Tag: USA

Categories
Blog

Environmental Justice Challenge in East Boston: Recommendations for Community Action

Georgina Steel is a fourth-year international student at the University of St. Andrews. She grew up on the outskirts of Boston and have seen first-hand some of the environmental injustices these low-income, minority communities face, so wanted to share these experiences through her community briefing.

Author bio

Download Steel’s report (pdf)Download

East Boston is an urban community located within Massachusetts, in the northeastern United States. The community is densely populated by primarily Latinx and working-class residents, and thus faces many socio-economic challenges and systemic injustices. As a result, many environmental burdens have been imposed on East Boston, such as noise and air pollution from the nearby airport and highways, and the storage of toxic products. Currently, Eversource is taking advantage of this disenfranchised community and adding to these burdens by building an electrical substation. The State classified East Boston as an Environmental Justice Population in 2010 to increase support and provide resources to low-income minority communities. However, even with these State laws to protect these communities, the substation was approved on February 22, 2021. To support the East Boston’s fight against the substation, this community briefing recommends they form a united activist group with a social media presence, and then translate all policy materials into Spanish and all campaign materials to English. Finally, they should hold high visibility community events and in-person activist meetings to share their stories. These recommendations aim to inspire action at the local scale by uniting and amplifying community voices to create change in East Boston.

1. Overview.

This Community Report aims to advise the people of East Boston on what actions they can take against the electrical substation Eversource is trying to build in the Eagle Hill neighbourhood.

  • East Boston suffers from Too Much In My Backyard (TMIMBY)
  • Community opposes the proposed Electrical Substation
  • Victims of environmental injustice – víctimas de la injusticia ambiental
  • Community excluded from the public process
  • What action can the community take? – ¿Qué acción puede tomar la comunidad?
Figure 1. Plane flying low over East Boston neighbourhood (Ramakrishna, 2019).

2. The Urban Community.

East Boston is an urban community located within Boston, Massachusetts, in the northeastern United States. Boston is well known for its sustainability achievements and progressive goals for carbon neutrality, but there is not enough focus on the involvement of social and environmental justice in the State’s goals and actions (Walsh, 2019). East Boston has acutely felt the consequences of these injustices. The urban community is situated on the coast, North-East of the city centre, adjacent to the Boston airport, and built on reclaimed land (Project Bread, 2020).

The community is a diverse residential area with a long history of immigrant and working-class residents (Ramakrishna, 2019). In the mid-nineteenth century, East Boston was mainly populated by Irish immigrants but towards the end of the nineteenth century, it became home to a majority Italian population (Gahan, 2018). However, more recently, beginning at the end of the twentieth century, the population shifted to become primarily Latinx in origin (Gahan, 2018). The 2010 government census confirmed that 53% of East Boston were “Hispanic or Latino,” which was significantly more than the “White” population, 37.2% (City of Boston, 2010). This urban community stands in contrast to the rest of Boston’s population demographics where the statistics were reversed with more people identifying as white, 47%, and only 17.5% identifying as Hispanic or Latino, which shows that East Boston’s high density of Latinx residents is unique (City of Boston, 2010).

Over the years, immigrants have built a community within East Boston and become important drivers of the local economy and culture. However, this community faces many socio-economic challenges due to the systemic and structural conditions built into the political economy of the State and the Nation, including:

  • Racial and ethnic inequity
  • Gender inequity
  • Social exclusion
  • Uneven distribution of income and wealth

(Project Bread, 2020)

Redlining is an example of a systemic unjust process. The process was established in the 1930s to demean and restrict upward mobility of racial and ethnic minorities, as it identified their communities as a financial risk for loans and insurance (Taggart and Smith, 1981). Even though this policy was banned 50 years ago, the consequences, like the increased income gap, can still be felt today by the affected communities (Project Bread, 2020). East Boston was identified as one such high-risk community.

Due to the restrictions and injustices imposed on East Boston, there is a high rate of poverty. As a result, this minority, low- income community is often excluded from the decision-making processes determining policies that impact their welfare (Huizer, 2018). This neglect of the community’s opinions and experiences by their representatives has cemented a deep-rooted distrust in the government (Huizer, 2018). The community’s exclusion from policy decisions has made them vulnerable and allowed the State to capitalise on the lack of resistance by building industrial and polluting infrastructure nearby. As a result, many environmental burdens have been imposed on East Boston (Figure 2), such as:

  • Noise and air pollution from the airport;
  • Jet fuel, heating oil and salt stored next to Chelsea Creek;
  • Noise and air pollution from truck traffic and highways.
    (Ramakrishna, 2019; Wasser, 2021a)
Figure 2. Locations of key burdens and sites in East Boston (Wasser, 2021b).

An increasing awareness around vulnerable communities in the State eventually resulted in the Massachusetts State Government identifying Environmental Justice Populations in 2010, which can be seen in the map in Figure 3 (Mass.gov, 2010). These communities were identified if they met one of the following criteria:

  1. When the annual median household income for a block group is less than or equal to 65% of the statewide median (2010: $62,072); or
  2. When “25% or more of the residents identify as a race other than white; or”
  3. When “25% or more of the households have no one over the age of 14 who speaks English only or very well (English Isolation)”
    (Mass.gov, 2010)
Figure 3. East Boston Environmental Justice Populations (Mass.gov, 2010).

Every neighbourhood in East Boston fell under one of more of these categories, demonstrating their need for increased assistance. However, the classification itself does not help the community unless it is acted upon by the State. The glaring inequity between East Boston and some of the surrounding communities was recently exposed and exacerbated as the urban community was disproportionately affected by coronavirus and the pandemic’s economic outfall (Project Bread, 2020).

3. Urban Sustainability Challenge.

East Boston faces many urban sustainability challenges, both social and environmental, but one of the most recent challenges affecting the community is a struggle against the construction of the East Eagle Substation that Eversource proposed in the Eagle Hill neighbourhood of East Boston (Wasser, 2021a).

Electrical Substations

Electrical Substations are a necessary part of the energy infrastructure that provide communities with power. They convert high- voltage electricity, traveling quickly from generators to a lower voltage for local distribution (Eversource, 2020; Wasser, 2021a).

Environmental Burdens

Residents of East Boston are heavily opposed to the substation being built in their densely populated neighbourhood because the infrastructure is prone to fires and explosions, while there is also a high risk of flooding from Chelsea Creek (Wasser, 2021a). Also, the site location is across the street from one of the few community green spaces called an Urban Wild, a popular sports field, and a children’s playground (Ramakrishna, 2019). Eversource’s flood analysis claimed that the substation’s foundation elevation would exceed the flood elevation standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 500-year storm water levels (Figure 4) (Eversource, 2020). However, FEMA’s flood maps are notoriously controversial, as they only consider historic flooding and not the potential increase in future flooding, which is highly likely due to climate change and the location of East Boston (Ramakrishna, 2019).

Figure 4. Eversource flood analysis for the proposed substation (Eversource, 2020).

In response to Eversource’s technical claims and depictions that the substation is not at risk of flooding, a geography professor living in Eagle Hill, Dr. Marcos Luna, argued that the flood analysis they conducted did not actually confirm that it was a good location for the substation and that it was inaccessible to a non-expert audience (Ramakrishna, 2019). Therefore, Dr. Luna conducted his own analysis and distributed the representation (Figure 5) around East Boston residents (Wasser, 2021b).

Figure 5. Dr. Marcos Luna’s flood analysis considering future projections (Wasser, 2021b).

This map accounted for future flood projections and established that the substation location is within the city’s sea level rise predictions for 2050 to 2070, proving that the substation is at risk of future flooding (Ramakrishna, 2019). This debate over flood risk demonstrates Eversource’s lack of transparency and how data analysis can be distorted to obtain siting approval.

Some outsiders could see the substation debate as a case of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY), because this community wants electricity, but not the infrastructure to supply it (Hermansson, 2007). However, it is actually a case of Too Much In My Backyard (TMIMBY) due to the density of polluting sources around the community. Since East Boston is an overburdened urban community, battling both polluting sources and the effects of climate change, the construction of this substation is an environmental justice challenge.

Environmental Justice

The United States Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as the right of all people to be protected from environmental and health hazards and to have equal access to the decision-making process impacting their well-being, regardless of their race, national origin, or income (EPA, 2002). Under this definition Massachusetts has not provided East Boston with EJ.

The EJ Movement in America arose in the 1960s primarily from communities of colour who aspired to highlight the inequity of environmental protection since these communities face some of the nation’s worst environmental impacts (EPA, 2002). Activists have exposed that this was no accident as communities of colour and high poverty are habitually targeted to host polluting facilities, an act justly referred to by the movement as environmental racism (Skelton and Miller, 2016). The movement was catalysed by the Civil Rights Movement when people of colour started to protest the many ingrained systemic injustices they faced (EPA, 2002).

Massachusetts’ long history of environmental racism and exclusion of minorities from public processes is unjust and has left community members feeling like their health, wellbeing, and opinion are not a priority for the State (Wasser, 2021b).

4. The Current Policy.

This case is extremely technical, both in terms of its material components, but also the governing bodies behind the process that have allowed it to develop (Ramakrishna, 2019). To understand how the project has been systematically progressed through state approval, it is important to understand the policy and administrative groups behind the decisions. The Massachusetts State adopted an EJ Policy in 2002 which is maintained by the State’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) (Mass.gov, 2002). The policy seeks to provide the necessary resources to low-income communities and communities of colour to actively and aggressively combat the environmental burdens unduly placed upon them (Mass.gov, 2002).

In 2010, the State enhanced the policy by classifying EJ Populations with census data, which, as previously mentioned, all the East Boston neighbourhoods satisfied (Mass.gov, 2010). In this update the EEA committed to enhanced public participation in EJ Populations under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (Mass.gov, 2017). This requires actions such as the translation of official documents and interpretation of public meetings in EJ Populations with primarily non-English speakers (Mass.gov, 2017).

Figure 6. Map of the original and new location of the proposed substation, with the surrounding sites highlighted (Wasser, 2021a).

EEA

The EEA is the parent agency of the two State bodies permitting the East Boston substation: The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) and The Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) (Wasser, 2021c).

DPU

The DPU oversees electrical power, water, and natural gas companies in Massachusetts. In addition, the DPU provides administrative support for the EFSB, but the nine member EFSB makes their decisions independently (Mass.gov, 2021).

EFSB

The EFSB is run as an independent state agency that evaluates proposed large energy facilities. To obtain EFSB approval, a new facility needs to demonstrate that it would generate a reliable energy supply, at the lowest possible cost, with the least impact on the environment (Mass.gov, 2021; Ramakrishna, 2019).

With all of these state laws on EJ and administrative groups tasked with protecting the environment, it is surprising that the substation got approval on February 22nd, 2021 with a unanimous EFSB vote (Wasser, 2021a). However, this approval process was not simple as the substation was first proposed back in 2014. To understand how the process developed it is important to highlight the significant events leading up to the project’s recent approval.  

6. Policy Shortcomings.

1) The EFSB fail to acknowledge the residents’ grievances and the possibility that the substation’s location is flawed (Wasser, 2021a).

While Eversource claimed the substation was necessary to address the increasing energy demand, both in housing and industry development in the area. Many have questioned this, as seven years later there has still been no sign of any problems in the distribution of power (Edwards, 2020).

The Union of Concerned Scientists were also sceptical, so they collated data from the New England power grid operator showing that, even with development, the new efficiency in appliances and buildings has caused energy demand to plateau (Edwards, 2020).

2) Eversource fail to provide proof and transparency of their reports on whether the substation is actually needed (Ramakrishna, 2020).

Eversource supposedly ran an analysis to confirm that East Boston requires a new substation to manage demand. However, the utility has not made its analysis available to the public (Edwards, 2020). 

If the substation is needed, Eversource should have to share its analysis, and if the main energy demand is coming from the Airport, the substation should be built there instead (Wasser, 2020).

3) The EFSB fail to uphold the Civil Rights of the EJ communities by belatedly providing Spanish language translations and restricting their involvement in the so-called “public process”.

At the beginning of siting process, the state did not provide interpretation services, claiming that it would be “too disruptive.” Also, it was not until five years after the project was first proposed that the first meeting was held in East Boston (Wasser, 2021a).

This was challenged by the environmental NGOs when they filed a lawsuit against the EPA for violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act for not investigating the EFSB and the DPU due to their lack of jurisdiction, as they do not give money directly to those state agencies. However, this is an extremely narrow interpretation because the EPA provides substantial federal funding to the EEA, their parent agency (Wasser, 2021c). 

4) Eversource and the EFSB fail to address the EJ issues and try to buy off the community instead. 

Instead of listening to the community and reducing their environmental impacts, it was decided that Eversource would be required to engage with the community to compensate for its impacts (Wasser, 2021a). 

This is just a stopgap so they can say they are doing something for the community, while, in reality, nothing is going to happen as the circumstances have not changed. If there is no agreement in the next five months, Eversource can build the substation anyway, which provides them with no incentive to engage with and reimburse the community (Wasser, 2021a).

Ultimately, the East Boston substation debate demonstrates how technical public processes are incompatible with how residents see and experience their urban environment (Ramakrishna, 2019).

5. Timeline.

December 24, 2014

The project was first proposed by Eversource, citing that it was necessary to meet East Boston’s growing electricity demands due to rapid development, as the current Chelsea Substation was already experiencing capacity constraints (Eversource, 2020).

December 24, 2014
December 2, 2017

The EFSB tentatively approved Eversource’s proposal, contingent on Eversource moving the substation away from the fish processing plant next to the site as they were worried about electromagnetic radiation (Wasser, 2021a).

December 2, 2017
November 16, 2018

Eversource submitted a project change proposal after agreeing to exchange land with the city of Boston who owned the neighbouring plot (Eversource, 2021).

November 16, 2018
February 13, 2019


The EPA declined to assess the DPU and the ESFB as it does not directly give these State bodies money, so does not have the jurisdiction to investigate them
(United States District Court, 2021).The first public meeting held in East Boston was five years after the project was proposed (Wasser, 2021b).

February 13, 2019
June 2, 2020

The environmental non-profits GreenRoots, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and the Conservation Law Foundation submitted a complaint against the EPA, asking them to investigate discriminatory practices in the DPU and the EFSB (Sampson et al., 2020).

June 2, 2020
December 8, 2020

Sixteen Elected Officials challenged the State’s decision to move forward with plans for East Boston’s controversial substation by sending a letter to the EEA (Markey et al., 2020). 

December 8, 2020
January 15, 2021

The environmental groups escalated the issue by filing a federal lawsuit against the EPA for allegedly violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it refused to address concerns about language access during the substation’s siting process (United States District Court, 2021).

January 15, 2021
February 23, 2021

The EFSB gave unanimous approval of the East Boston substation proposal. Part of the approval required Eversource to discuss with the community a way to compensate for the negative impacts of the project. However, if there is no agreement by July 2021, Eversource can start construction anyways (Wasser, 2021a).

February 23, 2021
January 1, 2019

Timeline Heading 1

This is Timeline description, you can change me anytime click here

January 1, 2019
January 1, 2019

Timeline Heading 2

This is Timeline description, you can change me anytime click here

January 1, 2019
January 1, 2019

Timeline Heading 3

This is Timeline description, you can change me anytime click here

January 1, 2019
January 1, 2019

Timeline Heading 4

This is Timeline description, you can change me anytime click here

January 1, 2019
January 1, 2019

Timeline Heading 5

This is Timeline description, you can change me anytime click here

January 1, 2019

7. Recommendations For Action.

The State has a history of pushing through polluting infrastructure under the radar in low-income and minority communities, especially as Massachusetts likes to publicly promote its cutting-edge sustainability initiatives. However, urban sustainability cannot be reached with solely technological advances. Instead, a more holistic approach is needed that simultaneously progresses social change (Williams, 2010). While it sometimes seems like an impossible task to take on State agencies and large corporations, one of the most effective ways of combatting them is for communities to expose injustices and environmental impacts of new infrastructure and make it newsworthy. Therefore, building a collective force against the construction.

3 Steps For Success.

1) Form a united activist group with a social media presence.

This will unite residents’ voices, ultimately making their opposition more disruptive. One way the group can be initiated is through a community Facebook page, which can generate a wide virtual network throughout the community and can serve as a platform to streamline communication, share information, and organise events. It will also provide a basis for a wider coalition of support to grow from residents, non-profits, councillors, and senators. 

The success of this recommendation is evidenced by a nearby Massachusetts community activist group called Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station (FRRACS) (FRRACS, 2021). FRRACS formed in response to the proposal of the natural gas compressor station in Weymouth, MA in 2015 and have fought the siting process for years with a significant social media presence and online community (FRRACS, 2021). They managed to garner support from surrounding towns and raise alarm bells in the news, ultimately gaining support from Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren (Wasser, 2019). While the compressor station was unfortunately built in 2020, due to a massive payout by Enbridge to politicians, it is currently not in use after three unplanned releases of harmful gas in just eight months (McKenna, 2021). The Massachusetts state Senators consequently re-introduced the federal Compressor Act, which bans the Weymouth station from operating and stops any others being built, calling for the Weymouth site to close (McKenna, 2021). Ultimately, the community group’s efforts to raise public awareness around the risks the compressor station poses to the community’s health was successful.

Figure 7. East Boston residents protesting the substation, with Spanish signs that translate to “Say No to Eversource” (Wasser, 2021b).Figure 7. East Boston residents protesting the substation, with Spanish signs that translate to “Say No to Eversource” (Wasser, 2021b).

2) Translate all policy materials into Spanish and all campaign material from Spanish to English to help residents’ voices be heard.

Throughout the substation siting process, the State has proved that it is ill-equipped to provide residents with the proper language translation services they require and are promised under the EJ Population policies (Mass.gov, 2017). Thus, the community must adapt and find their own translators, preferably residents with a scientific background, to understand both sides of the debate while prioritising the community’s understanding. Translation will go both ways: policy documents and decisions will be translated into Spanish so the community can be informed and included, while the community’s experiences will be translated back into English, amplifying their voices and impacts. This will help outsiders empathise with the community and support their fight. 

Every encounter between different cultural and social groups is centred around translation. However, translation has become increasingly politicised (Carcelén-Estrada, 2018). Historically, translation was used as an imperial tool for the colonisation of people as language was a weapon to assert dominance and reduce difference (Carcelén-Estrada, 2018). However, more recently, it has been used to preserve difference and encourage exclusion to assert dominance (Carcelén-Estrada, 2018). Minority communities can break through this oppressive cycle by taking hold of the power of translation through using community interpreters and translating their own stories back to the public. Ultimately empowering themselves. 

3) Hold high visibility community events and in-person activist meetings.

These in-person events will help the community gather to support each other, share their concerns, and empower residents to speak out. The community would benefit from holding events at the sports field and playground adjacent to the substation lot. Here they can share their personal stories about what this rare green space in their community means to them and why it is important to their mental and physical health (Ramakrishna, 2019). The community activists should invite all the local politicians, businesses, and news agencies to connect with a wider audience and encourage them to empathise with their fight against the substation.

Success of this recommendation can be seen through an initiative by a community activist group nearby in Massachusetts called Sustainable Weston Action Group (SWAG). The group aspired to expose the prevalence of gas leaks in their town to encourage the utility company, National Grid, to fix them (SWAG, 2018). SWAG actioned this initiative by identifying 292 unrepaired gas leaks and creating a map of their classification and location in town (SWAG, 2018). This analysis and map were presented at events hosted near the worst leaks, like the local public school and the town green (SWAG, 2018). Families could also look at the map to see if there were leaks near their house, which helped them realise their kids were breathing toxic gas in every day. These events and visuals brought the issue to the community’s doorstep causing an almost instantaneous outburst of support. This helped them spread the word and generate pressure on National Grid who, as a result, commenced fixing the leaks (SWAG, 2018).

These recommendations aim to inspire action at the local scale by uniting and amplifying community voices to create change in East Boston.

8. References.

Carcelén-Estrada, Antonia. “Translation and activism.” In The Routledge handbook of Translation and Politics, edited by Fruela Fernández and Jonathan Evans, 254-267. Routledge Handbooks, 2018.

City of Boston. “East Boston Data Profile: Population Demographics.” Last modified 2010. https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_docu ments/East_Boston_Planning_District_Profi le_tcm3-12989.pdf

Edwards, Lydia. “Eastie needs straight answers from Eversource.” CommonWealth, May 21, 2020. https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/ eastie-needs-straight-answers-from- eversource/

Environment Protection Agency (EPA). “Environmental Justice.” Last Modified 2002. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

Eversource. “East Eagle Substation: Addressing the concerns of the Community.” Last modified March, 2020. https://www.eversource.com/content/docs/d efault-source/tranmission/addressing- community-concerns—meec-2-27-20-web- version.pdf?sfvrsn=5187d562_2

Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station (FRRACS). ‘No Compressor Station’. Accessed February 20, 2021. https://www.nocompressor.com/

Gahan, Daniel. “Ethnic Identity in Boston Neighborhoods.” Irish Literary Supplement 37, no. 2 (2018): 10. Gale Academic OneFile

Huizer, R.T. “Building Bridges: Creation of linking social capital in East Boston.” Master thesis, Utrecht University Repository, 2018.

Markey, Edward J., Elizabeth Warren, Ayanna Pressley, Katherine Clark, Joseph P. Kennedy III, Adrian C. Madaro, Joseph A. Boncore, Sal N. DiDomenico, Jamie B. Eldridge, Daniel J. Ryan, Liz Miranda, Michelle DuBois, Lydia Edwards, Julia Mejia, Michelle Wu, and Annissa Essaibi- George. “Letter.” Congress of the United States. (December 2020): 1-4. https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/ 2020/12/LETTER-Proposed-East-Boston- Substation-12.7.20.pdf

Mass.gov. “Environmental Justice Policy.” Last modified 2002.
https://www.mass.gov/service- details/environmental-justice-policy

Mass.gov. “Environmental Populations In Massachusetts.” modified 2010. https://www.mass.gov/info- details/environmental-justice-populations- in-massachusetts

Mass.gov. “Environmental Justice Policy.” Last modified 2017. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017 /11/29/2017-environmental-justice- policy_0.pdf

Mass.gov. ‘Energy Facilities Siting Board’. Accessed February 21, 2021. https://www.mass.gov/orgs/energy- facilities-siting-board

McKenna, Phil. “Will a Recent Emergency Methane Release be the Third Strike for Weymouth’s New Natural Gas Compressor?” Inside Climate News, April 16, 2021. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1604202 1/will-a-recent-emergency-methane-release- be-the-third-strike-for-weymouths-new- natural-gas-compressor/

Project Bread & Children’s HealthWatch. “The State of Hunger in Massachusetts: Massachusetts Trends & East Boston Community Snapshot.” Last modified May 2020. https://www.projectbread.org/uploads/attach ments/ckewxxld702k61c4lnirukepx-the- state-of-hunger-in.pdf

Ramakrishna, Saritha. “East Boston Substation Fight Exposes Inequalities in Public Sitting Process.” Conservation Law Foundation, March 5, 2020. https://www.clf.org/blog/language-justice- east-boston-eversource/

Skelton, Renee and Vernice Miller. “The Environmental Justice Movement.” NRDC, March 17, 2016. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental- justice-movement

Sustainable Weston Action Group (SWAG). “Weston Gas Audit Analysis.” Last modified June 2019.

https://www.westonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20032/Gas-Audit-Analysis-Summary-PDF?bidId=

Taggart, Harriet Tee and Kevin W. Smith. “Redlining: An Assessment of the Evidence of Disinvestment in Metropolitan Boston.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 17, no. 1 (September 1981): 91-107.

Walsh, Martin J. “Climate Action Plan: 2019 Update.” City of Boston. Last modified October 2019. https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/e mbed/file/2019- 10/city_of_boston_2019_climate_action_pla n_update_4.pdf

Wasser, Miriam. “Confused About The Weymouth Compressor? Here’s What You Need To Know.” WBUR Earthwhile, December 2, 2019. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/06/1 9/proposed-weymouth-gas-compressor- explained

Wasser, Miriam. “16 Mass. Elected Officials Challenge State Agency on East Boston Substation.” WBUR Earthwhile, December 7, 2020. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2020/12/0 7/east-boston-substation-efsb-covid- reexamine-project-need

Wasser, Miriam. “In a Blow To Environmental Justice Advocates, State Regulators Approve Controversial East Boston Substation.” WBUR Earthwhile, February 22, 2021a. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2021/02/2 2/east-boston-substation-final-approval- eversource-environmental-justice

Wasser, Miriam. “As Final Vote On Electrical Substation Nears, East Boston Residents Say State’s Approval Process Has Left Them Out.” WBUR Earthwhile, February 3, 2021b. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2021/02/0 3/substation-east-boston-chelsea-greenroots- efsb-environmental-justice

Wasser, Miriam. “Environmental group sue EPA over alleged civil rights violations in East Boston and Chelsea.” WBUR Earthwhile, January 14, 2021c. https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2021/01/14/east-boston-chelsea-substation-greenroots- clf-epa-civil-rights

WikiWand. “East Boston.” Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/East_Boston

Williams, Katie. “Sustainable cities: research and practice challenges.” International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 1, no.1-2 (May 2010): 128-132.

Categories
Blog

Community Action Against Transit-Oriented Displacement: The Long Branch Neighbourhood of Montgomery County, Maryland

Charlotte Caldwell had the opportunity to volunteer with the Montgomery Housing Partnership in 2019, an organisation that works closely with the Long Branch community, which sparked her interest in issues of equity and inclusion in the quest for sustainability in her own backyard. Thus having grown up in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, she was delighted by the opportunity to delve into an issue facing a community at home during the final semester of her undergraduate degree at St Andrews.

Author bio

Download Caldwell’s report (pdf)Download

In the pursuit of sustainable development and the search for low-carbon solutions there has been a recent push toward creating urban systems that accommodate mobility and accessibility with greater energy efficiency (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019, 1). Transit Oriented Development approaches this objective through increased density and mobility via public transit. In spite of best intentions, these new urban systems can remain entrenched in existing systems that favour capital accumulation and economic growth above human needs, often exacerbating inequalities and pushing people further into the margins of society physically and socioeconomically.

This paper evaluates this emerging challenge and proposes two main recommendations for the Long Branch neighbourhood in Maryland, USA to maintain a vibrant, inclusive, and accessible community with the introduction of two light rail stops. Despite federal and local attempts to expand access to affordable housing, the lack of affordable housing is an epidemic that consistently excludes people from opportunity. Long Branch is a relatively low-income, multi-ethnic community in north of Washington, DC, making many members of the community vulnerable to displacement from TOD. To mitigate these effects, I propose the People of Long Branch Project and a community land trust to empower community ownership and foster social sustainability in tandem with environmental sustainability.

1. Introduction.

In the pursuit of sustainable development and the search for solutions to the climate crisis, there has been a recent push toward creating urban systems that accommodate mobility and accessibility with greater energy efficiency (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019, 1). In recent decades this objective has become evident in the ‘smart growth’ and new urbanism approaches to development, which seek to prevent sprawl through compact urban centres that are mixed-use, walkable and accessible by public transit (Padeiro, Louro, da Costa 2019, 734). However, despite the best intentions of such approaches to planning, they often favour the production of capital above all else and exclude those who have been pushed to the margins of society due to racism and classism.

This briefing seeks to refocus the recipients of growth, questioning the equity implications of planning and proposing solutions for the community that prioritise the community’s social capital. It is my hope that in looking at the challenges and opportunities for the Long Branch neighbourhood in Montgomery County, Maryland as the Purple Line light rail is developed and proposing attainable solutions for the community, the residents of Long Branch will be empowered to shape the community’s future. With this briefing I hope to contribute to the development of community-led initiatives towards sustainable, equitable urban development. Therefore, I recommend the People of Long Branch Project (PLBP), a project for primary school-aged children to develop their civic identities and to contribute to the community’s bonding networks. I also recommend that the community start a Community Land Trust to develop permanent affordable housing and commercial spaces for members of the Long Branch community who are at risk of being priced out of the neighbourhood.

2. Challenge.

The approaches addressed in the introduction seek to address the environmental externalities of transportation as planners design to limit sprawl and increase density to move away from automobile-oriented development that contributes to emissions and impacts the short- and long-term health of humans and the environment. Thus, planners have increasingly pursued transit-oriented development (TOD) strategies that entail high-density, mixed-use zoning revolving around a central transit stop, emphasising walkability and improved accessibility of public transportation. Advocates highlight that they create public and private revenues from development, increase property values, and help businesses while also making neighbourhoods more desirable (Thaden and Perlman 2015, 1). However, critics have raised concerns that TOD could contribute processes of displacement and gentrification, as transportation determines the form of places and how it is developed contributes to outcomes for the neighbourhood (Dorsey and Mudler 2013, 66). The fear is that outcomes will not be equally distributed and that low-income residents, who are often in marginalised groups, will be negatively impacted (Lung Amam, Pendall, and Knaap 2019, 442).

As property values and taxes go up, there is the risk that residents and businesses will be displaced from neighbourhoods due to a lack of affordable residential or commercial spaces. This adds on to the existing housing affordability crisis experienced in the United States, as there is no state or county where a renter working full-time at minimum wage can afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment. The US Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) emphasises that households should not spend more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs, otherwise they are considered cost-burdened. In 2017, nearly half of renter households were cost-burdened, indicating a serious affordability problem (Schuetz 2020). This potentially places critical parts of the workforce farther away from their jobs and removes them from their communities (Larrimore and Schuetz 2017). The need to produce and preserve affordable housing is only expected to grow, especially as further investments in public transit potentially drive land values up (Thaden and Perlman 2015, 2). While displacement resulting from infrastructure and real estate development is nothing new, the need to consider equity in emerging systems is more important than ever with the looming climate crisis and increasing urbanisation (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019, 1).

There is still little understood about what happens to communities as neighbourhoods transform with TOD and emerging settlement patterns, such as reversals of post-WWII white flight and suburbanisation (Chapple and Loukaitou-Sideris 2019, 2). Thus, there is a need to question who benefits from investments in TOD and who gets left behind. Further, if TOD is the future of sustainable, compact urban development, how can we ensure it is inclusive and provides equitable access to the city and to the benefits of growth?

3. Regional Context and the Community.

The community in question is the Long Branch neighbourhood, situated between Silver Spring, MD and Takoma Park, MD. The neighbourhood is located north of Washington, DC’s northern border and is in District 5 of Montgomery County, which is the state’s largest county and is part of the Washington metropolitan region, northwest of DC. The county was agrarian until the government sought to bring white collar workers to the capital area during the Great Depression, eventually creating white- and blue-collar employment opportunities despite the lack of industry in the DC metropolitan area. Montgomery County has a nationally ranked public school system, a community college, excellent community services, and affordable housing programmes, all of which have attracted in-migration that caused a population surge in the 1980s (Cheney and Cheney 1997, 41-42).

Map of Long Branch in Montgomery County. (Montgomery Planning 2020)

This population growth has diversified the county’s economic, ethnic and cultural composition, with the foreign-born population making up 20% of the county’s population in 1990 and 33% in 2016 (Montgomery Planning 2019, 4). While urban space is typically thought of as being relatively low income and densely populated, surrounded by more affluent, low-density suburbs, this line is becoming blurred in the DC area as we see changes in demographics, distribution of wealth, and the built environment through the expansion of rail and the creation of commercial centres in suburbs (McKenzie 2015, 5).

The DC Metropolitan area continues to experience economic and population growth, creating a high demand for housing and a tight housing market with a vacancy rate of 3% in 2000 (Vicino et al. 2004, 115). Further, incomes have not risen with housing costs and low- and very low-income populations in the county are growing faster than the supply of housing affordable to them (Montgomery Planning 2019, 65). Black and Hispanic people in District 5 have the lowest average incomes in the county and the countywide renters of these demographics are cost burdened at rates 122% and 139% higher than White residents respectively (Calma 2019, 16). Black and Hispanic residents in District 5 are among the least likely to own homes, which places them at a higher risk of being priced out of their communities (Calma 2019, 13).

The Long Branch neighbourhood is a site that has witnessed many of these trends and dynamics, but on a micro level. It was a part of the post-WWII boom of DC’s transformation into a metropolitan area with suburbs (MC Planning 2013). It saw an influx of Central American immigrants in the 1980s who continue to reside there alongside immigrants from Asia, West Africa, and the Caribbean. It is a distinct, multi-ethnic community with modest single-family homes and an urban place with densely populated multi-family dwellings and shopping centres (Montgomery Planning 2013, 1). The neighbourhood has not seen significant reinvestment or physical improvements in its built environment despite its relatively high population densities, lacking desired amenities (Montgomery Planning 2013, 7). Crucially, the neighbourhood has been selected as the site for two rail stops of the Purple Line, which is a light rail line intended to link metro lines in Maryland suburbs so that riders can avoid central DC. The Long Branch Sector Plan indicates that the neighbourhood should be developed with TOD in mind.

4. Policy Response.

The affordable housing policy response in the US is fragmented, with different levels of government implementing housing policies that target different audiences with different goals (Vicino et al. 2004, 10). The federal government devolved authority to local jurisdictions in 1974, creating block grants such as the Community Development Block Grant programme and other programmes and tools such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the HOME Investment Partnerships programme, and the National Housing Trust Fund. However, there has been no significant new investment in making housing affordable to the lowest income people in the US in more than 30 years (aside from the National Housing Trust Fund), with federal investment in housing not increasing at the same rate as the overall federal budget and even seeing significant cuts (JCHS 2020, 38).

A barrier to the preservation of affordable housing is the lifting of affordability restrictions on subsidised units, as many are due to expire, incentivising for-profit owners to price units at the market rate (JCHS 2020, 37). The LIHTC is the predominant source of government investment in rental housing development for low-income households, helping to leverage private capital to finance housing units, as states can award the credit to non-profit and for-profit sponsors of housing projects (Weiss 2016, 524). However, Weiss argues that the reliance on for-profit developers and the incentives to capture residual value from the program when the thirty years of rent restrictions expires means the government spent billions on subsidies only to lose that affordable housing stock, possibly displacing tens of thousands of households (Weiss 2016, 525).

Montgomery County responded to calls from citizens for fair housing in the 1970s was met with legislation in 1973 easing zoning and density restrictions as well as the passing of the Moderately Priced Housing Law in 1974 that established the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) programme (Cheney and Cheney 1997, 44). The law was one of the country’s first mandatory inclusionary zoning laws, requiring that 12.5% to 15% of units in every subdivision or high-rise development of 20 or more units are made affordable to households earning 65%-70% area median income (AMI). The law has been amended since, incorporating payments to the Housing Initiative Fund and lengthening the control period governing for sale units. The Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) and other non-profits are required to purchase at least 25% of the MPDUs (Vicino et al. 2004, 118).

The HOC was created in 1974 as a response to the call for affordable housing, aiming to provide affordable housing and supportive services that enhance the lives of low- and moderate-income households in the county. Its main tool is the Housing Choice Voucher programme, administering vouchers that provide rent subsidies to relieve households of cost burdens (VIcino et al. 2004, 120). The county utilises federal financing tools as well as county-level financing tools such as the Housing Initiative Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that is funded mainly through the county’s property taxes and provides loans and grants to developers, non-profits, and the HOC to create and preserve affordable units (Vicino et al. 2004, 120). Despite these policies and programmes, Montgomery County has a significant affordable housing shortage that is likely to worsen as the county faces job growth and an ageing and growing population. Further, zoning remains an issue for the county as the majority of the county has single family zoning, pricing many out of high opportunity neighbourhoods and restricting density (English 2021).

A more holistic approach is taken in the Long Branch Sector Plan, which was adopted in 2013 and provides recommendations of guidelines for the use of public and private land. The plan accounts for the construction of the two Purple Line stations and seeks to pursue TOD around them. It outlines a vision of Long Branch that is multi-cultural, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented, and mixed-use (Montgomery Planning 2013, 1). There is an acknowledgement that the Purple Line may increase property values and drive rents up, which the plan addresses through a strategy that combines the MPDU programme, increased funding and programming for affordable housing, and introducing housing in historically commercial properties. The plan includes recommendations for changing the zoning to Commercial/Residential Town zoning, which is mixed use and provides incentives to developers to concentrate density, enabling housing and commercial redevelopment. However, there is the risk the developers will forgo incentives to operate at lower density.

5. Community Recommendations.

In this section I will outline my recommendations for the Long Branch community that I hope will add on to the existing government and civil society initiatives seeking to protect affordability and the preservation of Long Branch’s cultural and socioeconomic diversity. In order to mitigate the potential risks of TOD, such as increases in property values and thus the pricing out of the people that have defined Long Branch’s character for nearly half a century, I have two main recommendations that take different approaches and work on different levels within the community, but I believe they both will contribute to the long-term social sustainability of the community.

I must iterate my positionality relative to the Long Branch neighbourhood, as I have grown up in Washington, DC and Montgomery County, but as a white woman in a predominantly white part of the county. My integration with low- and moderate- income communities has been limited and thus my understanding of the experiences of Long Branch residents is limited to the research I have conducted for the purposes of this briefing. Any recommendations made here are ideas contributing to the conversation about Long Branch’s future, but come second to the voices for change within the community. The knowledge produced by residents of Long Branch must be considered first and foremost.

First, however, I would like to list some initiatives that members of the Long Branch community should seek involvement in, as they provide opportunities for participation in planning and community development:

5a. People of Long Branch Project.

The first recommendation seeks to contribute to the community’s social sustainability by investing in its social capital through the fostering of civic engagement and social development of the children in Long Branch. Social capital involves social organisation through networks, norms, and trust, facilitating coordination and cooperation for the mutual benefit of the community (Kamruzzaman et al. 2014, 146). Proponents of TOD highlight that it fosters the development of social sustainability, but there is little empirical evidence of such outcomes (Kamruzzaman et al. 2014, 146). Further, given the social and economic risks of pursuing TOD, there is a need to invest in the social capital of a community before its composition changes, rather than relying on TOD to deliver social sustainability outcomes.

By fostering civic engagement in young children, the community would be investing in the social development of its young people and in the development of their civic identities, which entail participation, acquisition of knowledge about the community, and the adoption of fundamental democratic principles that would enable toleration of views that is necessary in a multicultural community such as Long Branch (Nicotera 2008, 222). PLBP focuses on the acquisition of knowledge about the community in young children. I propose that primary- school-age students at Rolling Terrace Elementary School be assigned and guided through a project in which they interview a member of the local community (local business owner, teacher, clergyman/woman, etc.) who lives or works in Long Branch. I chose this school because of its physical proximity to Long Branch and the fact that many of the students in attendance live in the neighbourhood. Students should produce a visual component as well as a written component, telling the story of this person and their role in the community.

While I believe integrating the project into the curriculum at the school would be beneficial so as to include as many students as possible in the project, this might not be feasible and could be better suited for an after-care programme such as Horizon Childcare at Rolling Terrace Elementary, through one of MHP’s Homework Club at Greenwood Terrace Apartments or Glenville Road, or even through a summer camp. The project would be an excellent opportunity for collaboration with the University of Maryland’s National Center for Smart Growth and its Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability (PALS) initiative that seeks to ‘provide innovative, low-cost assistance to local governments while creating real-world problem-solving experiences for University of Maryland (UMD) graduate and undergraduate students’ (Anderson-Watters et al. 2019, preface). Graduate students in the center recently produced a report for the Montgomery County Planning Department on tools to preserve the ethnically diverse, independent businesses of Long Branch, so there is an interest in the preservation of the Long Branch community. UMD students can assist the project’s execution by assisting the children with their interviews and organising the project’s presentation through a medium deemed appropriate, which could be a booklet collating the stories and images or an online format if a wider audience is the goal.

5b. Community Land Trust.

My second recommendation in response to potential displacements from the Purple’s Line introduction is the development of a Community Land Trust (CLT), which are non-profit corporations that retain ownership of land, that develop and steward it to serve the community’s needs. Thus, instead of private owners who are heavily influenced by market pricing and would potentially increase rents with land value enhancements, ownership is in the hands of the community (Anderson-Watters et al. 2019, 40). A CLT can sell or rent units on the land to individuals, non-profits, or small businesses on an affordable ground lease (typically 99 years), which makes the CLT a tool in preserving affordable housing, civic buildings or commercial spaces (Hickey 2013, 2). Homeowners receive a significant subsidy when buying the property and are contractually obligated to resell their homes below market-rate prices to income-qualified households, foregoing some of the financial value of the appreciating value of the property (Kelly 2010, 348).

The creation of a CLT would enable the Long Branch community to create permanently affordable housing and commercial properties, avoiding the displacement of the people and businesses that are essential to the character of the community. CLTs are a flexible tool that develop to fit the needs and goals of the community, enabling the pursuit of community interests as well as broader challenges of distribution, affordability, and sustainability (Engelsman, Rowe, and Southern 2018, 105).

If the community is interested in the idea, it should first gauge interest from the community at large and identify the scope of its inclusion. Once parties express interest, the community should create a steering group of individuals to spearhead the process and develop a shared vision of the goals of the CLT. At this stage it can consider collaboration with non-profits, Community Development Corporations, Community Development Financing Institutions, etc. to gain advice and assistance for redevelopment efforts and any capacities outside of the community’s expertise (Anderson-Watters et al. 2019, 41). Further, the CLT board should source funding mechanisms, which can come from non-profits, individual or institutional sponsors, government financing tools such as HOME or the Housing Initiative Fund, and local businesses or banks. It must also identify a suitable governance structure that enables inclusive and accountable management of the CLT once it is established. One option for the CLT’s board composition is one third elected by leaseholders, one third elected by non-leaseholders, and the final third is elected by the two thirds already elected, enabling the balancing of the short-term interests of the current CLT leaseholders and the wider community’s interests (Engelsman, Rowe, and Southern 2018, 106).

6. Conclusion.

In this briefing I outlined challenges that the Long Branch neighbourhood in Montgomery County, MD faces and offered actions that the community can take to mitigate potential negative effects of the Purple Line’s development in the neighbourhood. The public sector has failed to make housing affordable for the people who most need it, indicating a need for different approaches to the housing problem. On top of this, the government’s expansion of public transit, while delivering benefits for communities and contributing to sustainable development, risks driving up property value in ways that could price out people and businesses that are essential to the character and vibrancy of the community. Thus, I suggest that Long Branch and other communities focus on the attributes of the community that make it unique and worth protecting; Long Branch is part of Montgomery County’s ‘international corridor,’ with a multi-cultural and multi-generational population and a plethora of small businesses. However, many of Long Branch’s residents are low-income and cost-burdened, making them vulnerable to displacement if affordability is not preserved.

I offer an approach that fosters Long Branch’s social sustainability and permanent affordable housing/commercial spaces through the PLBP and the creation of a CLT. The goal of the PLBP is to foster the civic engagement of children and bonding in the community to create connectedness within the community that contributes to its social capital. The CLT would act as a mechanism to create permanently affordable housing in the community, insulating it from market influences by creating collective ownership of land. While these recommendations may not solve the affordable housing shortage or displacement of low-income peoples, they have the potential to contribute to the creation of sustainable, equitable urban development.

7. References.

Anderson-Watters et al. 2019. A Long Life for Long Branch: Tools to Preserve Independent Retailers. College Park: University of Maryland National Center for Smart Growth. Accessed 16 Apr. 2021 https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/25582.

Calma, Emilia. 2019. Racial Equity in Housing in Montgomery County. Rockville: Office of Legislative Oversight.

Chapple, Karen and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. 2019. Transit-Oriented Displacement or Community Dividends? Understanding the Effects of Smarter Growth on Communities. Boston: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11300.001.0001.

Cheney, Susan A. and Charles C. Cheney. 1997. “Adaptation and Homebuying Approaches of Latin American and Indian Immigrants in Montgomery County, Maryland.” Cityscape 3, no. 1: 39-61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868449.

Dorsey, Bryan, and Alice Mulder. 2013. “Planning, place-making and building consensus for transit-oriented development: Ogden, Utah case study.” Journal of Transport Geography 32: 65-76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692313001646.

Engelsman, Udi, Rowe, Mike, and Alan Southern. 2018. “Community Land Trusts, affordable housing and community organising in low-income neighbourhoods.” International Journal of Housing Policy 18, no. 1: 103-23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616718.2016.1198082

English, Mike. 2021. “Here’s a look at how zoning in Montgomery County can impact a neighborhood block by block.” Greater Greater Washington, January 26, 2021. https://ggwash.org/view/80202/how-zoning-in-montgomery-county-can-impact-a-neighborhood-block-by-block.

Hickey, Robert. 2013. The Role of Community Land Trusts in Fostering Equitable, Transit-Oriented Development: Case Studies from Atlanta, Denver, and the Twin Cities. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/2243_1579_hickey_wp13rh1.pdf

Joint Center For Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2020. The State of the Nation’s Housing 2020. Cambridge: Harvard University. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/reports/files/Harvard_JCHS_The_State_of_the_Nations_Housing_2020_Report_Revised_120720.pdf.

Kamruzzaman, Md, Lisa Wood, Julian Hine, Graham Currie, Billie Giles-Corti, and Gavin Turrell. 2014. “Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development.” Journal of Transport Geography 35: 144-155. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692314000271?casa_token=tdTHzLT8VUYAAAAA:W_xUM033EjivVVoD5-2RiccTmvGbcwBPtJss4CYtw7-wxmUvraNYwbVYIdkccV0TEMGoMS7kwS0.

Kelly Jr., James J. 2010. Maryland’s Affordable Housing Land Trust Act. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law 19, no. 1: 345-365. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1728066.

Larrimore, J. and Jenny Schuetz. 2017. “Assessing the Severity of Rent Burden on Low-Income Families.” Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.htm.

Lung-Amam, Willow, Rolf Pendall, and Elijah Knaap. 2019. “Mi Casa no es Su Casa: The Fight for Equitable Transit-Oriented Development in an Inner-Ring Suburb.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 39, no. 4: 442-455. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X19878248

McKenzie, Brian. 2015. “Transit Access and Population Change: The Demographic Profiles of Rail-Accessible Neighborhoods in the Washington, DC Area.” Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2015/demo/SEHSD-WP2015-23.pdf.

Montgomery Planning. 2013. Long Branch Sector Plan. Riverdale: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Montgomery Planning. 2019. Montgomery County Trends – People, Housing, Jobs. Wheaton: Montgomery County Planning Department. https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MP_TrendsReport_final.pdf.

Montgomery Planning. 2020. Long Branch. [image] Available at: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/communities/downcounty/long-branch/.

NCSG. 2020. Maryland Housing Needs Assessment & 10-Year Strategic Plan. College Park: National Center for Smart Growth. https://dhcd.maryland.gov/Documents/OtherPublications/Report.pdf.

Nicotera, Nicole. 2008. “Building Skills for Civic Engagement: Children as Agents of Neighborhood Change.” Journal of Community Practice 16, no. 2: 221-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705420801998045.

Padeiro, Miguel, Ana Louro, and Nuno Marques da Costa. 2019. “Transit-oriented development and gentrification: a systematic review.” Transport Reviews 39, no. 6: 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649316.

Schuetz, Jenny. 2020. “To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies.” Brookings Institution. January 7, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/to-improve-housing-affordability-we-need-better-alignment-of-zoning-taxes-and-subsidies/.

Thaden, Emily, and Mark Perlman. 2015. “Creating & Preserving Reasonably-Priced Housing near Public Transportation.” Oakland: National Community Land Trust Network. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-thaden-perlman.pdf.

Vicino, Thomas J., Steve Sharkey, Audrey South Regan, Effie Shockley, Billy Hwang, Laura Gottlieb, and Juanita Pang Wilson. 2004. “Affordable Housing in Metropolitan Maryland: A Policy Analysis.” Graduate Capstone, University of Maryland, Baltimore County. https://thomasvicino.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Vicino-AffordableHousing.pdf.

Weiss, Brandon M. 2016. “Residual Value Capture in Subsidized Housing.” Harvard Law and Policy Review 10, no. 2: 521-563. https://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2016/06/10.2_8_Weiss.pdf.

Categories
Blog

Flooding and Storm Resilience in Downtown Jersey City, New Jersey

Charlotte Silverman is from New Jersey and grew up close to Jersey City, going there often with her parents who worked there. She loves the city and is really passionate about sustainability from an urban standpoint, so this report was very fitting for her. 

Author bio

Download Silverman’s report (pdf)Download

Jersey City, New Jersey is the second largest city in the state and is extremely diverse and densely populated. As Jersey City is located on the coast of two rivers, it is very vulnerable to storms and flooding. Downtown Jersey City is 2.2 square miles, has a population of 84,000 – around 30% of the city’s total population, and is one of the wealthiest areas in Jersey City. Despite being a wealthier neighbourhood, Downtown Jersey City’s waterfront geography makes it very vulnerable to flooding. The policy so far in the city on flooding and storm resiliency consists of two policy documents created in 2019. Through these documents, the government aims to build resilience by using innovative design and infrastructure solutions to protect the valuable social, historical, and economic assets of the city from flooding and storms. My recommendations for the community include ways to strengthen the social resilience in Downtown Jersey City on top of strengthening physical resilience among residents.

Introduction.

This briefing for Downtown Jersey City, New Jersey will give an overview of storm resilience and flooding, an analysis of current policy in the city on storm and flood resilience, and recommendations for action to be undertaken by the community. The hope for this briefing is to give the Downtown Jersey City community actionable ways to make the city more resilient to future storms and flooding alongside government-backed plans, by building physical resilience through infrastructure and green spaces and building social resilience in the community through volunteering and joining neighbourhood associations.

2. Storm and Flood Resilience.

Major storms and flooding are a global issue affecting communities more and more each year. Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as sea levels rise and temperatures increase. This is driven by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the consequent melting of icecaps, causing higher water levels and temperatures (Jacob 2015). This leads to stronger storms and increased rainfall and flooding. This rise in natural hazards brings with it increasing risks for communities and devastating impacts, including financial losses and damage to infrastructure and homes. This issue is especially prevalent for coastal communities, as they experience frequent flooding and the effects of sea level rise more due to their geography. Because of this, coastal communities need to build storm and flooding resilience in order to thrive in the long term.

Resilience is defined by Colten, Kates, and Laska (2010, 38) as “a community or region’s capability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to public safety and health, the economy, and national security”. While there are many definitions of resilience, this definition was chosen as it includes anticipation, response, and recovery to disasters, which are all important when grappling with the increasing threat of storms and flooding. Beyond this baseline definition, there are many debates in the sphere of defining storm resilience. Many of these debates centre around a tension between being reactive and resistant to storms versus being proactive and adaptive (McCylmont et al 2019). McCylmont et al argue that resilience is about robustness, adaptability, and transformability and that communities can learn from past disasters to become resilient in the future. They assert that we need to move away from resistance-based approaches towards resilience-based approaches. Similarly, Jacob (2015) argues that there is an overall need to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to storms and sea level rise. There is also a debate around what builds resilience in a community. Laurien et al (2020) argue that resilience is built upon a community having a balance between social capital and financial capital. Cagney et al (2006) argue that there should be more focus paid to social capital, such as trust and connectivity among the community, and that too much focus is currently paid to physical infrastructure. This briefing will focus on building both physical and social capital for the Downtown Jersey City community.

3. Jersey City.

Jersey City, the second largest city in New Jersey, is a diverse, densely populated city known as Wall Street West due to its proximity to New York City and lower living costs. The median household income is $81,693 and the population is 262,075 (City Data 2021). The cost of living index in Jersey City is 122.5, which is high compared to the US average of 100 (City Data 2021). The city has been experiencing a large growth in population and development and is on track to “soon becoming the largest city in the state” (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019, 36). The city sits between the Hackensack River and Newark Bay to the west, and the Hudson River and Upper New York Bay to the east and has 21.7 miles of waterfront (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019). As Jersey City is located on the coast of two rivers, it is very vulnerable to storms and flooding.

Downtown Jersey City is 2.2 square miles, has a population of 84,000 – around 30% of the city’s total population, and is one of the wealthiest areas in Jersey City (City Data 2021). It is comprised of nine neighbourhoods, includes three subway stations and six light rail stations, and is directly across the Hudson river from New York City. Its population density is high compared to the total city density, and the household income in 2019 was $97,189 (City Data 2021). Despite being a wealthier neighbourhood, Downtown Jersey City’s waterfront geography makes it very vulnerable to flooding, as most of the special flood hazard areas, as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), are along the coastline. This wealth also makes it one of the most promising neighbourhoods in terms of creating and funding solutions to make the area more resilient to storms and flooding. As Laurien et al (2020) say, having financial capital is particularly important for building flood and storm resilience.

The city experiences three types of flooding, including coastal, surface water, and combined sewer overflow. Coastal flooding is experienced in Downtown Jersey City as a result of extreme tidal conditions from severe weather and storm surges. Surface water flooding occurs from rainfall since the city is covered in impervious surfaces such as pavement and rooftops that cannot absorb water (Resilient Design Handbook 2019). This causes flooding and pollution to be carried into the rivers. Because of the combined sewer system in Jersey City where wastewater and stormwater enter into the same pipes underground, sewer overflow can happen when the pipes are overfilled (Ibid). When this happens, storm and wastewater spill from the sewers into nearby rivers.

In 2012, Superstorm Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast and flooded over 38% of the land in Jersey City (Ibid). Sandy had severe impacts on the city, including social impacts, as it forced many in low-lying properties to evacuate, and financial impacts, as the storm caused tens of millions of dollars in damage. It caused damage to buildings and infrastructure, disrupted critical infrastructure, caused power blackouts, contaminated stormwater, disrupted public transportation, and overall “revealed a region-wide exposure to multiple hazards and risks” (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019, 19). Although devastating, Hurricane Sandy revealed to Jersey City its need to be prepared for future storms and sea level rise. As Jacob (2015) says, Sandy can be an opportunity for urban renewal, and as McCylmont et al (2019, 1159) similarly say, “learning from these disturbances leads to genuine adaptation to floods and an opportunity for resilience”. This is because resilience is built through learning from and adapting to extreme storms and floods over time.

4. Policy.

The Jersey City government created a “Resiliency Master Plan”, an “Adaptation Master Plan” and an “Urban Environmental Green Infrastructure Plan” in 2019, based on two studies done by the city after Hurricane Sandy. Two policy documents convey these plans, including the Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc and the Resilient Design Handbook. Through these documents, the government aims to build resilience by using innovative design and infrastructure solutions to protect the valuable social, historical, and economic assets of the city “against the changing environment and increased risk of storms” (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019, 6).

The Resiliency Master Plan focuses on defining priority areas for resiliency efforts. It first identifies the different risks in the city stemming from rising temperatures and rainfall, including social, economic, and physical risks. The social risks identified are areas with higher elderly and youth populations, low income populations, and non-English speakers who may struggle to communicate. The economic risks stem from local universities and employment hubs that may be damaged. Lastly, the physical risks are from crucial facilities and infrastructure like hospitals and power stations being damaged. The Resiliency Master Plan also identifies priority areas in the city that are more at risk, since each neighbourhood is different and requires different approaches. One of the vulnerable areas identified is Downtown Jersey City.

The Adaptation Plan identifies strategic implementation efforts for each area, with a focus on infrastructure. For Downtown Jersey City, various adaptation measures are recommended, including building a street levee, a waterfront boardwalk levee, a rail yard flood protection barrier, and a wet weather pumping station. For each of these infrastructures, the policy document outlines where it should be built, in what order, and what effect it might have on the city. The street levee, which is the most affordable recommendation, is recommended to be implemented on Dudley and Washington Streets, which would be raised three to four feet above ground. They say this would have no impact on the historic character of the area or its eastern views. The boardwalk levee is suggested to be placed at the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway with a height of up to 14 feet. This would also give space for more outdoor recreation and would hopefully be accepted by the public. A flood protection barrier is recommended for the Rail Yard, a critical facility for the community. Lastly, a wet weather pumping station is recommended to be placed in North Downtown Jersey City for when the combined sewer system overflows. Additional recommendations in the Adaption Plan include enhancing sewer maintenance, wet and dry floodproofing, disconnecting downspouts, backwater valves, and lastly green infrastructure. Wet floodproofing is making a building able to withstand submergence for short periods of time, where electrical and mechanical utilities are elevated or protected. Dry floodproofing is sealing a building to prevent water from entering using watertight barriers, however this requires ongoing maintenance and adequate warning time to prep (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019).

The Green Infrastructure Plan outlines potential green infrastructure for the city in order to capture stormwater and reduce localized flooding. Green infrastructure can be simple or complex and employed by the government or by citizens. As previously mentioned, the city is covered in impervious surfaces like pavement and rooftops that cannot absorb water (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019). Green infrastructure is a solution to this problem as it mimics “the natural hydrological cycle by capturing, treating, and/or using stormwater” (Resilient Jersey City Summary Doc 2019, 37). Through this plan, the government says its goal is to capture the first inch of rainfall through green infrastructure, which according to the document could have a significant positive impact during major storms and flooding. For Downtown specifically, the plan recommends levees, revetments, and embankments, all which are essentially walls made up of natural materials. The Resilient Design Handbook goes more in depth into green infrastructure recommendations for the city. This handbook starts by saying that major changes are needed, including modifying the design of the city and investing in major infrastructure through creative solutions. This handbook appears to take on a more radical change-oriented approach than the other, although both written by the same branch of the government. The document defines green infrastructure as pervious soft surfaces that act to divert and retain stormwater. The green infrastructures covered in this document are green roofs, rain gardens, stormwater planters, eco-friendly landscaping, bioswales, rain barrels, street trees, pervious paving systems, and underground storage. The document describes each including who can install them, how they can be installed, and how they act to intercept stormwater. The document also outlines resilient design techniques, including wet and dry floodproofing, modular panels, and elevation of critical systems. These design techniques are targeted towards residential, commercial, and public properties, all of which can implement these resilient designs.

5. Analyses of Policy.

The policy responses above fall short for several reasons. While the policy does a good job of covering physical infrastructure and stormwater management suggestions, it fails to give actionable ways of building social resilience. One of the objectives in the Resiliency Master Plan is to create a socially resilient community, but it fails to mention how. The specific recommendations for Downtown Jersey City completely fail to recognize a need to build social resilience in the community and it focuses solely on what physical attributes can be implemented. To have a more complete and holistic approach, which is necessary in building storm and flood resilience, social resilience recommendations are needed (Laurien et al 2020). Some ways to address this are to build infrastructure that facilitates social interaction or support more activities that encourage sociability in the community (Cagney et al, 2016).

The policy also fails to touch upon addressing the root cause of worsening flood and storms: climate change and greenhouse gases. The policy should make a point of highlighting the need to burn less fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy in Jersey City. The fact that this is not mentioned suggests that the government is still in denial of the long-term consequences of burning fossil fuels or does not want to admit that the root cause of the issue is also what drives profits for many in the city. The policy needs to recognize the financial potential of renewable energy and natural capital, as well as the long-term financial benefits of halting the burning of fossil fuels. The documents could link Jersey City’s plan to have 100% clean energy by 2050 to this document, noting the connection between this goal and the objectives in the resiliency plans.

Lastly, the policy seems to have a disconnect between humans and natural systems, as it focuses on fighting and resisting water, flooding, and storms with physical barriers. Instead, literature suggests moving away from fighting the water towards living with the water, where humans integrate the natural world into the urban environment (McClymont et al 2019). This stems from “a lack of human knowledge of how to integrate the natural world into the urban environment” (McClymont et al 2019, 1166). Beyond green infrastructure, which is a solid start, policy recommendations could suggest ways to use flooding as an opportunity for resilience instead of a disaster. One way to do this is to implement water turbines, taking advantage of the Hudson River and its tide to generate renewable tidal energy for Downtown Jersey City. Jacob (2015) agrees with McClymont that communities should steer away from resistant structures towards working with the water and natural resources. In a more radical approach, Jacob recommends that to sustainably accommodate to rising waters, cities could build floating houses and buildings and waterborne transportation like a modern Venice or Amsterdam. This is not to say that the policy needs to take such a radical approach, but it could aim to work with the water instead of resisting its effects.

6. Community Recommendations.

As a community, there are many ways that citizens of Downtown Jersey City can help build storm and flood resilience without involving the government. As Laurien et al (2020) say, much effective action to build flood resilience occurs at the community level. It is important to note however, that these actionable plans work best when done in parallel with government plans such as the infrastructure mentioned before. This is because protective adaptation options like levees and pumping systems are costly and need maintenance and upgrades which the government can provide. There is also a need for community-based action beyond these physical barriers to build more long-term resilience, since infrastructure to protect against sea level rise and storms are often seen as short term solutions and not sustainable in the long run (Jacob 2015). Nonetheless, these recommendations will start with ways to build physical resilience then move towards ways to build social resilience.

There is large potential for building developers in Downtown Jersey City to have a positive impact on the city’s resilience in terms of building physical capital. Those working in real-estate, architecture and design, and in building development can start by thinking long term when designing and planning new buildings. They can flood-proof their buildings by implementing wet or dry floodproofing. To wet-proof, they can make the building able to withstand water submergence for short periods of time and move electrical and mechanical utilities higher up. They can dry-proof by sealing their buildings to prevent water from entering by using watertight barriers. They can elevate critical systems like gas and electric, which is easy for architects to implement. Lastly, they can shift development away from the waterfront and Hudson River towards areas in Downtown Jersey City with higher elevations and out of the FEMA 100 year flood line. This is a good financial move for the long-term as well because “any high ground in the city is safer and more valuable real estate than unsafe waterfronts” (Jacob 2015, 46). Developers can add green infrastructure to their buildings and outside which would benefit the community in many ways, making it a valuable investment. For any developers hesitant due to the cost of implementing these resilient designs, these investments are worthwhile for the long term financial, physical, and social benefit of the city. As Jacob (2015, 48) says, “for every dollar spent on disaster risk mitigation and resiliency, we earn an average of four dollars by avoiding losses”.

There are also many actionable steps that can be taken by individual property owners. Raising a house’s elevation can help increase short-term resilience. Implementing green infrastructure such as rain gardens, rain barrels, or even pervious driveways is a great option for homeowners. Households, as well as renters, can switch to using renewable energy in their homes such as solar panels or using energy from green providers. Anyone in the city who pays their own electric bill can choose where their electricity is coming from and choose a provider that uses renewable energy sources. In terms of installing solar panels, the price of solar in New Jersey has decreased by over 50% in the last 5 years, so it is becoming a more affordable option. Both of these actions address the problem at the root cause, since avoiding greenhouse gases can slow down the rate of climate change and sea level rise (Jacob, 2015).

Locals can crowd-fund to raise money to make community-led green spaces and infrastructure such as levies, street trees, bioswales and green roofs. For help initiating this, residents can turn to organizations like Sustainable Jersey City, which has a green infrastructure program and resources for the community to incorporate green infrastructure in their neighbourhood. This organization also has a Community Garden Network that residents can reference to help locals increase the number of community gardens. Residents can get involved with Sustainable Jersey City by signing their charter, donating, and using it as a platform to fund-raise.

Building social resilience and social capital is also important for building flood and storm resilience (Cagney et al 2016). Residents can join one of six local neighbourhood associations in Downtown Jersey City. These associations help build social resilience by fostering community among residents in the area and giving residents a forum to voice their opinions on local matters. They also help keep the community informed on local news and offer resources on different local issues. Other ways to build social resilience are through activities in the community that encourage social interaction. Residents can organize events to increase interaction, sociability, and support in the community. Having social cohesion and social exchange is really important for building storm resilience, because feeling a sense of trust and community helps encourage residents to volunteer and help out the vulnerable in disaster situations like Hurricane Sandy (Cagney et al 2016). As Cagney et al (2016, 14) say in reference to Superstorm Sandy, “facilitating social connections and harnessing the capital that arises from them may create resilience at the community-level that is comparable to, or exceeds, an investment in physical infrastructure.”

Residents can also volunteer through local organizations to help out throughout Downtown Jersey City in several ways. For example, residents can volunteer with non-profits such as Friends of Van Vorst Park and Hamilton Park Conservancy to help maintain gardens and other green infrastructure essential to retaining flood and stormwater. This is called greenspace volunteering and has many community benefits including strengthened resilience, increased mental health, and increased environmental awareness (Miller 2019). After storms, residents can volunteer to help restore damaged housing, help provide essential services, and volunteer at shelters. An excerpt from Miller (2019, 3) explains why greenspace volunteering is important for strengthening social resilience: “from the community resilience side, community greening can help facilitate social contact and improve the social network and multicultural relations… and help foster a sense of community that can include more neighbour to neighbour assistance” (Miller 2019, 3). As previously mentioned, social resilience is vital to storm and flood resilience. Overall, greenspace volunteering and volunteering post-storm increases both social resilience and physical storm and flood resilience.

7. Conclusion.

The coastal city of Jersey City faces many challenges due to climate change, with storms and flooding arguably the most pressing. Eight years after Hurricane Sandy the city government opened an office of sustainability and released two policy documents to strengthen the cities’ resiliency. The policy is a strong start and does a good job of explaining flood and storm-related issues and the vulnerabilities in the city as well as makes solid recommendations in terms of infrastructure. However, the plans could be more comprehensive by suggesting ways to strengthen the social resilience in the city and by taking a more adaptive approach. The suggestions in this community briefing aim to fill this gap in the policy by strengthening the social resilience in Downtown Jersey City on top of strengthening physical resilience among residents.

8. References.

Cagney, Kathleen, David Sterrett, Jennifer Benz, and Trevor Tompson. 2016. “Social Resources and Community Resilience in the Wake of Superstorm Sandy”. Plos One. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160824

City-data.com. 2021. “Jersey City, New Jersey (NJ) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders”. <https://www.city-data.com/city/Jersey-City-New-Jersey.html>

City of Jersey City. 2019. “Resilient Jersey City”. https://jcmakeitgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/191029_Resilient-Jersey-City_Summary-Doc.pdf

City of Jersey City. 2019. “Resilient Design Handbook”. Available at: https://jcmakeitgreen.org/resilient-design-handbook/ (Accessed 02/04/21)

Colten, Craig, Robert Kates, and Shirley Laska. 2008. “Three Years after Katrina: Lessons for Community Resilience”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3200/ENVT.50.5.36-47?casa_token=-xDJQGEjv_QAAAAA:Kq9C6dD52ng9RLcZ3YTwl0s2C9EB9JpP-X52iLAG9kQJhjKq4Wvz5L5s-IuIMFmKABtXtt9FANc

Jacob, Klaus. 2015. “Sea Level Rise, Storm Risk, Denial, and the Future of Coastal Cities”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0096340215599777

Laurien, Finn, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler, Adriana Keating, Karen Campbell, Reinhard Mechler, and Jeffrey Czajkowski. 2020. “A typology of community flood resilience”. Regional Environmental Change. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01593-x

McClymont, Kerri, David Morrison, Lindsay Beevers, and Esther Carmen. 2020. “Flood resilience: a systematic review”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09640568.2019.1641474?needAccess=true

Miller, Shaleen. (2020. “Greenspace volunteering post-disaster: exploration of themes in motivation, barriers, and benefits from post-hurricane park and garden volunteers”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2019.1700942

Cookie preferences