The Carolina Planning Journal was one of five publications recognized by the Center for Architecture’s 2021 Douglas Haskell Award for Student Journals. CPJ received an Honorable Mention for this year’s issue, Volume 46, The White Problem in Planning. An excerpt from 2020-21 Editor-in-Chief Will Curran-Groome’s Editor’s Note speaks to the variety of articles and book reviews featured in the issue:
This past year has been in large part defined by three interrelated phenomena: a resurgence in Black Lives Matter protests and activism catalyzed by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd by the police; the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic; and the ouster of Donald Trump and the Republican Party from control of our federal executive and legislative branches of government. Each of these events has highlighted how the social, political, economic, legal, and physical institutions of our country have been designed and employed to benefit whites at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. In response, we asked authors to address issues raised by Goetz, Williams, and Damiano (2020) in their article titled Whiteness and Urban Planning, in particular how urban planning has worked to normalize and perpetuate whiteness–its invisibility, the exclusion by which it is defined, and the extractive nature of white affluence. The articles in this issue touch on many of the domains where planning intersects with whiteness, and they contribute valuable perspectives and analyses as we seek to build more racially just and reparative planning systems.
The Haskell Award was founded to encourage student journalism on architecture, planning, and related subjects, and to foster regard for criticism among future professionals. The award is named for architectural journalist and editor Douglass Haskell, an honorary member of the American Institute of Architects and editor at Architectural Forum from 1949 to 1964, during which he was very influential in stopping the demolition of Grand Central Station.
CPJ was recognized alongside the Rice University School of Architecture, Northeastern University School of Architecture, Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, and City College of New York Spitzer School of Architecture for perpetuating intelligent writing about design.
Print copies are still available of this year’s journal. To order your own, complete this brief subscription form and send us a payment via Venmo, Zelle, or cash or check; additional payment details are provided on the subscription form.
In response to the post-2008 housing crisis, a pro-building, pro-development movement, often referred to as “Yes-In-My-Backyard” (YIMBYs), has grown significantly over the last few years. Self-titled YIMBY organizations (some more formal than others) have popped up across US cities to advocate for the abolition of “exclusionary” (single family) zoning, as well as other state and local regulations that slow the development process.[i] The regulations they oppose vary, but typically include parking minimum requirements, building height restrictions, community input requirements, and historical preservation review boards. YIMBYs argue that exclusionary zoning increases the price of housing and furthers class and racial segregation.
On the other hand, there are more “traditional” housing justice activists who focus their energies on affordable housing programs, anti-displacement, anti-gentrification, and tenant organizing.[ii] Housing justice advocates and YIMBYs have often found themselves at odds, with YIMBYs supporting the construction of “luxury” developments as a way to increase overall housing supply. Housing justice advocates often find themselves at the other end, protesting the construction of luxury housing, arguing that these developments propel gentrification forward and do not contribute at all to housing affordability.
In this piece, I argue that housing justice advocates and YIMBY activists need one another, and that each other’s positions are strengthened by the inclusion of the other. Previous attempts to create affordable housing and prevent displacement have often floundered, so it only makes sense that a new approach would be presented. Synthesizing these two approaches can help create a pragmatic and effective movement for affordable housing.
Where do they differ?
Housing justice activists often deride YIMBYs for their “neoliberal” approach to affordable housing, suggesting that YIMBYs believe increasing the supply of market-rate housing will be sufficient to solve the affordable housing crisis.[iii] YIMBYs criticize traditional housing activists for halting housing development and being “NIMBYs” (Not-In-My-Backyard) activists. Eric Adams, the New York City Democratic mayoral candidate, recently derided anti-gentrification activists for protesting new housing developments, arguing that this seeming hypocrisy is part of the problem of affordable housing in NYC.[iv]
Where do they converge?
The goals of housing affordability, sustainable urban development, safe streets, and transit diversity cannot be achieved without broad coalitions; despite their different ideologies, both sides fundamentally need each other for the subsequent reasons.
Firstly, and most importantly, affluent NIMBY homeowners who oppose all new housing construction (affordable or market-rate/“luxury”) are central to stalling new housing. Affluent, older individuals who have the finances and stability to attend town hall meetings regularly have far more sway over local decision-making. This pattern isn’t just anecdotal: research[v] indicates that the individuals who are more likely to attend local political meetings are not representative of their own communities. They are typically white, wealthier people who are disproportionately homeowners.
This reality poses a stark problem for affordable housing advocates, regardless of their more specific positions. Renters, who have the most to gain from increased housing supply and affordable housing production, are highly underrepresented in local democratic proceedings.[vi] They are less likely to live in the same place for long periods of time, they do not pay property taxes directly, and they are excluded from homeowners’ associations that give local community members so much leverage in political decision-making.
The underrepresentation of renters -the people most directly impacted by affordable housing policies – makes it all the more necessary for YIMBYs and housing justice advocates to work in tandem. On their own both sides are doomed to fail in the face of this entrenched power dynamic, but together they can create a sustainable movement for housing affordability. Furthermore, building this local political power provides the capacity for future tenant organizing to prevent evictions and displacement, and give tenants more leverage over landlords.
Also, the two sides’ policies often depend on each other. For example, local housing justice advocates across the country fight in favor of new affordable housing construction, but these projects are often shut down by local NIMBYs. Affordable housing faces other problems too: local governments may try to shut down housing along racist and classist lines through targeted rezoning,[vii] and the often arduous process of affordable housing permitting and construction disincentivizes building new affordable units.[viii] In these cases, the YIMBY policy toolkit is vital. Reducing permitting and land-use regulations and easing the process of residential development can make all the difference.
That being said, YIMBY advocates should engage more deeply with housing justice advocates’ criticisms. While data is beginning to show that new housing construction lowers nearby housing prices,[ix] this relationship is not fully solidified. A case study from Chicago found the opposite to be true, suggesting local context matters. Furthermore, the YIMBY argument about housing market “filtering” – where housing units that begin as market-rate become increasingly affordable as they age – does not appear to always hold.[x] Some housing markets, such as Los Angeles and Washington, DC, appear to filter “upwards,” and older units become more expensive. In these locations, market-based approaches are likely insufficient and should be supplemented with additional interventions.
Final Takeaways
America’s housing problems are huge and varied, ranging from a looming eviction crisis to broad housing unaffordability for renters, and will require a broad coalition of advocates to confront them.[xi] Under these circumstances, infighting amongst factions who both believe that more housing, whether affordable or market-rate, is necessary to address these issues is unwise. Instead, the two movements should work together to protect low-income renters and build towards a future with abundant housing for all.[xii]
Elijah Gullett is a fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in Public Policy with minors in Urban Studies and Environmental Justice. His academic interests include fair and affordable housing, sustainable development, and LGBTQ+ urban life.
Edited by James Hamilton
Featured image: YIMBY & tenant activists rally for and against SB827 in California. Courtesy of Joseph Smooke
Carolina Planning Journal (CPJ), the oldest student-run planning journal in the country, is excited to announce the imminent release of Volume 46: The White Problem in Planning. This issue features articles and book reviews from a wide range of planning students, practitioners, and scholars; see the editor’s note below for brief summaries of some of the topics covered.
We would love to be able to send you a print copy of this year’s journal. To order your own copy(ies), complete this brief subscription form and send us a payment via Venmo, Zelle, or cash or check; additional payment details are provided on the subscription form.
This past year has been in large part defined by three interrelated phenomena: a resurgence in Black Lives Matter protests and activism catalyzed by the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd by the police; the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic; and the ouster of Donald Trump and the Republican Party from control of our federal executive and legislative branches of government. Each of these events has highlighted how the social, political, economic, legal, and physical institutions of our country have been designed and employed to benefit whites at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. In response, we asked authors to address issues raised by Goetz, Williams, and Damiano (2020) in their article titled Whiteness and Urban Planning, in particular how urban planning has worked to normalize and perpetuate whiteness–its invisibility, the exclusion by which it is defined, and the extractive nature of white affluence. The articles in this issue touch on many of the domains where planning intersects with whiteness, and they contribute valuable perspectives and analyses as we seek to build more racially just and reparative planning systems.
The roles of federal housing policy in building white advantage have been documented in an extensive body of literature. This literature also captures how federal housing policy has simultaneously excluded BIPOC groups from wealth-building opportunities and destroyed vibrant BIPOC communities. Frank Muraca (MCRP ‘20) builds on this work by examining the prevalence and impacts of “Urban” Renewal projects on rural communities in North Carolina, demonstrating the influence of federal Renewal dollars in creating and segregating white affluence. Rachel Eberhard (MCRP ‘16) examines contemporary efforts to mitigate housing discrimination, arguing that the Biden Administration has the opportunity to improve the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, expand housing opportunities, and eliminate racial barriers to housing access.
On the environmental justice front, Nora Schwaller (DCRP PhD candidate), Jordan Branham (DCRP PhD candidate), Atticus Jaramillo (DCRP PhD candidate), and Mai Nguyen (DCRP faculty) critique the use of race in natural hazards social vulnerability indices, arguing that such approaches neglect histories of racialized development, do not reliably predict disaster impacts nor support targeted recovery efforts, and may actually contribute to disinvestment in BIPOC communities. They propose reframing recovery with an anti-racist framework to better address structural, racialized disadvantage. Katie Koffman (MCRP ‘21) explores environmental injustice through a case study of the Lower Ninth Ward (LNW) in New Orleans, documenting how pre-storm racial inequities were compounded by the City’s and State’s approaches to recovery, leading to massive displacement for the majority-Black LNW. Amanda Ullman (DCRP PhD student) and Noah Kittner (DCRP faculty) write about the environmental and health impacts of container ports on nearby Black and Latinx communities. They propose that transit-oriented development and Green New Deal policies may offer more equitable and sustainable approaches to supporting the development of port-adjacent neighborhoods.
In an article centered on Los Angeles, Jackson Loop examines sites central to the 1992 Uprising following the acquittal of Los Angeles Police Department officers who were recorded beating Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Loop notes that historic preservation systematically privileges monumental buildings and landmarks and “enshrines whiteness” while neglecting spaces that are central to marginalized peoples’ histories of oppression and resistance. Davi daSilva employs case studies and an analysis of landmarked places to explore how procedural and structural aspects of historic preservation have privileged white historical narratives while erasing those of Black Cambridge residents.
Darien Williams (MCRP ‘18) situates recent efforts to reform the curricula, structures, and praxis of planning departments in the U.S. as part of a longer historical narrative dating back to the 1960s. Williams argues that Black students recognize the “magical” power of planning education, which offers the tools to translate ideas, beliefs, and biases into the built environment, and that these students seek to transform or provide alternatives to white imaginaries through Black magic. L. Dara Baldwin, Tamika L. Butler, Anita Cozart, and Veronica O. Davis, interviewed by Wesley Lowery, reflect on their experiences as Black women in the planning field to characterize how the “White Problem” manifests in planning: historical context, white-centered planning education, exclusionary language, and a lack of empathy around racism. They call for creating and cultivating Brave Spaces; confronting power and privilege that perpetuate inequities; ending institutionalized racism in the planning industry; and revising the planning curriculum to reflect the experience of BIPOC communities.
This year’s cover photo by Joungwon Kwon (DCRP PhD student) highlights the physicality of what Williams (see above) terms “white magic”. The enduring legacy of the railroad tracks in Durham, as elsewhere, is not merely one of transportation, but of both literal and figurative separation and segregation. The familiar phrase “the other side of the tracks” both pathologizes and literally “others” Black communities, while simultaneously normalizing and idealizing whiteness. By shifting the focus to the other, this language also makes invisible the white affluence and exclusion that implicitly define the “right” side of the tracks–affluence and exclusion enabled by the tracks themselves.
I hope you take away as much from reading this year’s articles as I have from watching them develop.
Daunte Wright’s death, and the immense pain and unrest felt across the nation resulting from the never-ending trend of police violence against Black and Brown people, could and should have been avoided. In the wake of yet another murder of a Black man at the hands of the police, the inequities of our racist traffic enforcement laws are once again on full display. On the surface, this was simply a routine traffic stop gone wrong, and one could argue the race of the driver had nothing to do with it. But none of this is routine, and race had everything to do with it.
Across the U.S., Black people are more likely to be pulled over and far more likely to be searched during a traffic stop [1]. In the vast majority of cases, the stop is for something as simple as having a broken tail light or failing to signal a lane change. Or, in the case of Daunte Wright, hanging an air freshener from your rear view mirror.
Beyond traffic stops, racial targeting can also be seen in the enforcement of jaywalking laws. The history of policing and pedestrians traces back to the early 20th century, when people began to look at street space as belonging to cars rather than pedestrians. The shift in perspective became more notable with the introduction and conceptualization of jaywalking laws. In 1912, Kansas City passed the first U.S. ordinance related to jaywalking. The new ordinance led to the rise of victim blaming, placing fault on the pedestrians who were injured or killed on the streets [2]. Criminalizing jaywalking also increased opportunities to enforce other policies such as stop and frisk and search and seizure. Stopping someone for jaywalking allowed police to identify other criminal activities.
Source: National Safety Council/Library of Congress
A simple Google search for police brutality during jaywalking-related arrests yields dozens and dozens of results. One of the most well-known cases is that of 18-year-old Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, who was fatally shot after being stopped for jaywalking. If you are Black and lucky enough to survive an interaction with the police, our jaywalking laws are still inequitably enforced with far-reaching consequences. This can be seen across the U.S.:
New York City, NY: 89.5% of jaywalking tickets went to Blacks or Hispanics in the first 9 months of 2019 [3]
Jacksonville, FL: Blacks are 3 times more likely to be ticketed for pedestrian infractions than whites [4]
Urbana, IL: From 2007-2015, Blacks received 91% of jaywalking tickets despite only making up 16% of the population [5]
The policing of jaywalking also disadvantages those who rely on walking as their primary mode of transportation, with an especially distilled impact on those who live in areas without reliable pedestrian infrastructure. The infrastructure issue begs the question: how can you avoid jaywalking when the crosswalk doesn’t exist? Criminalizing jaywalking can further exacerbate the cycle of poverty. Jaywalking fines can be very steep, with charges up to $250 in some areas. Failure to pay may result in a loss of one’s driver’s license or damage to one’s credit score [6].
Enforcing minor infractions such as jaywalking provides yet another mechanism for further criminalization of targeted groups. Eliminating jaywalking and other minor traffic enforcement laws leads to fewer interactions between police and Black and Brown communities, and allows us to focus on actual safety concerns such as speeding instead. Traffic enforcement should be about saving lives, not endangering them.
Going forward, we must ask ourselves – what role do we want policing to play in traffic enforcement?
Should the police have a role in our transportation system at all?
Emma Vinella-Brusher is a first-year dual degree Master’s student in City and Regional Planning and Public Health interested in equity, mobility, and food security. Born and raised in Oakland, CA, she received her undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies from Carleton College before spending four years at the U.S. Department of Transportation in Cambridge, MA. In her free time, Emma enjoys running, bike rides, live music, and laughing at her own jokes.
Radical: fundamental; extreme; favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions; advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs. –Merriam-Webster Dictionary
While I’ve been a strong advocate for change, I’ve honestly never really thought of myself, my work, or my beliefs as radical. I may protest wrongs or practice ‘do unto others as I would have them do unto me.’ I’ve even followed its alternate interpretation ‘allow to happen to others as you’d like it to happen unto you.’ But these actions and decisions have never seemed, to me, radical or even beyond the norm of what we should expect from another human being. However, I do believe that we live in a radical system that reproduces radical outcomes. Because a system that perpetuates dehumanizing practices is already extreme. So, upon further reflection, I’m asking if planning needs to be “de-radicalized?”
At the heart of the matter, I’m speaking to a de-radicalization that includes reclaiming our humanity. Because when we truly believe and value someone’s humanity—another person’s humanness (empathizing with and emphasizing our connectedness)—we won’t let radical events happen: children aren’t murdered by police; residents aren’t developed out of their homes and neighborhoods; victims don’t question whether they’ll be believed; getting in your car isn’t a risk; families aren’t placed in internment camps; and the innocent don’t fear that they’ll be punished even when they follow all the rules as we know them to be. And you don’t allow it to happen again and again and again. You won’t perpetuate a system that allows these radical events to happen again and again and again. In human-centered planning, radical events aren’t normalized. Centering someone’s humanity, a group’s shared humanity, means not going numb to their pain; no matter the number of stereotypes, prejudices, or unjust practices you can attach to their being. In a de-radicalized system, people are included and valued regardless of the temptation to rationalize our own actions (or lack thereof) making excuses for the comfort of your own believing.
In de-radicalization, you demand change. Our plans change. They look different, and the practices and underlying values that support them should look and feel different, too. To do this, we planners must begin to reorient ourselves, our priorities, and our needs. We must be critical of our methods and the actual impact of our intentions. We must prioritize the equity we seek to achieve.
Our board rooms need to be restructured.
We need asset-based approaches to community health, food, and transportation.
We need better trained public safety officials, ones we can trust.
The communities we work with and for need transparent sharing of information.
We need to ground our social services work in rectifying wealth disparities.
We need laws and policies that don’t create homelessness or promote its criminalization.
We need fair lending practices from banks.
We need an education system that provides support not marginalization.
Our community-based and led nonprofits need nonrestrictive, continuous streams of funding.
We need to give All planning participants fair compensation.
This includes time and expertise given on diversity and equity initiatives; volunteer time doesn’t provide pay to address the aforementioned needs in housing, food, and education.
We need to uplift the work and leadership of BIPOC activists which means we don’t co-op their work and corresponding terminology for profit and oppression—that’s rebranded exploitation.
And all of these changes at their core are not radical—not fundamentally extreme—because we give them to non-BIPOC persons and their communities everyday: so often that their privilege is so normalized that many have trouble becoming aware of how they’re privileged in the first place. We all have to be aware (woke) enough to question what kinds of radicalization (and -isms) in which we’ve been complicit.
De-radicalizing planning means we don’t take the path of least resistance: we don’t do this at the sacrifice of equity. When you challenge a system—a radical one—you anticipate resistance. When you’re pushing for equity, you look for signs of resistance because that means we’re actually getting somewhere in a radical system.
Moreover, these critiques aren’t limited to the Planning profession, because, in truth, We All Plan. We plan with our vote, where we send our children to school, how we promote members of our team, the issues on which we’ll remain ignorant, the spaces in which we have a right to occupy, whose complaints are worthy of our time, whose faces are deserving of rights, which leaders are deemed qualified, and which plans deserve to be planned. We plan all the time, and then we reconcile to comfort or shared prosperity. We choose these plans, and then we act. We act in our planning.
I’m asking if we can de-radicalize and uproot an extreme system in service of a need for positive change. And this request for change is not extreme, because I only seek to re-center this system to what it should have always been and reframe it towards realizing a future where we can all be free. And I can’t explain how us planners can do it all in under 1000 words, but hopefully I can ask others to join in and reflect with me.
And be active and hopeful. This change will come.
About the Author: Patience Wall is pursuing a MBA/ MCRP dual-degree with concentrations in Economic Development and Real Estate. While at Carolina, she’s focusing on how to attain equity in regional economic development and housing opportunities through public-private partnerships. Her past work experience includes a dash of elementary education, a brief stint as a pollster and time leading research and policy engagement initiatives at Duke. She obtained her undergraduate degree in Public Policy Studies from Duke University in 2015.
We paused our normal programming last week as we all processed the events from around the country. CPJ leadership stands in solidarity with the Black community and commits to an anti-racism online space.
To do our part in pushing the conversation forward, we will incorporate more posts that address racial justice and regularly promote different educational resources. We would like to begin with a book recommendation.
The DCRP has pickedSarah M. Broom’s The Yellow House as this year’s recommended summer reading.
Photo Credit: Grove Atlantic
The memoir from Louisiana native Broom tells the story of her mother’s beloved shotgun house in east New Orleans and the family she raised there. The house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and Broom writes about the racial and economic inequality that has haunted New Orleans for decades. Author Heidi Julavits called the book “a masterpiece of history, politics, sociology and memory.
– Los Angeles Times
Incoming and current DCRP students will be reading The Yellow House over the summer, and we invite you to do the same.
Learn more about the book here: https://groveatlantic.com/book/yellow-house-the/
Nuisance property ordinances are not a new concept, but their continued prevalence and persistence across the United States has many unintended consequences. So, what exactly is a nuisance ordinance? This short explainer will provide an overview of these challenging policies and what can be done to lessen their effects.
Nuisance property ordinances are part of a larger trend known as “third-party policing”, where the responsibilities for maintaining law and order are assigned to non-police actors—in this case, to landlords. These ordinances include “local laws and policies that penalize landlords and tenants when police are called too many times to the premises within a certain time period, or for certain activity occurring at the property” (Williams & Cook-Thajudeen, 2018). Simply put, a nuisance property ordinance punishes a property owner if a tenant calls the police or has the police called on them too much. By punishing the property owner, these laws usually result in the eviction of the “problem” tenant.
Under these laws, there is little reason for landlords to work with tenants to address issues. Instead, eviction is incentivized—in one study of landlords who received nuisance citations, 83% evicted or threatened to evict the offending tenants (Desmond & Valdez, 2012). Many nuisance ordinances do not make exceptions for calls made by those who require police or emergency assistance, even in cases of domestic violence. As a result, landlords may pressure tenants to not to contact the police, even in an emergency situation.
Nuisance ordinances are active in both urban and rural communities across the United States. They are normally passed at the municipal level, and as a result vary in how they are structured, what they prohibit, and how they are enforced. The local nature of these laws also makes them incredibly difficult to track at the state or national level.
In their ground-breaking study of Milwaukee nuisance citations, Matthew Desmond and Nicol Valdez found that domestic violence was the third most common reason for a nuisance citation. Domestic violence calls comprised 3.9% of all 911 calls during their period of study, but made up 15.7% of nuisance citations (Desmond & Valdez, 2012). This suggests that domestic violence-related incidents may be more likely to result in nuisance citations and evictions.
Nuisance ordinances negatively impact victims of domestic violence in many ways, including:
Placing responsibility on the victim for ending their own abuse
Discouraging reporting of abuse
Exacerbating existing housing barriers including evictions
As stated in the 2016 guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the only way to prevent the harmful effects of nuisance ordinances is to either prevent their creation, or where they already exist, repeal them completely. Partial solutions, such as domestic violence exceptions in existing ordinances, can help reduce the harm created by these laws, but do not completely protect domestic violence survivors. While these solutions appear to be a step in the right direction, they are difficult to enforce as they require the accurate identification of domestic violence and do not account for the complex nature of abuse.
Due to the local nature of nuisance ordinances, it is extremely difficult to track where these laws have been implemented and their comprehensive effects. Several legal cases have been brought against such ordinances but all have settled before trial, including cases in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and New Hampshire. The National Housing Law Project and the American Civil Liberties Union have both dedicated resources informing the public of these laws and providing support for domestic violence survivors, including a survey where victims can report if they have been evicted or pressured with eviction by their landlords under a nuisance ordinance.
Nuisance ordinances were not created to target victims of domestic violence, but current research indicates that the effects of these laws can be life threatening. By criminalizing the use of emergency services, nuisance ordinances don’t make our communities safer—they just punish victims.
About the Author: Amy Sechrist is a first year Master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill with a concentration in Housing and Community Development. Her research interests include affordable housing, planning for equity, and the intersection of gender and planning.
References:
Desmond, M., & Valdez, N. (2012). Unpolicing the Urban Poor: Consequences of Third-Party Policing for Inner-City Women. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412470829
Williams, R., & Cook-Thajudeen, A. (2018). Nuisance and Crime-Free Ordinances/Policies: Protections for Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence. National Housing Law Project.
Here’s the scene… I was taking a break from studying and scrolling through my Facebook feed during the Global Climate Strike week. It was depressing. All I saw were memes from both sides of the political fence, all on the topic of the ‘idiots’ on the other side.
I feel that it’s worth saying that I strongly oppose the bipartisan political system in place in this country, and I saw so clearly in that moment that this fence that separates Americans’ ideologies was strategically placed by those in power who wish to exploit environmental and human resources for profit. It also serves the purpose of confusing the American public as to take away our power as a people united for the common good. I saw that “the middle” is a fictional rift in our social consciousness meant to take away our democratic power.
With these thoughts weighing heavy in my heart, I opened a Word document and just started pouring my thoughts in – trying my best to use simple, digestible, and compassionate language. Ultimately, I wished to encourage conversation that was outside of the red-blue fiction that our exploiters have fed us since grade school.
This is what I wrote and posted to Facebook:
“Friends and family, there’s something I feel like I need to say here because I have a large network in the real, working class North Carolina outside of the liberal Chapel Hill bubble that I live in. I know a lot of Trump supporters and right wing folks are going to read this and have something to say in response. I want you to! I encourage it. Let’s talk about it.
What I have to say is this: it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the government is using the idea of climate change to divide the people of America. Everywhere I look on social media there’s either memes about the “dumb republicans” that deny climate change and deny science, or about the “dumb liberals” thinking that not eating meat is going to change the weather. I think that this is a product of climate change being recklessly tacked on to the democratic ‘liberal’ platform. And I also feel like that reckless tacking on is a result of big oil and coal industries (which most politicians from either side are bought by) trying to protect themselves.
Now, I hope y’all are still with me. I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat or something far different. You’re people – Americans – and you’re coming from a real place and there’s probably a pretty good reason for you to believe whatever you believe politically. That’s cool with me. But whoever you are, consider for a moment that you’re being deceived by the government and corporations to think that climate change is not real, or is being blown out of proportion. Consider for a moment the possibility of Ahoskie,or Edenton, or Elizabeth City, or Wilmington being underwater in 40 years. Think about your grandma’s house, or your mama’s house being flooded. The Avalon pier swept away. No more snow in the winter time. 10 hurricanes every year instead of 1 or 2. The fish will die, and so will the deer and the foxes. No more hunting.
Even if it is a small possibility, even the smallest of chances that that could happen… wouldn’t you want to do something to stop it? Don’t you want your children to grow up and know the beautiful, amazing North Carolina that you know? The time to do something about it is right now. Climatologists and astronomers are the ones I trust when it comes to issues involving the way the planet should behave, and they are all saying the same thing, the planet is dying.
This post is not to try to get you to change your political stance. It’s to try to show you that climate change is not a political issue. It’s a human issue. The dying world won’t care if you are Democrat or Republican. The hurricanes won’t only hit the Democrat’s houses. The oil company CEO’s are trying to DECEIVE you to keep their POCKETS FAT. That’s the truth of the matter. Don’t let them please. No one reading this is stupid.
If you want to know more about what you can do about climate change, PM me I would love to talk to you.”
I received a lot of support from friends and peers, but this is not the demographic that I wanted to reach with this post. I wanted to reach my peers’ fathers and mothers, my extended family and family friends that live in the rural parts of North Carolina; the welders, mechanics, pharmacy technicians, and agriculture workers. I am a rural North Carolinian myself, raised by rural North Carolinians – I wanted to speak to what I know to be the real North Carolina outside of the UNC/Durham microcosm, but I was afraid that my post wasn’t going to make it there.
So I did something bolder than I’ve ever done on Facebook, I shared the post as a direct message to as many people that don’t live in the Triangle as I could. Over 100 people.
The responses I received in my messages were quite different than the ones I received in the comments of the post, but the majority of responses I got were positive, to my surprise. Many people thanked me for reaching out and treating them like people capable of having a productive conversation about their political beliefs. I spent hours replying to messages, and I feel like in those conversations that followed I really may have made some folks reevaluate not only their understanding of climate change, but also their role in the democratic process, which felt impactful.
If this blog post does nothing else, I hope it shows readers the merit of meeting people where they are, and understanding that everybody is coming from a real place. We are capable of having conversations with those who don’t share our political beliefs, and I believe that real change happens when we forget our affiliations and labels and have conversations about what justice means.
About the Author: Quincy Godwin is an undergraduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studying Computer Science. He is a recipient of the Global Gap Year Fellowship, and has worked in sustainable development projects in Tanzania, India, and Vietnam. He is an avid outdoorsman and enjoys rock climbing, as well as creating music with his indie-funk band.
Featured Image: Quincy Godwin. He writes, “The open fields of the North Carolina coastal plains was where I was born and raised. So many summers were spent mowing 5 acre lawns or repainting barns in the stagnant heat so that I could put gas in my car for long summer night rides with friends on the seemingly endless country 2-lanes. In truth, I was spoiled because the Chapel Hill night sky just can’t compare to the way it is out there.”
For much of its history, Siler City, North Carolina was mostly white; now, due to jobs in poultry processing, the town is 40% Latinx. Driving through downtown, the demographic change is marked by the tiendas, beauty salons, and evangelical churches with signs en español that line the streets. Like many towns across the state, Siler City suffered when the furniture and textile industries moved elsewhere. Though the poultry processing plants remained, the workforce changed as native-born workers no longer wanted low-paying, dangerous jobs.1 Immigrants not only filled job shortages at the poultry plant and storefronts downtown: this new population also brought new life to a dying industrial town.
Siler City is not an isolated example. Across the South and Midwest, rural communities are experiencing an influx of Latinxs in search of economic opportunity. Latinxs accounted for more than half of the rural population gain in this decade.2 Initially drawn to work in agriculture or meat processing, many choose to settle in these places, some opening small businesses. In fact, immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as their native-born counterparts.3 These businesses contribute to economic development and community building in a number of ways including paying taxes, creating jobs, reducing commercial vacancy downtown, and providing spaces for cultural interaction.4 Often, they are launched without technical assistance or formal loans which demonstrate entrepreneurs’ resourcefulness and tenacity but also highlights the need for more institutionalized support.
Providing support for Latinx entrepreneurship can be a promising strategy for economic development in rural communities; however, this approach requires an understanding of the unique barriers and needs of Latinx entrepreneurs. Latinxs are more likely to finance their businesses with personal savings or informal loans from families and friends and are less likely to seek loans from financial institutions.5 Due to language or cultural barriers, they may not be able to access technical assistance or understand the processes for starting a business. To effectively engage Latinx business owners, local institutions will need to develop greater cultural competency as well as more targeted and inclusive approaches to outreach.
Mural in Downtown Siler City. Mural and Photo Credit: JR Butler, Siler City Mural Society.
Some organizations and institutions have already begun integrating these concepts into their programs. The Iowa State University Extension and Outreach office, for example, has a dedicated facilitator who works closely with Latinx business owners to navigate the start-up process and facilitate community forums with existing residents.6 The office also created “A Citizen’s Guide for Change” that offers lessons from four Iowa communities that have experienced an influx of Latinx immigrants. More and more, communities are recognizing the existing contributions and untapped potential of immigrants.
Efforts are already underway in Siler City, North Carolina to better integrate Latinxs and leverage their potential for entrepreneurship. In 2017, Siler City underwent a multi-year community planning process to identify issues affecting the immigrant population and generate public policies. Part of the Building Integrated Communities Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the process involved a community assessment and a series of stakeholder workshops. Over 75 residents representing a diverse sample of immigrants in Chatham County participated, along with town officials and service providers. As a result of these workshops, town officials and service providers have a better sense of what immigrants need and how they can support integration.7 In the next year, the town will work toward implementing aspects of the Building Integrated Communities action plan, including having the planning department visit existing Latinx businesses and hosting a starting a business seminar in Spanish.
The extent to which rural communities adapt to change or welcome newcomers could potentially determine their future. At a time when decline and despair are the dominant narratives of rural America, Latinx immigrants are a source of renewal and hope. By welcoming diversity, small towns can demonstrate to the rest of the country how to embrace inclusiveness and collaborate as a community.
About the Author: Lucia Constantine is a recent graduate of DCRP, interested in immigrant integration and inclusive economic development. Prior to coming to UNC, Lucia worked in higher education and nonprofits. She lives in Durham and enjoys taking her dog to the Eno.
Featured image: A family from Siler City enjoying the playground. Photo credit: Siler City, http://www.silercity.org/
Alexander, C. S. (2012). Explaining Peripheral Labor * A Poultry Industry Case Study. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 33(2), 353–399.
Johnson, K. M. (2012). Rural Demographic Change in the New Century. Carsey Institute, Winter(44), 1–12.
Fairlie, R. (2012). Open for business: How Immigrants Are Driving Small Business Creation in the United States.
Mathema, S., Svajlenka, N. P., & Hermann, A. (2018). Revival and Opportunity Immigrants in Rural America.
Bates, T., & Robb, A. (2015). Impacts of Owner Race and Geographic Context on Access to Small-Business Financing. Economic Development Quarterly, 30 (2), 159–170.https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242415620484
McDaniel, P. (2014). Revitalization in the Heartland of America: Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs for Economic Development.
The Latino Migration Project. (2019) Building Integrated Communities in Siler City: Action Plan for Immigrant Integration.
The Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic recently held its first annual Environmental Justice Symposium, which took place on February 9th 2018 at the Duke University Law School. The theme of the symposium was access to water and sanitation in underserved communities and was an effort to bring to light some of the most prominent environmental justice issues afflicting underserved populations. The symposium included a panel discussion and several breakout sessions.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice (EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The concept of environmental justice also means that people are involved in developing safeguards that protect them and their communities against industrial and commercial operations that may be damaging to the environment in which they live. EJ includes issues like water quality, which was the main topic of this symposium, health, and pollution, among others.
Panelists discuss their experiences working on water quality EJ issues across the country. From left to right they include: Catherine Flowers, Colin Bailey, and Omega Wilson. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.
The Panelists
The panel discussion included Catherine Flowers, Omega Wilson, and Colin Bailey, environmental justice community organizers who operate in different areas of the United States and focus on water and sanitation services. Catherine Flowers is the executive director and founder of the Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise which leads projects for the improvement of infrastructure in low-income communities in Alabama. Her work is focused primarily in rural areas. Ms. Flowers is also involved in the Equal Justice Initiative which aids poor communities with legal advice to uphold environmental justice principles. Colin Bailey works for the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) as their executive director and managing attorney in California. Mr. Bailey and the EJCW have been influential in defending California’s notable Human Rights to Water policy that was passed in 2012. Omega Wilson helped found the West End Revitalization Association, a non-profit organization that works on improving access of marginalized communities to amenities that are foundational to public health. Mr. Wilson’s work takes place all over the Southeast.
Key Takeaways
In response to a question regarding the influence of the political environment on advocacy endeavours, the panelists made several interesting points. Ms. Flowers responded by stating that she has perpetually straddled the fence between republican and democrat but that many people focus on EJ issues in urban areas, generally of democratic constituencies, although rural areas experience injustice as well. Thus, a key takeaway is that there should be a greater emphasis on the needs of rural communities, as well. Mr. Wilson responded that there is always a political agenda and that this agenda is not always accepting of EJ advocates, whom are often seen as “troublemakers” at various levels of city governance. In essence, the panelists explained that the political environment does have an impact on EJ issues and that allies are not always allies as everyone has their own particular interests.
A second question posed by the moderator asked what role impacted communities have in the fight for environmental justice. The panelists responded by saying that listening to individuals in these communities is key as their experiences may be counter to the “official narrative” of a particular situation. Additionally, panelists suggested that advocates and organizers should focus on building relationships with these community members, as well. They said there is a need to develop trust with people in EJ communities by involving people who are recognized and already trusted within the community. Mr. Wilson described an example in which his organization was trying to collect water samples for water quality tests; however, it was difficult to get people to let random organizers into their homes to test their water. Therefore, building trust, especially through the involvement of community members themselves, is crucial. Mr. Bailey made a similar point about the need to build capacity at the community level so that knowledge grows and disseminates within the community.
Participants gathered together in groups to discuss the regulatory barriers and solutions to solving some of the most prominent EJ water quality issues. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.
Regulatory Approaches Breakout Session Notes
One of the breakout sessions at the symposium was about the regulatory barriers and solutions to the water quality challenges faced by underserved communities. Among the barriers that the breakout group discussed was a lack of enforcement of environmental regulations in environmental justice communities, which in turn yields greater contamination and reduced environmental quality of resources such as water. The group also discussed the general lack of water quality testing in these communities. This lack of monitoring can allow environmental issues to worsen since it is difficult to regulate and impose penalties if there is no monitoring or water testing being done. Participants also described how there are EJ communities in which the pipe systems have deteriorated over the long term with very little maintenance; at this stage, corporate businesses can easily buy these underserved and undervalued parcels and benefit greatly, sometimes to the detriment of existing communities.
Successful regulatory approaches to EJ issues are varied. One participant suggested that local, rather than statewide, mandates and regulations may be more effective at grasping the nuances and issues of the local environment. Others suggested increased scrutiny as it pertains to companies–such as power plants, oil refineries, and hog industries–locating in environmentally sensitive areas, along with greater transparency in legislation and the corporate influence in policy making can help address these issues. Additionally, grants, rather than long-term loans, could be utilized to implement water infrastructure improvements in EJ communities. An important point that came from this discussion was the potential criminalization of civilian regulation violators, which can have real consequences on individuals’ lives; ensuring that existing members of the community are aware of the regulatory requirements is essential, especially as advocates encourage better monitoring and enforcement.
Conclusion
The Environmental Justice Symposium was an opportunity for participants to better understand and unpack some of the implications, barriers, and solutions that characterize issues of environmental justice. Of particular interest was the water quality, inequality, and marginalization challenges that the panelists at this symposium grapple with in their respective communities and regions. The panelists brought to light the implications that the political environment can have as they navigate EJ endeavours and the role that community members play in these efforts. Audience members were also able to brainstorm and discuss some of the regulatory barriers and solutions to environmental injustices throughout the nation.
About the Author: Kathia Toledo is a candidate for the master’s in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There, she is pursuing the Land Use and Environmental Planning Specialization. Kathia is particularly interested in the dynamic between varying urban landscapes, sustainability, and planning. She graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill with a Bachelors of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies and a minor in Urban Planning. Her hobbies include creative endeavors like urban sketching and photography, biking on the American Tobacco Trail, and exploring new cities and towns.
Featured Image: Duke Environmental Law & Policy Clinic’s First Annual Environmental Justice Symposium. Photo Credit: Duke Law School Facebook.
