Yesterday, a story hit the wire about the location of the Commonwealth’s most hazardous communities. The 59 page report was authored by Northeastern University sociology professor Daniel R. Faber and Eric J. Krieg, a professor at Johnson State College in Vermont and showed that 24 of the 30 most environmentally hazardous sites in the Bay State also had communities that were 25 percent or more non white. Bostonist can’t help but think about a memo we once read that had reportedly come from the desk of Larry Summers when he was chief economist at the World Bank in 1992. The World Bank memo, which was leaked to the press and published in The Economist might not have been written by Summers and it may have been doctored up before it was released to make the assertions more outreageous. The form we saw it the was certainly outragous.
The gist of the 1992 memo that poorer communities will gain economically and richer, more educated communities will suffer a relatively lesser ammoun, seems to in some ways become practice in Massachusetts. Some of Boston’s poorer neighborhoods; Dorchester, Roxbury, and East Boston are all home to environmentally hazardous sites. Yesterday’s release of the study: "Unequal Exposure to Ecological Hazards 2005: Environmental Injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” asserted that it may not be a deliberate act to go out an contaminate non white communities but it is a form of tacit racism. Bostonist is still curious if Boston University is going to be able to open up their proposed bio-containment lab.
Thanks Paul.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It's funny you bring this up this morning. This very issue was discussed last night in a post-grad class I'm taking. This is not a new trend in Boston (dirty sites in poor / minority communities), nor is it a new nationwide trend. Massachusetts, however, now ships all of its hazardous waste to Utah, so any new waste the biolab would generate wouldn't be dumped in the Bay State. That said, the biolab is unquestionably a stupid idea regardless of neighborhood location, not only because we know that (a) no real revenue will be generated for Roxbury residents as personnel will not be local; (b) why put such a potential threat in such a densely populated area to begin with? I say this without any smack of NIMBY, but common sense simply tells you to put it in a location where risk to human health can be minimized (ie not in a major city).
As a public health professional and environmental health advocate, I could go on and on. But I just wanted to say it was good of you to post an env justice issue. And be reassured that there are good people working to end awful practices like the ones you've described.
Jon, I want to thank you for posting about this story. Although the relevation is old hat, I strongly believe the story needs to be written as often as appropiate, so as to raise awareness, and help find a solution. You're writing on it will help further people's awareness on the matter.
I am consistently impressed with the Gothamists' and Bostonists' willingness to tackle these subjects, and to do so with an opinion.
You deserve thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul.