Tag: #Environment

The Fight to Save a Small-Town Bridge: Reflections on Infrastructure, Placemaking, and Community Engagement

July 9, 2021 / odrozd

By Ruby Brinkerhoff

Sometimes an old bridge is just that. An old bridge. Nothing much to talk about, often beneath our feet and our wheels, but rarely the object of direct attention, let alone debate. Tucked away in the Delaware Valley, nestled between two sides of the Delaware River, the Milanville Bridge has connected New York and Pennsylvania since its original construction date in 1902. As people take up aging infrastructure as a national conversation with increasing urgency, the conversation gains a great amount of relevance in local contexts. Examples of aging infrastructure, no matter how seemingly small, demonstrate the impact infrastructure decisions have on communities and how a small-town bridge can become symbolic in ways far superseding simply getting from point A to point B.

Milanville, Pennsylvania, part of Damascus Township, is a small village with about 600 residents. There is one general store with an attached post office and narrow, winding roads that cut into the hills and along the river, twisting along the embankments and through the countryside as if they were streams themselves carrying us back and forth from our destinations. The Milanville Bridge, also known as the Skinner’s Falls Bridge, is one of several bridges spaced out along the river, serving the local population and the considerable number of tourists that flock to the area every year to escape New York City, enjoy the countryside, and use the river recreationally. One of the most popular swimming spots, known as Skinner’s Falls, lies just downstream from the Skinner’s Falls bridge. This destination becomes relevant to the conversation in two ways: what happens upstream affects what happens downstream, and as with all bridges, we want to know where they lead to.

*Photo Credit: Veronica Daub, The River Reporter, 2021*

The Milanville Bridge, beyond its own historical significance, connects people to the economic vitality of Milanville. The Upper Delaware River corridor once built its economy on the extraction and transportation of coal and timber and felt a brief kiss of death with propositions for natural gas drilling in the area. Times have changed: the river itself is now the economic resource. The area increasingly caters to the tourist economy, with renewed interest from New Yorkers leaving the city at the advent of COVID-19. The river, and subsequently Skinner’s Falls, is a recreational money-making powerhouse, attracting many people to the natural scenic beauty and the glories of a well preserved, “clean” river (we won’t talk about the recent micro-plastic studies here).

The bridge, though intact, remains closed to traffic. Over the past ten years, the bridge has undergone some emergency repairs, reopened for periods of time, but would quickly close again with “in critical condition” branded onto it without remission. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) began a Planning and Environmental Linkages Study, which is “used to identify transportation issues and environmental concerns, which can then be applied to make planning decisions,”[1] also known as a survey and a comment period. Used as a tool to address processes required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Linkages Study intends to look at how the bridge is used and what the needs of the local community are before fully developing a process and plan of action for the bridge.

The Environmental Linkages study commenced with a rather, shall we say, passionate town meeting. PennDOT hired AECOM, a private consulting firm, to conduct the studies and planning necessary for the Skinner’s Falls Bridge Project, which they have been dutiful to attempt. The town meeting revealed three choices: decommission the bridge; restore the bridge to its historical integrity as a one lane, Baltimore through Truss style by repairing the super and substructure; or replace the bridge with a brand-new two-lane bridge, graded for 40 tons, accommodating the weight of vehicles such as full-size fire trucks, tracker trailers, construction vehicles, and dump trucks.

Approaching this community with AECOM’s version of “a collaborative and integrated planning approach” quickly became tinder for activism around saving the bridge.[2] It is easy and at times justified to feel that the community engagement techniques used for projects like this drip of tokenism (in reference to Arnstein’s ladder for planning folks).[3] AECOM’s invitation to become an “advisor” to the planning committee appeared to fall short of desiring real input from community members. The survey and the comment period were good starting points, but many people felt the comment period was too short and the survey was lacking.

Concerning the options presented by PennDOT, decommission the bridge you say? How hopeless! Expand the bridge to a two-lane bridge weighted for commercial traffic? There is a joke in Pennsylvania, taken very much at PennDOT’s expense: If you are driving straight on a PA road, you are definitely drunk. The roads on either side of this bridge run through Historic Districts, are winding with sharp turns and patches sloping down towards the creek embankments. The roads simply are not graded for increased traffic across a two-lane bridge. The tourist destination downstream of the bridge hosts a patch of rapids that could very easily be disturbed by increased construction and displacement of water and materials upstream.

Beyond the practical considerations of engineering and feasibility, what do we want the bridge to symbolize? What do we want the bridge to do? The community is known for its activism and eventual victory over the proposal of natural gas drilling in the area.[4] People are extremely protective of the Delaware River, which is not only significant economically, but ecologically and as the watershed for New York City’s drinking water.[5] AECOM walked into the front door of a quiet town in the sticks with a survey in hand, perhaps thinking it would appease the requirements for community engagement without too much of an issue, yet they found internationally acclaimed environmental activists sitting at the table demanding a deeper and more critical conversation about the impact these decisions can have on community vitality and morale.

The comment period that was originally scheduled to end in May was extended to June at the urgent request of many community members. Local newspapers published articles, a local organization known for its role in the Anti-Fracking movement came forward and created new community engagement opportunities, providing people with updated information and ways to get involved.[6] The community conversation seemed to come back to the idea that we are talking about more than just a piece of infrastructure. We are discussing the present and future of how we create vibrant rural and regional areas. The Northeastern corner of Pennsylvania and sections of New York across the river have always served as important natural corridors and respite from the city. In planning, we often discuss the metastasizing of cities, the urban sprawl which has crawled into our laps as one of planning’s most pressing issues. The Milanville Bridge, with its unassuming stature, has renewed the dialogue about preservation for many people in the area. What is worth preserving and what will we choose to alter in pursuit of growth, or opportunity, or economic development? Who gets to make that decision, and how do you ensure the inclusion of local voices, especially in areas that are often spoken about as if “no-one lives here”?

Survey results are in from AECOM. 286 people responded to the survey with additional numbers of comments sent separately to AECOM via email. AECOM’s report implies that many people who left comments via the survey noted rehabilitation of the bridge as a theme, as well as the importance of the bridge as a nationally registered historic place.[7] The future of the bridge relies heavily on funding and what meets the bottom line of infrastructure needs. However, as the national conversation around aging infrastructure continues to unfold, deciding the future of the Milanville Bridge is a touchstone issue to examine.

[1] PennDOT. Skinner’s Falls Bridge PEL Study FAQ.

[2] PennDOT. Skinners Falls Bridge Project.

[3] Arnstein, S. (1969.) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.

[4] Mok, Aaron. (2021). The Delaware River Basin Commission Bans Fracking. The Sierra Club.

[5] American Rivers. Delaware River.

[6] Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.

[7] PennDOT. Skinners Falls Bridge PEL Study Public Survey Results.

Ruby is a rising second year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. Ruby specializes in land use and environmental planning, with a sustained interest in food systems, climate change, and equitable access to resources. Ruby received a dual bachelor’s degree from Guilford College in Biology and Religious Studies. She loves playing music, exploring North Carolina, and owning a lot of books that she never reads.

Edited by: Elijah Gullett

Featured Image courtesy of: Owen Walsh, The River Reporter, 2020

Book Review from the Journal: Superpower, Russell Gold

October 9, 2020 / odrozd

This week, we are featuring a book review from Volume 45 of the Carolina Planning Journal. Olivia Corriere reflects on Russell Gold’s Superpower. Superpower tells the story of Michael Skelly and his rise as one of the leading figures in the world of renewable energy.

Book Review by Olivia Corriere

Superpower follows quirky, optimistic businessman Michael Skelly from his beginnings installing rainforest canopy gondolas in Costa Rica to his stardom in the wind energy industry. Author Russell Gold tells Skelly’s professional story in a narrative style that traces the rise and evolution of renewables in the United States —a story about the electric grid that we all depend on.

In the early 2000s, technology enthusiasts and environmentalists drove the wind energy industry. When the Zilkha family, wealthy from their banking business, sold their oil company, they started Zilkha Renewable Energy the next day sensing industry growth on the horizon. They first crossed paths with Skelly when they acquired International Wind, for whom he was working at the time. It was a perfect match; the Zilkhas appreciated his ambition, his ability to connect with people, and his outright zeal for renewables.

All at once, Skelly and Zilkha Renewable shook things up in the wind industry with deep pockets and big oil business experience. As Gold put it, “Hippies were no longer running the wind business. Green pieties had been replaced by accountants’ green eyeshades” (p. 66). Skelly successfully built massive wind projects for Zilkha Renewable, like the 423.45MW Blue Canyon wind project in Slick Hills, Oklahoma. Gold decorates what could be a dry corporate growth story with anecdotes about Skelly’s positive attitude, daily bike commutes, and eclectic business and negotiation strategies. Take for example his suggestion to Michael Zilkha to wear his pink bike shorts and cycling shoes during a momentous finance meeting.

When Zilkha Renewable sold to Goldman Sachs in late 2004, Skelly took a break from the energy industry to run as a pro-energy, moderate Democrat in the Seventh Congressional District of Texas. Spoiler alert—it is challenging to beat out an incumbent Republican in the Lone Star State. After trying his hand at politics, Skelly catapulted back into energy development, co-founding his own new company: Clean Line Energy Partners would tackle the archaic 20th-century transmission lines.

The American grid transports electricity with a network of transmission lines; it accepts electricity from generators, distributes electricity through transmission lines, and sells it at wholesale to utilities. Because these transmission lines have limited capacities, congestion can become an issue when new generators (renewable or otherwise) come online, thus making the electricity more expensive and increasing strain on the infrastructure.

His new company would build transmission lines from energy resources to load centers. It would buy electricity from generators like wind farms, transmit it to load centers, and sell it to utilities at a premium. These enormous infrastructure projects are expensive, require long-term investors, and involve lengthy stakeholder processes. Government usually leads these types of development projects because the electric grid is functionally public, interstate infrastructure. Skelly was disrupting the status quo completely, and it was not easy. There were questions and heated debate about landowner rights, eminent domain, environmental implications, and economic impacts.

Gold closely examines Skelly’s Oklahoma-to-Memphis 720-mile, 4,000 MW transmission line, the Plains & Eastern Line. Arkansas political representatives were livid that the transmission line passed through the state without providing clear local benefits. Some posed questions about whether Clean Line even had the authority to build transmission lines since it was not a utility. Politicians waxed poetic about the threats of the line, turning their constituents against it, often by wielding false information. Landowners were terrified that they might lose their land. Notorious anti-transmission line mobilizer Julie Morton put it simply, “To us, it looks like Big Oil is moving over and here comes Big Renewable” (p. 181).

Skelly went back and forth for years with individual landowners, politicians who blacklisted Clean Line projects, and potential electricity buyers—especially the Tennessee Valley Authority, a regional transmission organization (RTO) in Tennessee. Meanwhile, Arkansas Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton introduced legislation that explicitly targeted the Plains & Eastern Line. All the while, Skelly was holding dozens of stakeholder meetings, offering the cheapest electricity on the market, and offering cash per mile to counties where the line would be built. This process is a long, administratively complex, technically difficult, and politically-contentious one.

Superpower clarifies several complex issues for the reader: the limitations of existing transmission lines, the politics that create roadblocks for renewables, the intense difficulty of comprehensive stakeholder engagement, and how energy policies and legislation affect developers in practice. Gold condenses and explains complex policies like the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and the Energy Policy Act, making them understandable for the reader. These policies regulate and steer energy in the U.S., so it is critical to understand them as climate change accelerates and as the American fuel portfolio comes into focus as a major talking point in the 2020 presidential race.

Gold chose the right character to carry the story of the renewables industry. Skelly is an interesting, likable person, and by the end, I was rooting for him. The anecdotes that Gold tells about Skelly and his business style are fun to read and add color to the picture of the renewables industry as a high stakes industry run by nimble, driven people.

Gold wrote this book to get into the nitty gritty of what it would take to build a new energy infrastructure. He wanted to write about the experience of working in energy, especially as the sector grows and there is more demand for workers in the industry. As he hoped it would, Superpower will appeal to people interested in challenging the status quo in energy and excite them to do something different.

“‘You only get one life, right?’ Skelly once said. ‘You might as well do something that is interesting and is challenging and is exciting. If it weren’t all those things, it wouldn’t be worthwhile’” (p. 273).

Buy Superpower here.

Find past volumes of the Carolina Planning Journal online here.

Olivia Corriere graduated from UNC this year. She studied environmental sustainability, geography, and urban planning. She worked as Project Manager at Blue Dogwood Public Market in Chapel Hill, NC. She also served as Co-Chair of the UNC Renewable Energy Special Projects Committee, managing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy education projects on campus. In her free time, Olivia enjoys hiking and cooking with friends and family.

An Interview on Risk Management Tools: “Sometimes They Just Need to Hear It Through Someone Else’s Mouth”

November 21, 2019 / odrozd

By Jacob Becker

Last week I sat down with David Gorelick to learn more about his work modeling risk for water utilities. David Gorelick is a PhD student in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at UNC Chapel Hill and a research assistant at the University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems. His current research focuses on identification and mitigation of physical and financial risks to urban water utilities in the United States. We spoke about the tools he is developing to quantify uncertainty and how his academic findings can be useful for stakeholders.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Jacob Becker:

Let’s start out with an easy one, what’s the title of your thesis?

David Gorelick:

It’s kind of a working title: Supply and Financial Risks to Water Utilities Under Uncertainty. It’s very broad.

Jacob B:

And a large part of that is developing a model, right?

David G:

Yeah, we are constantly thinking about what sorts of tools utilities might benefit from to help them mitigate risks that they face. We incorporate new ideas into models that we build of their water balance operations and figure out how to model the greater [water] system itself. We add different river flows and different precipitation cases. We’re expanding a broad set of uncertainty to try to see how well the tools we develop work under a whole range of future possibilities.

Jacob B:

Cool, so is the tool you’re designing more of a generalized tool or specific tool? Or maybe a better question is who is the general audience for your tool? Is it for researchers or something you’re planning on giving to a utility or utilities in general to help them make decisions?

David G:

The tool is a model pretty much just for academic use. What we get out of it, the outputs from the model and the takeaways we’ve learned from using it, those sorts of things are what we present to the utilities. The results from the model are shown to them, and they can use it as a decision-making tool through us, but it’s not something they would ever directly use.

Jacob B:

Are the results you’re are coming up with a more generalized for water utilities in general, or are you looking at the specific utility and then coming up with results that are specific to them?

David G:

This is sort of a question we struggle with and go back and forth on. What we’re trying to develop are generalized solutions for all water utilities, or at least those in the United States, but at the level of specificity that we need to model them to feel confident that our results are accurate at all it becomes a pretty site specific. I think that to some degree the tools that we’re developing might be something that only works for one or two cases, but the long-term goal is to make them more broad than that.

Jacob B:

Are there any specific things you found that you do feel are generalizable so far?

David G:

Yeah, we found some general stuff and because the takeaways that we’re looking for are general, I think they also tend to sometimes be kind of obvious. What we’re doing is developing new tools for utilities to supplement the management strategies they already use. When we develop these new tools, our takeaways tend to be something like: when we add diversity to the portfolio of tools utilities have available to them, it makes it easier for them to manage their risks, and so that’s probably the most general take away we have. Others are related to the inputs that we force the models to deal with. A common theme is when demand growth reaches a certain point it becomes very difficult for the utilities to meet their long-term goals for performance. Again, I think that’s kind of an obvious goal, but the specifics of how the utilities reach [these goals] are not quite so obvious. The models can help us with those.

Jacob B:

Yeah, also a lot of times you need to point out obvious things with data for people to accept it too.

David G:

Yeah that does help. Utilities often have working relationships with consulting groups that do similar work to what we do. The advantage we have as academics is more freedom to show them information they don’t necessarily want to hear or that they weren’t really expecting us to provide (since they don’t pay our bills). Because of this they’ve been very open with us, and I think happy with the critiques we provide.

Jacob B:

Any interesting utility interactions you want to share?

David G:

Sometimes we sort of strongly hint that we think the way they’re operating a small portion of their system, handling drought conditions or something along those lines, is not necessarily the most optimal strategy. It’s nothing new to them usually, but sometimes they just need to hear it through someone else’s mouth.

Photo Credit: University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems

Feature Image: The Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, including its four primary water utilities (Cary, Durham, Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and Raleigh. Photo Credit: University of North Carolina’s Center on Financial Risk in Environmental Systems

About the Author: Jacob Becker is a second-year master’s candidate pursuing a dual masters in City and Regional Planning and Environmental Sciences and Engineering. His research interests include mapping air pollution, climate change adaptation and transitioning to clean energy sources. For fun, Jacob takes his mind off the slow heat death of the planet by hiking around it and indulging in improv and sketch comedy. Jacob received his undergraduate degree in Biology from the University of Chicago.

The Path to Equity: Do Greenways Help or Harm Low-Income Communities?

October 29, 2019 / odrozd

It’s not easy being green . . . unless you are a greenway.

In that case, you’re probably a hot ticket for municipalities, especially those in North Carolina. As part of the East Coast Greenway, 372 miles of trails wind across the state.

Proposed route, only 30% complete, by the East Coast Greenway Alliance.

Get Going NC, a blog created by Cary-based author Joe Miller in cooperation with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation, compiled a list of trails in 2011. Many have been added since then, including in smaller cities such as Albemarle and Havelock.

Extensive greenways can also be found closer to home, logging 17.6 miles of trail in Chapel Hill, over 30 miles inDurham, 80 miles in Cary, and 100 miles in Raleigh.

Defining Greenways

Although many people associate greenways with undeveloped space, this misconception is easily debunked by Bolin Creek Trail. Brandon Tubby, UNC varsity distance runner and Angles contributor, describes the cement as “quite hostile” and “disappointing.”

In fact, greenways can be man-made or natural, urban or rural, paved or unpaved. The Town of Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan (2013) interprets “greenways” as:

Networks of natural spaces which provide corridors connecting areas such as neighborhoods, parks, and schools. These passageways typically include trails for pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles.

While there is no technical definition for a greenway, the term connotates “the trails and connectivity that people always wanted,” said Dr. Danielle Spurlock, assistant professor in the Department of City & Regional Planning.¹

The actual number and length of greenways in North Carolina varies depending on whom you ask.

“There is the flipside that it’s also used as a marketing feature, and it is a metric that easier to measure than other types of investment,” Dr. Spurlock said.

The impact of greenways in the Triangle. Prepared by Alta Planning + Design.

Other potential benefits of greenways include transportation access, disaster mitigation, community cohesion, and aesthetic and moral value.

Greenway success, however, is typically measured in economic returns. The merits of measuring the success of greenways through property values warrants continued exploration. Do past projects illustrate the importance of considering equity to ensure sustainable, long-term development?

The Atlanta BeltLine

Equitable development is just about being sure to be inclusive of diverse groups throughout the planning process, and afterwards ensuring that you have some concrete plans that are able to be implemented. A lot of times, planners just use fancy buzzwords saying they’re going to be doing all this great stuff, and then there’s no follow-through. – Ansley K. Jones²

Ansley K. Jones, an Atlanta native, critiqued the Atlanta BeltLine’s lack of affordable housing for her UNC Master’s Project. She responded to the Master’s thesis that started it all: Ryan Gravel’s 1999 plan for the Atlanta BeltLine.

In his thesis, Gravel proposed converting 22 miles of railroads into multifunctional trails. He submitted this idea to the city in 2001, and the project broke ground in 2006. It has been called “the most comprehensive revitalization effort ever undertaken in the City of Atlanta . . . connecting 45 neighborhoods.”

Trail network proposed in the Atlanta BeltLine 2030 Strategic Implementation Plan.

However flashy the project seemed, the BeltLine promised 5,600 units of affordable housing by 2030, but almost immediately began to fall behind on achieving this goal. BeltLine Inc. neglected to earmark 15 percent of public funds and by 2016 had raised only enough to fund fewer than 785 affordable housing units.

Both Gravel and board member Nathaniel Smith resigned from the Atlanta BeltLine Partnership in 2016, and Paul Morris resigned as CEO of BeltLine Inc. in 2017. Gravel becomes an easy target to blame–with his “equity” rhetoric, early acknowledgement of gentrification, and modern loft in the BeltLine-gentrified Inman Park neighborhood–but blaming him misses the point.

The BeltLine’s tax increment financing (known as a Tax Allocation Fund in Georgia) prioritized profits over people, as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution with Georgia News Lab broke in 2017. While both Jones and the Journal-Constitution acknowledged factors outside of BeltLine Inc.’s control, such as the Recession and legal challenges, the partnership still neglected “millions of dollars of potential funds.” The Tax Allocation Fund relied on bonds from Tax Allocation Districts’ property taxes, “but because city statute stated that ‘bond proceeds,’ not tax dollars, would go to affordable housing, BeltLine Inc. was free to spend the TAD windfall elsewhere.” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also reported that BeltLine Inc. failed to invest in land trust homes and temporarily catered to luxury housing by withdrawing from Invest Atlanta’s tax incentive program.

The fallout was bad for affordable housing but good for public awareness about the complexities of development along the BeltLine. “It’s really made Atlanta step up. They’ve had to become a lot more transparent about what’s going on,” Jones said.

Indeed, there is a renewed commitment to affordability along the BeltLine, but its reporting structure of units built inside (1,640) and outside (1,032) TAD boundaries echoes earlier controversies regarding inflating the numbers of affordable housing units.

Durham and Community Engagement

“Housing and Equity” from the Durham Belt Line Trail Master Plan

The Durham Belt Line is a 1.7 mile rail-to-trail project intended to connect to the East Coast Greenway (Durham Belt Line Trail Master Plan). Displacement concerns similar to those seen in Atlanta prompted Nathaniel Smith, the former board member of Atlanta BeltLine and founder of the Partnership for Southern Equity in Atlanta, to speak to the Durham community in August 2018.

While Durham crafted an Equitable Engagement Plan, it lacks a meaningful enforcement mechanism. According to Dr. Spurlock, who is also affiliated with the grassroots organization Communities in Partnership, the plan was pushed through prior to substantial community engagement.

This pattern parallels the unrolling of the Atlanta BeltLine.

“There were so many articles and all this anecdotal evidence that people in Atlanta were mad that the city wasn’t following through on their goals. So, public engagement really could have helped that,” Jones said.

She described some of Atlanta’s recent engagement measures. Public meetings in the BeltLine’s subareas have shown mixed success, but homeownership empowerment workshops have been more successful. These sessions educate citizens about how to access tools such as homestead exemptions, grants to rehabilitate homes, and down payment assistance for first-time home-buyers.

Jones hopes it is not too late for the engagement in Atlanta to have an effect. While Durham’s Direct Engagement period is over, the city still has the opportunity to foster meaningful community input before final design and permitting of the project.

Special thanks to Dr. Danielle Spurlock, UNC Department of City & Regional Planning; Ansley K. Jones, Georgia Environmental Finance Authority and UNC Department of City & Regional Planning, 2018; and Brandon Tubby, UNC Public Policy and Communications, 2020.

Additional resources:

American Trails – List of trail organizations in North Carolina.
City on the Verge by Mark Pendergrast – Book recommended by Ansley Jones on the history of Atlanta and the BeltLine.
Durham Belt Line for Everybody – Project by community groups advocating for equity in the Durham Belt Line process.

[1] Spurlock, Danielle. Interview by Rachael Wolff. October 22, 2019.

[2] Jones, Ansley K. Interview by Rachael Wolff. October 23, 2019.

Featured Image: Before and after along the Atlanta BeltLine corridor. Photo credit: Adaptation Clearinghouse, a project of the Georgetown Climate Center.

RACHAEL WOLFF | Online Content Contributor

Rachael Wolff is a first-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning. She is interested in learning how flood risk shapes land use, property values, and behavior. Prior to UNC, Rachael worked at a federal agency in Washington, D.C., where she also earned her bachelor’s degree at American University. Rachael enjoys climbing with friends, eating new food, and when possible, taking naps.

Undergrad Quincy Godwin: Using Facebook to forget affiliations, talk about climate change

October 10, 2019 / odrozd

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.”

Is the Ground or the Government Toxic?

January 31, 2019 / odrozd

This piece was originally written by Kelsey Peterson for Solving Urban Problems (PLAN 247) in October 2018.

In a country built upon life, liberty, and property, we cannot let businesses handle their toxic waste irresponsibly. The government must amend current laws to require developers and corporations to inform residents within an established radius of affected land about the potential hazards that their leaked waste causes. As part of this movement, Congress must reintroduce strict regulations on hazardous waste management with harsh penalties and clean up requirements for irresponsible entities. This will bring more funding to the EPA and allow them to act in a more efficient manner.

In 1952, the International Resistance Company (CTS of Asheville, Inc. Superfund) opened a factory manufacturing electronic components made for auto-parts and hearing aids. The facility continued manufacturing until 1986 on a plot of land near Asheville, North Carolina (2). During the 1990s, a sub-developer bought 45 acres of land from CTS and built many homes in the area, all connected to the ground water on site (2). The first reports of health hazards were recorded as early as 1990 when residents of the sub-division began to fall ill. When a pond with “blue green color” was reported with waste storage barrels surrounding the area, the neighborhood took action. This began the almost two-decade fight between the citizens of Asheville, their local government, and the CTS corporation. A significant amount of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLS) that are resistant to dissolving in water, such as gasoline, as well the compound trichloroethylene (TCE) were leaked into the ground on-site. During the fight for a clean up effort, residents were continually poisoned by these chemicals. The bureaucracy within the EPA slowed the process to a frustrating crawl until citizens began pressuring elected officials through continued media support and reporting, which led to the site being placed under the EPAs “most hazardous waste sites in the country.”(4)

Asheville mountains. Photo Credit: Kelsey Peterson.

These leaks proposed a large problem: 3.1 acres of land composing of 208,250 cubic yards of material were identified to contain harmful NAPLS and TCEs, presenting risks of water and air pollution to residents (2). TCE can affect the immune and reproductive systems, the liver, kidneys, central nervous system, and fetal development (3). TCE is highly susceptible to evaporation (at a shallow level of ground water) and water contamination, and can cause potentially dangerous air quality levels (3). For over a decade, residents have lived under hazardous conditions with no real progress on the site being cleaned until 2017, when a court case between the United States Government and CTS Corporation, Mills Gap Road Association, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation was settled in an agreement to spend around $9 million dollars on an extensive, multi-year clean up effort (1). It was unacceptable for the local, state, and national governments to leave unsuspecting residents in a cesspool of chemicals. The United States prides itself as a developed nation that can provide all its citizens with the necessities of life, however, the dark reality is that due to inefficiency and neglect within the bureaucratic system, innocent citizens suffer life-threatening situations.

While the cleanup process is projected to remove 97% of contaminants in this area, the pace of the EPA and the lack of regulation when it comes to the construction of sub-divisions on known contaminated areas presents health hazards to past and current residents. There was a period of around 18 years where the TCE and NAPLS were able to leach into the groundwater, evaporate into the air, and contaminate a large area of ground material. To prevent such neglect, the government had a Superfund Site tax called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 on petroleum products, hazardous chemicals, and the corporations such as CTS that produced this waste (5). The money received was used by the EPA to fight against organizations that produced hazardous waste in court. However, in 1996 Congress got rid of this tax and instead allocated money to the project through their general fund, lessening the pressure on corporations to adhere to EPA regulations as well as diminishing the amount of funds available to the EPA (4).

Asheville mountains. Photo Credit: Kelsey Peterson.

The EPA did not have the resources nor the needed levels of organization within their channels of communication to correct this issue within a reasonable time frame. When Congress amended the Superfund Site tax during the Clinton administration, the trust was cut from around $4 billion, which was mostly collected from the established tax, to around $1 billion (4). A majority of this new and smaller superfund was allocated from taxpayer dollars. US citizens are made to pay for the mistakes and rule breaking of large corporations. The EPA does not have the funds to safely remove the massive amounts of contaminants scattered around the country. This situation must change to protect the life and liberty of innocent citizens around the country. To persuade organizations from harming other communities and making them take responsibility for their past actions the concepts laid out and enforced by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, later amended to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 should be reintroduced (5). This would bring more money, and therefore power, to the EPA so that they could enforce regulations on a national scale while using newly acquired funds to bolster clean up efforts, bringing cleaner living conditions to all United States citizens.

It is key for local communities who possess the passion and will to act as a watchdog over not just corporations but also their government for real change to occur, as seen in Asheville, NC.

Featured Image: Asheville mountains. Photo Credit: Kelsey Peterson.

About the Author: Kelsey Peterson is an undergrad sophomore from Fairview, NC. He is majoring in Environmental Studies on the Sustainability Track and minoring in Urban Studies/City Planning. He loves everything outside and grew up white water kayaking, mountain biking, bouldering, gardening, and hiking in the mountains of Western North Carolina. He is interested in going into forestry, but also wants to start a community center/garden coffee shop combo in either the Appalachian or Rocky mountain ranges after college. He is not drawn to cities, so he has challenged himself to learn how they work and bring some of what he loves from nature and sustainable practices to the urban environment. He spends free time finding new places to explore and hunting down new music to listen to on the way.

Sources:

(1) United States District Court Western District of North Carolina Asheville Division. Consent Decree for Interim Remedial Design/Remedial Action at the CTS of Asheville, Inc. Superfund Site. 7 Mar. 2017.

(2) “CTS OF ASHEVILLE, INC. Site Profile.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 20 Oct. 2017, cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0402598#bkground.

(3) “Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Your Health – EH: Minnesota Department of Health.” Airborne Precautions – Minnesota Dept. of Health, www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/tce.html#health.

(4) Hunt, Max. “CTS Contamination Has Poisoned More than Drinking Water.” Mountain Xpress, 30 Mar. 2018, mountainx.com/news/cts-contamination-has-poisoned-more-than-drinking-water/.

(5) COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980.

Tag: #Environment

The Fight to Save a Small-Town Bridge: Reflections on Infrastructure, Placemaking, and Community Engagement

By Ruby Brinkerhoff

Book Review from the Journal: Superpower, Russell Gold

An Interview on Risk Management Tools: “Sometimes They Just Need to Hear It Through Someone Else’s Mouth”

By Jacob Becker

The Path to Equity: Do Greenways Help or Harm Low-Income Communities?

Defining Greenways

The Atlanta BeltLine

Durham and Community Engagement

Is the Ground or the Government Toxic?

Join our announcements list

Back Issues