Bring on the red tape

Log in or create an account to start a new discussion.

Posted by Sarah van Schagen at 12:40 PM on 14 Feb 2006

Read more about: Massachusetts | environmental justice

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a bill that would officially label some of the poorest areas in the state "environmental justice communities." The special status would create a new layer of red tape (and a special permitting process) that, theoretically, would act as a disincentive to pollutocrats planning undesireable developments ranging from sludge plants to asphalt factories. Says state Sen. Jarrett Barrios, "It would deter industries which pollute from locating in low-income communities at the same time as creating additional incentives for clean industries."

Opponents of the bill say that in addition to scaring away pollution-packed projects often targeting low-income areas, the red tape could affect builders planning new housing, shops, and other desirable development.

And though I wonder what residents would think of an official "EJ" label being put on their communities, I have to say I support the overall idea, as these residents are so often marginalized. As state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson puts it, "Right now we give more environmental protection to the spotted owl than to people."

For story: Bring on the red tape
2 Comments | Post a Comment

Where would you draw the line?

It seems like this would create endless bureaucratic hassle, debating what constitutes an "EJ community." Would poor white communities have an easier time jumping through the hoops to get the EJ label than poor minority communities? Would an EJ label stymie urban renewal projects?

And, would an extra layer of red tape really deter polluters, if the alternative is trying to site polluting facilities in communities with more money and political clout? It seems like this could actually dis-empower poor communities even more:

"Well, we got our extra-special EJ permit, so there's no way you can stop us from building here now ..."

Frequently asked technical questions about Grist's newsletters and website.

by Corey McKrill at 1:30 PM on 14 Feb 2006

There You Go Again

"'Right now we give more environmental protection to the spotted owl than to people.'"

Well, guess what? Along with just about everything on this planet that isn't human, owls need more protection than people. People are grossly overpopulated, owls are declining. Give me one logical reason that we should give species and ecosytstems in trouble more protection than humans.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 8:03 PM on 14 Feb 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.