Equitable Redevelopment as the Next Step for the Environmental Justice Movement
TechLaw, Inc.
January 30, 2007
Over the past 25 years, the environmental justice movement has focused on the relationship between environmental contamination, race, and poverty. Now, with government regulation and a broader awareness of urban environment and land redevelopment, it is time to take the next step toward equitable redevelopment, revitalization, and community benefits. Efforts to combat environmental injustice will be for naught if traditional environmental justice communities are left out of such improvements. Displacement of prior residents due to redevelopment of contaminated and blighted (or “Brownfields”) communities has become the new environmental injustice. This paper will examine the current landscape of these issues and present tools and processes for a renewed environmental justice movement, which ensures local benefits in the affected community.
As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields program matures and associated health risks are reduced, results show that the benefits associated with Brownfields redevelopment are not shared equally among the various stakeholders (e.g., developers, communities and small businesses). Furthermore, residents of the environmental justice communities where these projects are located are often displaced from their homes. Although the definition of a Brownfields site may vary, making the determination of an exact number of Brownfields sites difficult to estimate, they are largely an urban phenomenon and are disproportionately located in environmental justice communities. “Environmental justice advocates have expressed concerns about certain negative impacts of Brownfields redevelopment and the unintentional harms to the very communities the program tries to help may unintentionally exacerbate historical gentrification and displacement, pushing minorities and low income residents of communities out of their neighborhoods.”[1]
While the Brownfields program includes environmental justice as a ranking criterion for grant applications, there is no measure to ensure equitable distribution of benefits. There appears to be the risk, especially in a society where property rights and human rights have often been in conflict, of propogating the same patterns that first caused environmental justice concerns – a tendency toward economic and racial segregation, and the displacement of marginalized residents.
The standard Brownfields redevelopment practice attempts to address the real or perceived risks associated with an under-utilized, blighted and/or contaminated property. However, the economics of cleanup and redevelopment seem to result that large corporations, rather than small- or medium-sized businesses, replace contaminated properties. Often, there is no housing built at all, as it is frequently too expensive to remediate to residential standards; when housing is constructed, the residences are often sold/leased at fair market prices without inclusion of affordable housing unless there are inclusionary zoning requirements, which vary by municipality. The economic and “highest and best use” arguments appear to create redevelopment projects that generally must be of a certain size and/or type of business, even if the proposed land use may be incompatible with the community. As a result, many redevelopment projects attract large-scale businesses tied to a regional and/or multi-national economy that tend to homogenize the unique character of communities. At this point, it rarely appears that Brownfields redevelopment includes expanding the development of small- and medium-scale businesses and business clusters with private ownership that enhance the small-scale community or local economy.
A representative summary of goals and realities of standard Brownfields redevelopment practices is included in Table 1. While the goals reflect the desire to revitalize and improve communities, the realities indicate that gentrification and displacement of low-income and minority populations continues as a pattern in Brownfields redevelopment. One study that evaluated Brownfields pilot projects in EPA Regions 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 showed that there was displacement of African Americans from 61% of Brownfields redevelopment projects and displacement of Hispanics 14% of the time.[2]
Table 1 Standard Brownfields Redevelopment Practice
Goals / Realityü Human Health Risk Reduction / ü Least Contaminated Properties Developed First
ü New Employment Opportunities / ü Little local Hiring or Low Wage Jobs
ü Reverse Neighborhood Deterioration / ü Neutral and Upside-Down Properties Remain
ü Property Value Increase / ü Commercial Development (Little Local Ownership)
ü Provision of Services and Open Space / ü Limited Residential Redevelopment
ü Increase Local Tax Revenue / ü Little Mixed Income Housing
ü Reduction in Crime / ü Tax Incentives Drain Local Revenues
ü Facilitate Law Enforcement / ü Limited Access to Public Transportation
ü Reduction in Greenfields Development / ü Sprawl
ü Limited Open Public Space
The results of Brownfields redevelopment have been described by non-profit organizations such as Equitable Sustainable Community Development as “creating a cycle of neighborhood regeneration and displacement of the low income families who had been living in the neighborhood to be common...and while reinvestment produces ‘showcase’ communities in many cities, it does not allow low-income individuals to share in the benefits of better housing, better stores, safer streets, and improved services among other tangible improvements.”[3]
Several definitions exist for gentrification. One example describes gentrification, or more specifically urban gentrification, as the “process in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods experience physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who typically replace the prior residents.”[4] As this definition suggests, a number of demographic, real estate market, land use, culture, and character factors are associated with gentrification. Demographically, there is usually an increase in median income and less racial diversity. Real estate markets and land use changes occur; for example, there is an increase in rent or home prices, apartments are converted to condominiums, and industrial-use properties change to office or multi-media uses, live-work lofts, and high-end housing. The number of evictions tends to increase and average household size diminishes, with singles and couples replacing larger family households. With these changes, there is also a shift in the culture and character of the community, in terms of what is desirable and attractive. This can include standards for architecture, landscaping, public behavior, noise and nuisance.[5] Gentrification in itself is not a bad thing, if existing residents can benefit from the redevelopment. As the Brownfields program provides public funds to ignite redevelopment efforts, existing residents must benefit equitably from the revitalization of their community.
Gentrification and Displacement in Richmond, CA
The community of Easter Hill in the City of Richmond, California was originally created as public housing with 300 units for workers after World War II. It later served as rental homes for Richmond residents who were not necessarily employed by the government. Over time, the neighborhood fell into decay, becoming a haven for crime, vandalism, and vermin and roach infestation. The growing number of blighted properties, characterized by abandoned homes, marred the landscape of Easter Hill. In response to the deteriorating conditions and to address the growing need for housing in the area, the City of Richmond used grant money obtained from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to revitalize Easter Hill. Today, these blighted properties would also be characterized as a Brownfields site and would be eligible for Brownfields grant funds. The residents of Easter Hill were invited to help the City design a new and sustainable community, with the expectation that they would be part of the future of Easter Hill. They were relocated to other parts of the city and county during the rebuilding of the neighborhood, with the assumption that the relocation was merely temporary. The residents were also told that, upon completion of the project and their return to Easter Hill, they would be eligible to receive job training, financial advice, loans as first-time homebuyers, and rehabilitation for any drug or alcohol addiction.
The original residents did not anticipate that many of them would not be allowed to return to Easter Hill. Screening criteria were imposed that disqualified some original residents from applying to purchase the new homes. For example, families of the unemployed, those with a criminal record, and those caring for their grandchildren could not return to Easter Hill. The Urban Habitat Institute refers to these families as “hard-to-house”. This category also includes both large and elderly households, and calculates that there were approximately 170 residents from the Easter Hill community that fit into this category.[6]
To many, the Easter Hill project was considered a success based on a dramatic decrease in crime, better living conditions, and beautified streets. The reality is that Easter Hill was a close-knit community that was integrally involved in the various steps of the redevelopment process, yet many of these same people were left out when the process was completed. The displacement of the original residents who had contributed to the revitalization of their community warrants questioning about whether the project was truly a success and an evaluation of the manner in which success should be measured.
In today’s context, the Easter Hill redevelopment project would be considered a Brownfields project because the property was underutilized and blighted. The redevelopment process at Easter Hill and described in Figure 3 included public involvement to create and design amenities that would be a credit to any Brownfields redevelopment project, yet there was considerable displacement and gentrification. Though there was a marked increase in the quality of housing for some, there has been little improvement in the overall health of the community’s residents and asthma rates in the redeveloped Easter Hill are as high as four times the national average.[7]
The goal of Brownfields should be to stimulate equitable redevelopment and revitalization, which “include[s] housing affordable to families at a wide range of income levels, measurably better public transportation and other job links, schools that are on track to succeed, healthcare access, a smart retail mix, business linkages to the regional economy, a viable tax base, and more mixed-income communities that reflect how urban America can and should function.”[8]
Policy Link provides an equitable development ToolKit to help community-based practitioners and community development corporations address Brownfields and achieve diverse, mixed-income neighborhoods that provide access to opportunities for employment, education, and safe affordable housing.
A vision for equitable redevelopment and associated urban environmental concerns is summarized in Figure 5. Note that community leadership is at the center.
In moving forward with a vision toward equitable redevelopment, there need to be real and lasting agreements between the community and Brownfields redevelopers, which reduce displacement and ensure social, health, and economic benefits such as affordable housing, support for local schools and health centers, living wage jobs, and first source hiring. The Brownfields redevelopment process must include the integration of environmental, economic, social, and health-related goals for the affected community.
How does the community ensure and monitor the inclusion of such benefits into the redevelopment process? At this time, the statistics indicate that results are inconsistent and there is no accountability. Good Jobs First and the Partnership for Working Families have developed Community Benefits Agreements, or CBAs, which are “legally enforceable contract[s], signed by the community groups and by a developer, setting forth a range of community benefits that the developer agrees to provide as a part of the development project.”[9] Community Benefits Agreements use a negotiation process that is led by the community and includes various community-specific benefits. They are negotiated prior to the initiation of a development agreement between the city and the developer. The dynamics of the redevelopment process without a CBA is represented in Figure 6, with little or no notable communication between the developer and the community. For the city, the absence of a CBA is confusing as there is no clear identification of community priorities resulting from any number of issues and the lack of a common message. The burden is placed on the city to negotiate the needs of the residents with the developer, sans the direct input of interested residents. Most importantly,
the community has no sanctioned monitoring or enforcement authority of commitments made with the developer.
The redevelopment process with a CBA involves a coalition of community organizations and the developer together drafting language regarding negotiated commitments, which are outlined within the CBA, as depicted in Figure 7. Community organizations can enforce the commitments, and the developer is assured community support for the project.
Although CBAs are, in general, useful to cities and community residents, they can be used incorrectly. For example, if the process is flawed and the community coalition is not independent, there is the potential for elected officials to negotiate the CBA with the developer rather than direct community negotiation. Also, the CBA document may be flawed if the developer has no incentive to provide concessions. Monitoring and enforcement can also be unclear in delineating responsibility for managing the funds associated with the CBA, and vary in their ability to sanction the developer for non-compliance with the agreement. Unfortunately, there is potential for CBAs to appear to represent real community input when they are, in actuality, a “sugar coating for a sweetheart deal”.[10]
One of the most detrimental factors of all for an environmental justice community is that CBAs and other community involvement processes are inconsistently utilized. Some developers have an aversion to using CBAs as they feel they are too risky. Despite the goal of minimizing entitlement risk, they would prefer to enter directly into a development agreement with the city.[11] Views of CBAs are often unfavorable, and include such perspectives as “givebacks to the community in exchange for local support for projects” and “the entire process is just a legal way to extort money from developers, without addressing the breadth of community concerns”.[12]
While many other developers do incorporate CBAs and community involvement processes into redevelopment efforts, it is unclear whether these agreements are extensive enough, as currently defined, to determine existing residents’ opinions regarding a project’s success/failure and community preservation. Similar to architectural and engineering processes, which are consistent and well-defined, redevelopment should include community involvement that is memorialized in a contractual agreement such as a CBA, which goes beyond design discussions to include definitions and consensus-building around the types of development beneficial to the individual community and specifically addresses the concerns of an environmental justice community such as Easter Hill. For example, key questions might include: will redeveloped housing be affordable to the existing residents; will proposed housing fit existing family sizes; and will people who move out of public housing be eligible for the new affordable housing without jobs? CBAs should also include how the success of a completed project will be measured, in addition to metrics regarding the insurers, funding sources, developers, etc. The community – those persons who live within the development – should be involved in determining the metrics used to define the level of a project’s success, and how this success will be maintained over the long-term by defining tools for interaction and governance after project completion. Within the framework of this method of evaluation, it is assumed that the original residents of Easter Hill would have regarded the displacement of 170 residents as unacceptable.