I agree with many of the things said about Oakland above, but if the city decides that they don't want coal handled in town they can adjust zoning and other ordinances to ban it. Their power to control land use in town is clearly established. They're not interfering with the railroad carrying coal - the city clearly can't do that - but if there's no expanded place to transship it in Oakland then the volume should be reduced to what existing (for how long?) facilities can handle or will go elsewhere (Richmond and Stockton?).