry. The legislation is part of a bicameral deal reached to fund the departments of the Interior, Justice, Commerce, and Energy, as well as the EPA. And while the provision’s exclusion represents a win for the MAHA movement for the moment, the issue is far from settled. Alexandra Muñoz, a toxicologist and activist who is working with the MAHA movement said she’s “happy to see” that the provision was not included in the funding bill. However, she said, “we still have fronts that we’re fighting on because it’s still potentially going to be added in the Farm Bill.” She also noted that similar fights are ongoing at the Supreme Court and state level. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to take up a case about whether federal law preempts state pesticide labeling requirements and failure-to-warn lawsuits. The Trump administration said the court should side with the chemical industry. Meanwhile, a similar measure also appeared in a 2024 version of the Farm Bill. —Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.