Majora Carter video link

This is a link to a speech by Majora Carter - Executive Director of Sustainable South Bronx - who has been brought up several times in discussions in recent weeks.

It is very interesting and inspiring.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/53

CRP Film Series movie TOMORROW ... Holding Ground: The Rebirth of Dudley Street

Screening this week for the NEW CRP FILM SERIES:

Holding Ground: The Rebirth of Dudley Street

THIS Wednesday, October 31, 2007 (that's right, Halloween!!)

MOVIE: Holding Ground: The Rebirth of Dudley Street
WHEN: Wednesday, October 31, 2007, 5-7pm
WHERE: Sibley 211

Pizza and Refreshments will be served!

Holding Ground is at once a cautionary tale of urban policies gone wrongand a message of hope for all American cities. In 1985, African-American,Latino, Cape Verdean, and European-American residents in Roxbury, MAunited to revitalize their community. The Dudley Street NeighborhoodInitiative went on to gain national recognition as residents fought toclose down illegal dumps, gain unprecedented control of land from CityHall and create a comprehensive plan to rebuild the fabric of theircommunity. Through the voices of committed residents, activists and cityofficials, this moving documentary shows how a Boston neighborhood wasable to create and carry out its own agenda for change.

CRP Film Series THIS WEDNESDAY: "New York - A Documentary: the City and the World"

WHAT: Screening this week for the NEW CRP FILM SERIES
WHEN: Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 5-7pm
WHERE: Sibley 211

Pizza and Refreshments will be served!

New York – A Documentary: The City and the World
PBS documentary on the history of New York City, deals with Urban Renewal,urban decline and the role of Robert Moses, and includes the opposition to Moses led by people like Jane Jacobs. Focuses mostly on urban renewal, historic preservation and planning-related topics.

Environmental Justice Screening WED OCT 3 6:00pm

THIS WEDNESDAY, October 3rd, 6:00pm

HEC Auditorium, Goldwin Smith What:


Radiation Power: Past and Present


Screening Two Documentaries:


FROM CHECHNYA TO CHERNOBYL

A documentary about the hundreds of thousands of refugees that have fled wars and political turmoil in Chechnya, Tajikistan, Georgia and Azerbaijan in order to find peace in the radioactive pastures surrounding Chernobyl, scene of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986.

SURVIVORS

Twenty survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings tell their stories.



Roots and Shoots contact: Caitlin Corner-Dolloff cac94@cornell.edu

Sustainable Communities by Julian Agyeman Chapter 4: Just Sustainability in Practice

Summary
Having read Chapter 2: The Sustainability Discourse & Sustainable Communities last week, I really wanted to delve deeper into some of Agyeman’s recommended practices for building just sustainability. I was pleased to find that Chapter 4 was chock full of existing programs from around the United States that the author found to be promoting sustainable justice. Not only were there three examples of actual beneficial programs in each of the categories of solid waste, land-use planning, toxic chemicals use, transportation and residential energy use, but Agyeman also went so far as to rate some of the leading US sustainability initiatives to determine which were most just.
For the category of land-use planning, Agyeman is critical of traditional zoning regulations and cites New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements as more favorable to just sustainability because they support collaboration and a variety of uses and income levels. Urban Ecology in Oakland, California was commended for its focus on helping low-income communities to restructure themselves using to Smart Growth theories. Bethel New Life in Chicago, Illinois hires minority contractors to help build sustainable centers and programs. The Bronx Center Project in New York City encourages residents of one of the most troubled areas of the city to restore usable spaces and to create new places for community education and health.
In addressing solid waste management, recognized programs helped their communities to move beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” to environmental, economic and legal empowerment. The author was particularly approving of Minneapolis’ The Green Institute because it combines neighborhood economic development with environmentally sustainable ventures. The New York City Environmental Justice Alliance helps communities to reduce their solid waste and to fight back against waste transfer-station infractions. ReDo of Baltimore, Maryland organizes donations of unwanted materials and teaches people how to reuse old items.
I could go on listing all the organizations that were recognized by Agyeman as visionaries in the just sustainability movement, but for the sake of brevity, I will mention just a few more that stood out as leaders in this area. The Toxic Use Reduction Institute of Lowell, Massachusetts “helped industry to reduce toxic chemicals used in manufacturing by 41 percent over the past decade, while improving the competitiveness of Massachusetts companies.”(p.123) Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, California raises awareness on local energy and pollution issues and helps to guide the community to make informed decisions on future power plants. In the name of transit equity, the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union actually succeeded in getting the MTA to stop unjust fare hikes, promote student travel and overhaul the aging bus fleet.

Application
I was very interested in the way that Agyeman had used the Just Sustainability Index to rank sustainable organizations throughout the U.S., Of course, I immediately wondered if the sustainability project that I was working on would be listed in the Index, but I think the fact that the Downsview Park project exists outside U.S. borders kept it off the list. The more I read on, I was forced to think about how Downsview would stack up according to the author’s JSI categories -and I was also a little worried that it would be lacking. In order to know more, I went onto the Downsview Park website (www.pdp.ca) to see if some of Agyeman’s just sustainability search terms were there. I was pleased to find phrases such as “social equity” and “social diversity” built into the corporate mandate. Although the words “just” or “justice” were not explicitly mentioned in Downsview Park’s website, it seems like social equity is being very seriously addressed in the park planning process.
When I critically examined the list of park programs and events, I was also pleased to note that there is a wide mix of free events for children (Family Day, Eco-School programming, sports), adults (Movies Under the Stars, Driftmania), retirees (Wings & Wheels, Doors Open Toronto), and even a nice mix of celebrations honoring the cultures of East Asia, Latin America, Portugal, as well as Jewish and Christian events. From my background with the park, I also know that it supports various cultural groups, community organizations and sustainable businesses by offering partnership opportunities, and rental space. Based on my brief examination of Downsview Park according to Agyeman’s JSI, the park would obtain a 3, which is the highest score. Downsview Park is a sustainable development project that is in the very early stages of development, but it appears they are making good progress in the effort to incorporate social justice into this huge project.
Once I had read the chapter and used it to examine the sustainability project that I am involved in, I used the hand-out on Justice & Sustainability Resources to look more deeply at some of projects mentioned in the chapter. I visited the website for Urban Habitat in California. I was struck by the website’s boisterous spirit of civil disobedience. It positions itself as an organization ready to take on some serious issues with some serious action. It looked downright rowdy and definitely confrontational. I then realized that I was in the wrong website: I was actually trying to find the website for Urban Ecology, which was mentioned in Chapter 4 as a beacon of hope for land-use planning and just sustainability. This website, was much more calm, and more what I had expected from a group of community planners. In fact, it reminded me of the Downsview Park website, which, being run by the Canadian government, also tries to infuse an aura of calm, peaceful determination into their project. Graphic design in a website sure can make a difference in how a project is perceived!

Agyeman Ch 4: Just Sustainability in Practice and Greening the City

Reading Agyeman's Chapter 4 andthe Greening the City article and resource sheets supplied by Elan ensured that I spent much of my recent time reading about case studies, exemplary organizations, and best practices.
Additional resources:
saveourenvironment.org (from Agyeman)
fingerlakesbuygreen.org (from the Trumansburg State Fair)

Summary of Agyeman:
In this chapter Agyeman uses a methodological approach he calls the Just Sustainability Index to measure organization's commitment to justice. Agyeman then looks at Land Use Planning, Solid Waste Management, Toxic Chemical Use, Residential Energy Use, and Transportation Planning and identifies organizations throughout the US that have a high rating on the JSI that are addressing these urban hazards. For example, Residential Energy Use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable." (p. 124). What can organizations do to help low-income residents of cities improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The National Center for Appropriate Technology In Butte, MO, The Massachusetts Energy Consumer's Alliance in Boston, MA, and Communities for a Better Environment in Oakland, CA all run programs, work to institute policy, and create funding for efficient residential energy use for all.

Synthesis/Application
To build on the example I have just offered of residential energy use... as a preservationist our field is criticized for lauding a building stock that no longer allows for ease of heating and cooling and other environmental factors. Efficient residential energy use is "often seen as incompatible with affordable" and I would say affordable is often seen as incompatible with preservation. While the reality is more complex, I was particularly interested in this example because we should be able to give people efficient, low-cost housing, and I believe that using our existing building stock can help us achieve this goal. Agyeman points out, correctly, that a "filtering principle" often gets applied to the generation of affordable housing stock in cities. This filtering principle is that older, less-efficient homes become occupied by lower income residents. As preservationists, proponents of green architecture and sustainability it is imperative we keep this at the forefront as we move forward.

Websites and other Resources:
Elan's list of resources includes links to all of the organizations evaluated in Agyeman's Chapter 4. I took a look at some of these during my reading. When looking into further resources included in the handout I concentrated on those that provided tools and data for policy implementation. I found policylink.org to contain information, and toolkits which could be used in a myriad of ways as advocacy tools. I encourage everyone to visit.

What motivates...

Chapter 6 “From Confrontation to Implementation” by Agyeman
and
Chapter 4 “Greening the City” by Mark Roseland

synthesis/application

For this section of my blog, I am going to refer to something from the Roseland Ch. 4 (optional) reading. Roseland explains that the “enlightenment” to “go green” for many developers and landscape architects came out of a recognition of a growing market in environmental responsibility. I have been both excited and frustrated in the past couple of years with this movement. It is exciting in that it is initiating positive environmental change, however; it seems that if the main inspiration for “going green” is profit, then calling it environmental responsibility is a paradox. Developers who have chosen to follow this trend are not taking the responsibility to do so, but taking advantage of a lucrative opportunity.
At an architecture firm that I worked at, about 6 years ago, I remember talking to a fellow project-manager about some design ideas she had for a client who had said they were open to using to hay-bale construction in their home. This was a high-end residential architecture firm, and this sort of idea was highly unconventional, however; she thought since the client seemed interested, that the architect at our firm might be willing to look into it. My coworker brought the idea up at a staff meeting, and everyone else at the firm laughed (literally) at her suggestion. She realized that they thought she must be joking, and so she reverted back to convention. I would love to see how this scenario would play out today, given the prospect to do something “cutting edge” in high end design, promising of exposure to potential clients looking for this type of “environmentally-responsible” firm.

critique/inquiry

Agyeman mentions “the short term marriage of convenience” between groups with different agendas coming together when an issue becomes painful enough for both of them. I was left wondering if Agyeman believes that the scenario of equally-sensed urgency from opposing groups is the only time they would be willing to put down their differences to work together? Unfortunately, I think it is. And this could be extremely disastrous, because it seems that there is an urgency that is somehow lurking under the radar of extreme urgency, and we need the collaboration to start now. So my question becomes, what would inspire collaboration between the various types of groups, before it gets to the point where it is a forced partnership, or more importantly, before it is too late? I think Agyeman makes several great arguments in the two chapters I’ve read (3 & 6) for why the JSP is a good solution for both the NEP and the EJP reaching their goals, but I didn’t see him talking anywhere about the nuts and bolts of what leads them to finally making that JSP commitment.

Summary

In the final chapter of Agyeman presents ideas that he hopes will lead to implementation of sustainability practices through synergistic efforts from the EJP and the NEP movements.
First he discusses the debate about sustainable efforts from organizations with different ideological differences being more likely to mesh at a local or national level. He shows that when an issue creates a sense of urgency for both types of groups, that it has an overriding effect on any differences within the coalition.
Second he argues that ironically, the bridge between the EJP and NEP will not come from a collaboration between the two, but from EJ groups working with JS groups. He brings up an interesting point; that the JSP group “may not have experienced injustice in the personal and visceral way that many neighborhood-based EJ groups have” (179).
Third he examines the problem of unfulfilled policy rhetoric. He confirms that there is more action, implementation, and general follow through at the local level. He also alludes to the tendency of the NEP’s policies to be far less explicit and quantifiable than those of the JSP and the EJP policy promises. He calls for a general need, on local, national, and international levels, to have wider policy discussions on clarifying how progress, success, need, sufficiency, and efficiency are measured.
Fourth he shows the promise of utilization of tools such as environmental space. However; he mentions the point of view that given the current U.S. political climate, it may be too late to institutionalize environmental space. He brings up a hopeful point to counter though, that no other country in the world has such an advanced EJ infrastructure to base this environmental space implementation on.
And lastly, he looks at his definition of the JSP vs. the EJP and examines where certain groups fit in. He makes sure to clarify that the “JSP is not rigid, single, and universal…. It is flexible and contingent, with overlapping discourses that come from recognition of the validity of a variety of issues…”

Agyeman Chapter 3 & Reardon Community Development Outline

Summary: Chapter 3 “Just Sustainability in Theory” by Agyeman

NEP – New Environmental Paradigm – “sets out an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda that currently influences the work of most environmental and sustainability organizations but has little to say about equity or justice.”

EJP – Environmental Justice Paradigm – “framework for integrating class, race, gender, environment, and social justice concerns.”

JSP – Just Sustainability Paradigm – “ ‘the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems.’” “Prioritizes justice and equity but does not downplay the environment, our life support system.”

In Chapter 3 of "Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice," Julian Agyeman emphasizes that he is not offering the JSP as a cure-all solution to the problems of environmental destruction and humanitarian injustices in the world, but instead as a bridge between the NEP and EJP. He proposes that “we simply have to bridge the gap with frank and open discussion, if we are to move toward a just and sustainable communities together.” The JSP is put forth as a framework with a foundation in overlapping discourses among movements.

Agyeman explores the reasoning for the gap between the NEP and the EJP, and to sum up (including what seems to be his bias), he suspects that the NEP efforts give primacy to “natural resources, wilderness, endangered species,” etc, instead of “toxics, public health and unjust distribution of environmental risk” because the NEP group is not comprised of people who are not affected by the latter problems. The following table lists some of the corresponding polarizing issues and characteristics Agyeman mentions between the groups.













Although at first glance above table may make it seem that the joining of forces of the two groups would be a solution to the problem of the EJP needing the NEP to mobilize Aggyman’s JSP, in actuality; the two groups need each other equally. “Fundamentally, at global, national, regional, and local scales, the JSP means ‘acknowledging the interdependence of social justice, economic well-being and environmental stewardship. The social dimension is critical since the unjust society is unlikely to be sustainable in environmental or economic terms in the long run (Haughton 1999).”

Agyman describes the GPI, Gross Progress Indicator, which (as opposed to the GDP) uses more than 20 aspects of human life to evaluate the economy that most people actually experience.

Agyeman discusses Community Based Social marketing, and mentions the Ecological Footprint tool, which is popular in the U.S. because it tells us that we are living unsustainable lifestyles by showing us the land area required to sustain our lifestyles. But he explains that the Environmental Space (calculator) is a much better, more powerful policy tool, because it shows specifically how much less we should consume of any given source.




synthesis/application

Ken Reardon’s Participatory Neighborhood Planning Outline appears to be the framework of an example of DIPS (Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes and Procedures) that Agyeman mentioned.

In Reardon’s list of “Steps in the Process,” number 7, “Monitoring, Evaluating, and Modifying Neighborhood Plans” is expressed as monitoring and evaluation of project implementation, impact, and effectiveness, and the alteration of projects as necessary. I am again reminded of the work I did with the Cornell Division of Nutritional Sciences Community Nutrition Program over this past summer, where at one point our research team worked on evaluation of a Cooperative Extension program; “Cooking Up Fun.” (“Cooking Up Fun” is an integrated nutrition, youth development program designed to help youth aged 9 to 14 acquire independent food skills.) The CNP is very committed to an assets-based participatory approach, and when we had to use a Logic Model to evaluate “Cooking Up Fun,” we realized that it was not an appropriate evaluation tool. Towards the end of my work with DNS, we realized that we would have to develop a new evaluation tool, that would participatory itself, just like the planning. I was not involved long enough to see the new tool come to fruition, but I was there for a meeting where we discussed that we needed to get the community on board to create it; because the idea of success and/or failure of the program should come from the community, not Cornell.

critique/inquiry



There is really no mention in either of the readings of the process of selection/recruitment/identification for the citizens who are brought on board in the description of the initial stages in the participatory planning process. In many communities, there may be a problem of self-selection when it comes to community participation. Meaning; that the type of citizens who are acting in a way that is seen as counterproductive to progress in a community are not likely to be the same people who volunteer or are selected to participate in community planning. However; perhaps they are the very people whose opinion and perspective needs to be expressed and heard in order to establish a more equitable, sustainable change in a community. Their seemingly destructive behavior may in fact be the best method they know to show their discontent with their community and frustration at their inability to know what changes need to be made, so instead they just choose to be destructive to see things change in some way. I’m reminding myself of a quote from the movie “Donnie Darko,” where Donnie explains his take on Gram Green’s “The Destructors”: “They say right when they flood the house and they tear it to shreds that... ‘destruction is a form of creation,’ so the fact that they burn the money is ironic. They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They want to change things.”

Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice (SCEJ), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 4

Since I have no background or familiarity with the history of EJ movements or principles, I had to do some catch-up reading, so I read the introduction followed by chapters one and four. What I learned was that I’ve cared about EJ for a long time—in fact, I would say that my main career objective (good-quality affordable housing) is rooted in EJ; I just didn’t know the term for it.

What I appreciated about the reading was Agyeman’s rigorous methodology and disciplined thinking (the lack of which I found somewhat onerous in Hallsmith’s writing). The Introduction briefly outlines the commonalities and schisms between EJ and sustainability, stemming primarily from the sustainability movement’s failure to include social equity among its goals. And while I agree with this assessment in theory, I might counter that argument by pointing out that at a decentralized, grassroots level, many advocates for sustainability are likely to also support EJ movements. I imagine that one possible reason for this is because on a national level, organizations like WWF or the Sierra Club must remain focused on furthering their mission, and the fundraising and membership structures that support the financial goals of the organization may be sufficiently sensitive to dissuade major change to the mission. The reason, then, that the interconnectedness between the two movements would play out on a local level is one, the absence of fundraising imperatives, and two, the ability to more clearly see the relationship between EJ and sustainability in the context of one local issue. Agyeman goes on to develop this notion (crystallized as JSP) in Chapter 1 vis-à-vis the Mystic Watershed problem, and in Chapter 4 by giving the backgrounds of various organizations around the country that particularly embody the principles of JSP through their dual foci of environmental sustainability and social equity.

Clearly, the rationale and approach as outlined by Ken Reardon is heavily weighted toward a JSP. It proposes using the participatory principles of EJ to motivate sustainable, equitable solutions to community challenges. From my perspective as a future real estate developer hoping to work on large-scale, mixed-use and mixed-income projects, participatory planning is de rigeur: there is simply no other way to go about getting all the various community approvals, permits, and financing needed to develop these massive projects. To fail to include community stakeholders would be fatal. However, the one aspect of participatory planning and other deliberative inclusionary processes that I take issue with is the time horizon. Ordinary citizens have to realize that time is money, and most offers have an expiration date embedded in them. No business entity is going to wait indefinitely for a community to decide what’s important, to whom, and what the rules are. The need to be proactive about establishing values and vision is critical to being able to attract (fend off) the right (wrong) opportunities as they arise; the alternative is to stagnate, to be closed off to any opportunity for change, and ultimately fail to thrive.

Agyeman, Chapter 3 – Just Sustainability In Theory

Application:
Agyeman’s views and conclusions push for a view of the whole system. He emphasizes a global view, of economics, resources, ideas, and policies. His views seem to complement those in The Key to Sustainable Cities, in that by looking at the community as a whole, we are able to see all of the interactions within the system and evaluate its capacity to meet all of our needs. He also advocates for the improvement of social networks (democracy, inclusiveness, empowerment, responsibility), equitable resource distribution, economic security, and, ultimately, human and environmental health – all of which are described in the Key’s Community Systems Dynamics discussion.

Critique:
Overall, I felt that Agyeman’s writing would have been much clearer had he written out his abbreviations more often, and used footnotes rather than citing every author, date, page, and conference in his paragraphs – which required the reader to navigate a sea of parenthesis to follow a sentence. I also wish he had expanded a bit on his discussion of cited authors’ equation of “ecological” with “nonhuman.” The widespread idea of humans as being something other than nature, something outside of it, and often as having a managerial or stewardship role (which is perhaps exploited), plays an important role in our use of resources and in shaping the discourse that surrounds environmental policy.

Summary:
Agyeman sees the “just sustainability” paradigm (JSP) as a bridge between the current environmental sustainability paradigm (NEP) and the environmental justice paradigm (EJP). He defines JSP as including the consideration of both present and future generations, quality of life, the concept of justice and equity, and living within ecosystem limits. He attributes the NEP-EJP divide to the paradigms’ origin and history, demographic differences, reluctance toward engagement, and individual vs. communitarian approaches. The author describes the divide between the rich, Northern, environment-based “green” agenda – focused on ecological sustainability (No Humanity Without Nature), and the poor, Southern, equity-based, “brown” agenda – focused on environmental health (No Nature without Social Justice). Agyeman brings up the Earth Charter, which is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Key to Sustainable Cities - “Envisioning a Beautiful World,” and emphasizes its focus on a global partnership and universal responsibility. Agyeman states that we simply require open discussion and a fusion of the movements, enabling the creation of proactive and progressive policies, a “new economics,” and local to global thinking.