Bloomington Warehouse Fight Returns To Court Over Housing Discrimination Claims

A controversial 213 acre Bloomington warehouse project that would demolish more than 100 homes in a predominantly Latino, working-class community returned to San Bernardino County Superior Court on Friday, as residents and environmental justice advocates argued the development threatens housing, health and a long-standing rural way of life.

People’s Collective for Environmental Justice held a June 5 press conference outside the San Bernardino Justice Center before a hearing on the Bloomington Business Park warehouse project, one of the most closely watched warehouse fights in the Inland Empire.

The lawsuit argues that the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ 2022 approval of the project is not only an environmental issue, but a civil rights and housing justice issue. A court has already ruled the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act and ordered a new environmental review. Advocates are now asking the court to consider whether the county also violated its legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

For Bloomington resident Xochitl Pedraza, who has lived north of the project area for 10 years, the case is about whether families like hers can remain in the community they worked to build.

When she moved to Bloomington, Pedraza said, the neighborhood was quieter and more rural, with horses, large lots, chickens, goats, home gardens and views of the surrounding hills. Many of the homes that have since been demolished sat on nearly an acre of land, she said, offering working families space that has become increasingly difficult to find in Southern California.

“It was a rural environment,” Pedraza said. “It was a lot quieter.”

That has changed, she said, as warehouse development and truck traffic have pushed deeper into residential areas.

“Right now, it’s truck after truck,” Pedraza said.

Inside her home, Pedraza said, soundproof windows are not enough to block the noise from passing trucks. She said the rumbling can still be heard indoors and felt through the house.

“You can still hear it when the trucks pass by,” Pedraza said. “You can feel it like an earthquake.”

Outside, she said, the impacts are even more difficult to ignore. Pedraza said cracks have appeared in parts of her home and concrete outside, and that she and her husband sometimes cannot hear each other while working in the yard because of passing trucks. She also described delivery lines near warehouses in the evening and heavier morning traffic that has made daily routines more difficult.

The uncertainty has changed how her family thinks about investing in their home.

“It’s like we’re always in limbo,” Pedraza said. “We don’t know if they’re eventually going to rezone, so why invest in your house?”

Pedraza said her backyard, shaded by trees and still home to chickens and birds, remains a place of refuge. But even there, she said, the noise of honking, engines and truck movement can still be heard.

To her, the growth feels like it is closing in on Bloomington.

“It seems like a circle that is just literally choking us up,” Pedraza said.

Susan Phillips, director of the Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College, said the Bloomington case reflects one of the Inland Empire’s most serious warehouse disputes because it involves the loss of homes and the disruption of an entire community.

“We’re here to fight one of the most egregious cases in the history of warehouse construction in the Inland Empire,” Phillips said. “The destruction of homes — not only homes, but an entire community and way of life — has been at stake in this case.”

Phillips said air pollution is a major concern, but not the only one. She pointed to noise, light, truck rumbling and safety concerns as part of the cumulative burden residents face when warehouse projects are placed near homes.

“Air pollution is one of the key things,” Phillips said. “It causes asthma, it causes heart issues, it causes all kinds of health issues.”

Phillips said advocates believe the Bloomington project reflects a discriminatory pattern in land-use decisions, particularly when warehouse developments are placed in low-income Latino communities with lower-density housing and large lots.

“The predatory aspect of it is about race,” Phillips said. “At the end of the day, that’s the assertion that we’re making here in this court.”

Advocates say Bloomington’s experience reflects a broader Inland Empire pattern in which warehouse expansion has replaced housing, increased truck pollution and concentrated environmental burdens in low-income communities of color. The recent “Region in Crisis” report cited by advocates argues that warehouse growth across the region has placed homes, schools and neighborhoods closer to industrial uses and truck routes.

Pedraza said some neighbors have become discouraged, while others continue to fight because they see the project as a threat to the lives they built and the retirement years they planned.

“It’s what we have,” Pedraza said. “It’s what we wanted.”

She said the demolition of homes also affects families who may feel pressured to sell but cannot easily find similar property elsewhere.

“Where are we going to find an acre in California that is reasonably priced?” Pedraza said.

Pedraza said she wants county leaders to listen to residents, particularly because parks and schools are near areas affected by warehouse development.

“The most logical thing is to stop the project,” she said.

The outcome of the case could carry broader implications for how local governments weigh warehouse development, housing loss and environmental justice in communities already facing industrial pressure.

For Pedraza, the issue remains rooted in the daily reality outside her door.

“We have parks and we have schools that are next to that,” she said. “They need to listen to us.”