Garbage Recycling Battle Redux In The Annex

New Haven shouldn't allow any trash from surrounding towns. It has some of the highest asthma rates and high numbers of industrial waste sites in the State, and it suffers greatly from the air pollution that comes from states west of CT. There is always an issue with out of town hazardous waste and bulk trash gets illegally dumped within city limits. Environmental racism is real, and it needs to be fought.

Heather--- thanks for the NH support but it is economic authoritarianism. White people live in NH , too, and they are not all Yalies and certainly not rich.
Why do we always seem to forget that?

Can the garbage be brought to your town instead?

Heather, environmental racism is very real and needs to be fought. FWIW, I helped develop Connecticut's environmental justice statute (CGS § 22a-20a). Under that law, New Haven is an "environmental justice community" where various facility applications are subject to additional public hearing and consultation requirements.

But, independent of the merits of this application or lack thereof, the city does not the legal authority to do what you suggest. Municipalities only have the powers the state grants them. They can regulate where solid waste facilities are located under their zoning powers. But they cannot regulate where the waste processed at these facilities comes from. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that municipal solid waste is a product in interstate commerce. About 20% of Connecticut's MSW is exported out-of-state. The Court held that states (and by extension municipalities) cannot bar private facilities from accepting out-of-state waste. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 637 (1978).

Please note I am only speaking for myself here.

Kevin- thank you for the info.
City Yankee- I don't forget those facts, but the city has way more predominately black and brown population neighborhoods where illegal dumping occurs, trash and recycling plants are located, and hazardous waste sites that need or needed remediation are/were located. So while my suggestion isn't legally possible, my objections to the environmental racism and the processing of of trash from the suburbs stands. Each city and town should step up their recycling and composting and take steps to reduce their trash output, and the suburbs should allow trash and recycling plants to be located within their borders, instead of making the cities be the only places with zoning that accepts these services that everyone in all municipalities use.

The sewage treatment plant is right smack in the predominantly white East Shore neighborhood.

All those contaminated sites in NH are where European immigrants settled and lived-- the Hill, Fair Haven, Wooster Sq, Dixwell/Newhallville, Amity. Factories belched out pollution and contaminated water all over . They were even more heavily polluting back then but that was OK; right? Once the neighborhoods became black or brown, it became racism. What do you call it when the immigrants who lived within it were European??????? Just wondering about the terminology. How quickly we forget..

CityYankee, virtually all neighborhoods experienced more pollution during the peak of European immigration (late 19th/early 20th century) than they do today. (The Clean Air and Clean Water acts were not passed until the 1970s.) But during the last century locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) such as solid waste facilities were routinely sited in lower income, predominately black and brown neighborhoods. Part of this was a function of economics - land was cheaper in these neighborhoods. Part of this was the result of racism. Such neighborhoods had less political clout to oppose such land uses than wealthier neighborhoods such as mine.

BTW, if the sewage treatment plant sought to expand its operations, it would be subject to environmental justice statute in exactly the same way as this facility. The entire city is considered an economic justice community, as are East Haven, West Haven, and part of Hamden.

Dear Kevin,
What is the evidence of the racist component of the siting of these LULU's? Where in the master plans does it indicate directives to act on the basis of racism? This constant conflation of economics with racism becomes tiresome to read lurking behind every corner. Please provide legislative or spending directives or some tangible evidence of your claim. Why wasn't it racist when Europeans were subject to the contamination???

CityYankee even I, an old white guy, understand that racism usually does not work the way you describe. Much of racism is systematic Siting decisions are significantly affected land values. Contemporary land values are significantly affected by past redlining, which was explicity racist.

At the individual level, racism is often subconcious. There is an extensive literature showing how people who genuinely believe they are not racist act in racist ways. There is every reason to believe this phenomenon affects some people involved in siting LULUs.

Dear Kevin, I see. It is in all of our subconscious; every one of us. It cannot be identified with certainty and the vague reference to the subconscious makes it impossible to disprove; therefore it is called a fact on par with a scientific fact. Anyone can be accused and found guilty simultaneously without a shred of proof or ability to deny because it is "invisible". I get it.

CityYankee, you do not read carefully. Redlining was explicitly and intentionally racist. The federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation labelled neighborhoods as "hazardous" if they had any African-American residents. These redlined neighborhoods were denied access to capital markets. This affected land values to this day. (See https://ncrc.org/holc/.) And it made it less expensive to site LULUs in predominantly black and brown neighborhoods.

But Kevin, I did read your reply carefully. Where did HOLC specifically say to downgrade/rate areas where black people lived in its regs? If so, please quote the passage. You never answered that. It it was the LAW; then that is systemic racism. Just thinking it does not make it so.

Piggy backing on Kevin and Heather's responses to CityYankee:

CityYankee, you should read last week's article by Ko Lyn Cheang, "Petititon Demands Private Oasis Cleanup," for more on the issue of redlining in our area.

The whole article is very informative but specifically you can reference Melinda Tuhus' comment where she states that the original deed to her house in Spring Glen originally excluded black people.

YEs, snuffle....., Those codicils did exist and were sometimes part of the documents of a particular housing tract that was developed. No one is claiming that discrimination did not occur. But to say it was on a nationwide scale everywhere and in everything is an exaggeration and does the case no justice.. I just say not to exaggerate or to provide the national evidence for the "systemic racism" claims. Was there racist intent ? YES. But Let's tell it the way it was . The story is bad enough without exaggeration.

CityYankee, please refer to page 7 of this report by the Federal Reserve Bank https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12-pdf.pdf. The HOLC was a federal agency and its racial discrimination a matter of public policy. Similarly, the Veterans Administration systematically discriminated against returning World War II African-American vets in the provision of home loans. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5323/jafriamerhist.98.3.0392?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The Color of Law provides a good overview of governmental and private racial discrimination in the housing sector.

Thanks for your reply Yankee,

Here is another resource from the NYT titled: "How Redlining's Racist Effects Lasted for Decades."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/upshot/how-redlinings-racist-effects-lasted-for-decades.html?auth=login-google

I see that you are saying that housing discrimination was not/is pervasive across the nation and this well sourced article details how that is unfortunately exactly the case. While you may feel that NYT is left wing media, this article is chock full of credible resources and matter of fact reporting.

Yes, Snuffle.... I understand that the EFFECTS of previous policies has echoes today but are you implying that it is still the law of the land? That's what I get from other commenters.