Montgomery Whitewater honors late Commission Chairman Elton Dean with plaque

Blue umbrellas dotted the audience to defend against the sweltering sun. But despite the heat, a crowd of about 50 turned out in their Sunday best to celebrate late Montgomery County Commission Chairman Elton Dean at the sprawling Montgomery Whitewater development he helped drive.
'We're here to honor somebody who meant so much to this county but also so much to each of us individually," Alabama Commerce Secretary Ellen McNair told the crowd of about 50 people. Dean was a champion of west Montgomery and instrumental in advocating for the project.
McNair heralded the work Dean did, much of which was behind the scenes and without recognition.
Photos: Elton Dean through the years
'We miss you, Chairman Dean, but through this incredible park, we see your vision and move forward every day," McNair said.
Brandon Dean spoke emotionally about his father and described him as his best friend.
'My dad was not into politics," Brandon Dean said. "He was into people."
More: Montgomery County names new park for longtime leader Elton Dean
Former Mayor Todd Strange said that Dean was a visionary.
'You could not help but want to do the great things that Elton wanted to do," Strange said.
County Commission Chairman Doug Singleton said that he and Dean loved each other and urged the people of Montgomery County to honor his legacy by loving each other in the same way.
Dean was elected to represent County Commission District 2 as a Democrat in 2000 and served as the commission's chairman for more than a decade. He died in 2022.
Alex Gladden is the Montgomery Advertiser's education reporter. She can be reached at agladden@gannett.com or on Twitter @gladlyalex.
This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: Community celebrates Elton Dean's commitment to Montgomery Whitewater

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

Fuel firms can challenge California's emission limits, supreme court rules

Fossil fuel companies are able to challenge California's ability to set stricter standards reducing the amount of polluting coming from cars, the US supreme court has ruled in a case that is set to unravel one of the key tools used to curb planet-heating emissions in recent years. The conservative-dominated supreme court voted by seven to two to back a challenge by oil and gas companies, along with 17 Republican-led states, to a waiver that California has received periodically from the federal government since 1967 that allows it to set tougher standards than national rules limiting pollution from cars. The state has separately stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035. Although states are typically not allowed to set their own standards aside from the federal Clean Air Act, California has been given unique authority to do so via a waiver that has seen it become a pioneer in pushing for cleaner cars. Other states are allowed to copy California's stricter standard, too. But oil and gas companies, as well as Republican politicians, have complained about the waiver, arguing that it caused financial harm. The waiver was removed during Donald Trump's first term but then reinstated by Joe Biden's administration. Last week, Trump again moved to end the waiver, signing a congressional disapproval of California's move to cut pollution and shift new cars and trucks to become electric over the next decade. Gavin Newsom, California's governor and a Democrat, who is in a huge head-to-head battle with the White House over the Los Angeles protests and state power, amid Trump's immigration crackdown, has called this move illegal and has said the state will sue. The justices' ruling overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups. The lower court had concluded that the plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 EPA decision to let California set its own regulations. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. The lower court had previously ruled that the oil and gas industry didn't have legal standing to attempt to topple the California waiver but a challenge to this reached the supreme court, which appeared sympathetic to the claim when the case was heard in April. 'It's not that high a burden,' Amy Coney Barrett, one of the justices, said about proof of the alleged harm. California and the federal government have been allowed to 'stretch and abuse' the Clean Air Act, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of the groups challenging the waiver, has complained. But environmentalists and California's Democratic leadership have defended the waiver, arguing that it has helped push forward vehicle innovation and help cut greenhouse gases. Transportation is responsible for more planet-heating pollution in the US than any other sector. 'California and other clean car states cannot achieve federal clean air standards and protect communities without reducing harmful transportation pollution,' said Andrea Issod, senior attorney at the Sierra Club. 'We stand with these states to defend their well-established authority to set standards for clean cars.' The supreme court's ruling on Friday does not in itself end California's standards to cut pollution from vehicles, said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. 'The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,' Patton said. 'While the supreme court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.'

Yahoo

6 hours ago

• Yahoo

Trump rips Powell, suggests appointing himself to Fed

President Trump ramped up his criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and suggested appointing himself to the central bank. 'Maybe I should go to the Fed,' Trump mused at the White House on Wednesday, hours before the central bank was set to announce its latest interest rate move. 'Am I allowed to appointment myself at the Fed?' he continued. 'I'd do a much better job than these people.' With less than a year left in Powell's term as Fed chair, most experts don't expect Trump to make a run at his job and risk upsetting markets. But Trump has repeatedly suggested removing Powell, and his campaign reportedly considered a plan to give the president more authority over Fed rate decisions despite the bank's legal separation from White House policymaking. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the panel of Fed officials responsible for setting interest rates, is expected to keep its baseline interest rate unchanged Wednesday. While Powell is the de facto leader of the FOMC as chair of the Fed board, he is but one of more than a dozen central bank officials who vote on the bank's interest rate moves. Even so, Trump has raged at Powell for more than seven years after the president elevated him to lead the Fed in 2017. Trump has repeatedly threatened Powell's job and criticized his handling of the economy, accusing the lifelong Republican of rigging interest rates to support Democrats and oppose the president's economic policies. During his second term, Trump dubbed Powell 'Mr. Too-Late,' accusing the Fed of raising rates too slowly amid the postpandemic inflation spike and cutting them too slowly after Trump took office. 'I would have never reappointed him. Biden reappointed him. I don't know why that is. But I guess maybe he was a Democrat,' Trump said Wednesday of Powell, a Republican who worked in former President George H.W. Bush's administration and has faced fierce backlash from the left throughout his Fed tenure. 'You know, I got great advice from Mnuchin on this one,' he said of former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was the driving force behind Powell's nomination. Fed officials kicked off the year expecting to continue cutting interest rates as inflation drifted back toward its ideal annual level of 2 percent. But the bank has held off through the first half of 2025 amid the uncertainty driven by Trump's tariff plans. 'The labor market is solid, inflation is low. We can afford to be patient as things unfold. There's no real cost to our waiting at this point,' Powell told reporters last month after the Fed kept rates steady following its two-day policy meeting. 'There's a great deal of uncertainty about … where tariff policies are going to settle out and also, when they do settle out, what will be the implications for the economy, for growth and for employment,' he added. Powell reiterated his call for patience Wednesday, after the Fed kept rates steady once again. 'What we're waiting for, to reduce rates, is to understand what will happen with the tariff inflation. There's a lot of uncertainty about that,' Powell said. 'Someone has to pay the tariffs … between the manufacturer, the exporter, the importer, the retailer, ultimately somebody putting it into a good of some kind — or just the consumer buying it.' Updated at 3:08 p.m. EDT. Brett Samuels and Tobias Burns contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

UPI

a day ago

• UPI

Supreme Court OKs challenge to California stricter emission standards

1 of 2 | Electric cars sit on a Tesla parking lot in Fremont, Calif. (May 2020). Fossil fuel companies can challenge California's stricter standards to reduce pollution from vehicles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years. In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices. "This case concerns only standing, not the merits," Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. "EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident." The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California's stricter standard. The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term. When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions. Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California's electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order. "You couldn't buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts," Trump said last week. "They don't have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you'd have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants." Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit. Automakers were involved in the case. California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate and hence the regulations wouldn't have an impact. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. "If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?" Kavanaugh wrote. "The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell." Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot. "I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below," Sotomayor wrote. She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again. Jackson said her colleagues weren't applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent," Jackson wrote. The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian. "The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money," Patton said. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself."