For social change to occur, a group must step up and engage in the community. For this to happen, there are a few things that must take place. (1) The group must collect an identity and then (2) support a collective idea. The community must then be supported by a system that (3) empowers their engagement by (4) providing outlets for their concerns and (5) guaranteed outcomes. Marginalized communities in particular must feel secure in their identity, then identify with a change, and have a resource that empowers their choices. Allowing underrepresented communities to voice their concerns and providing recourse is how equity can be implemented into a society. Partnership in Arnstein's article links voices which I find the most valuable as it's most of the time non-existent in communities. But this step, like others can fall short. As a member of Portland State, or as a voter in general, I have the power to voice my opinions and political decisions, but it is not always acknowledged. Could you think of a time where you are given participation in change in your community but ignored?
I had once met a women who was a past graduate of PSU. She approached me to ask if the Student Media group I'm leadership of could share her story. She was explaining her years of working to voice the issues regarding how the school neglects and mistreats student rights such with tuition, as well as treatment of seniors and professors. I found her story similar to this week's topic because her voice, and others alike, are shut down. Are there times where you feel you have "power" to make change, but find out it's really just an illusion? Was this within your community or like one on campus? I attached a photo of ASPSU because it's PSU's community for student engagement and empowerment. Do you identify with any of the organizations? And if so, is it enough? - Emily Price
0 Comments
By Michael Pouncil On June 8th, 2016 the EPA finally released it's proposed plan to clean up the Willamette River. Here is a fact sheet to give you some important information like timelines, meeting dates, and your rights as an Oregon resident: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/10/100020143.pdf Also, here is a link to a Podcast from OPB and an article describing a brief summary of what the EPA is proposing: http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-harbor-superfund-cleanup-epa-proposal/ Here is a more extensive report from the EPA as well: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/10/100020143.pdf My favorite part is this: --Gloria
A short video depicting all the activity and life that happens on, near, and around the Willamette River.
Kirk & Chelsea
Photo credit: Allison Frost/OPB
The need for increased community engagement in the Portland Harbor Superfund project seems to me a central issue. In comparing the Duwamish and Portland Harbor, there seems a significant difference in the levels of engagement between the two cities’ governing bodies and the communities most affected by the Superfund and the clean up process. Admittedly, the vantage point I gained on the Lower Duwamish River project was more in retrospect and is perhaps not a fair comparison with Portland Harbor. However, I believe Portland can learn from the mistakes and successes in Seattle. The communities from the neighborhoods of South Park and Georgetown and the Duwamish Tribe were driving forces insisting on more and better engagement with the City and Port of Seattle as well as the EPA. And most importantly, those communities pushed for better clean up technologies and it seems they helped the City and Port of Seattle recognize how essential it is to use technologies that remove more of the contaminants. The City of Portland recently conducted a survey of Portland residents on their priorities and opinions about the Portland Harbor cleanup. This was the first outreach by the City on the clean up and was not widely distributed, nor was it comprehensive in eliciting the full views of the public with its limited questions and “pick a box” format. I spoke with Delia Mendoza and Lucia Llano of the Portland Harbor Community Coalition last week, who both echoed Paulina Lopez from South Park about the need for community meetings with food and childcare provided and be culturally appropriate to successfully engage the various affected communities. We have heard from communities surrounding both the Lower Duwamish River and the Portland Harbor that being able to safely eat fish from these rivers are of utmost priority to them. The priorities for the City and Port understandably revolve around cost. It’s time to learn from the Duwamish and other Superfund clean up projects that while more expensive technologies that remove more contamination seem prohibitive from a cost analysis, lingering contamination or contamination that is spread from improper dredging or damaged caps are not worth the recontamination of our river, fish, and people. -Lola Goldberg While the Portland Harbor and the Lower Duwamish are both parts of rivers with superfund sites, the concerns and approaches for cleanup, and processes seem very independent of one another. The Lower Duwamish River cleanup seemed to be centered around a community with a history of advocating for change, justice and equity. From our visits to the Duwamish site,it seemed that community members were well informed and engaged in the process, the needs of the community being healthy place to live through removal of the contaminated soil by dredging and transporting it off site to be processed. Versus Portland's approach seems quite different in that the community seems less involved in the process, it seems like much community engagement has not occurred. Many people I have interacted with have no idea there is a superfund site in Portland, let alone the various methods being debated in the EPA’s cleanup proposal. While our classes visit to Port of Portland's Terminal 4 was eye opening to the industrial activity along the Willamette. Surveys suggest that still most of the general population “has little knowledge or information about the Port and its marine terminal operations,” (Abbott, 2008) furthermore assuming that there is little awareness about the superfund site and legacy contamination that has occurred on the river. I think the unawareness from Portland Citizens has hindered the process or push for stringent regulation and cleanup. I think if more of the community knew about the superfund site, the hazards they would be more concerned, but the lack of public engagement has left many unknowing. Some of my thoughts on some the possible reasons for differences in cleanup may include Seattle is very much built on and around industry, community's and industrial areas commonly intersect, whereas Portland also has a lot of industry but it is more segregated from residential areas. -Katie Carl Abbott. Portland's Working Rivers: The Heritage and Future of Portland's Industrial Heartland. Portland: Carl Abbott, 2008. Print. The past several weeks have been a mind expansion of epic proportions concerning the rivers in the Northwest and the ills that impact them. Portland Harbor (lower Willamette River) and Lower Duwamish (South Seattle’s South Park and Jefferson neighborhoods) have challenges that will need constant vigilant grass-roots community participation. Clean up of the Lower Duwamish and Portland Harbor superfund sites are not something you do for a term, it is truly a commitment having noticed first hand at the Portland Harbor Community Action Group (PHCAG) and the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC).
These coalitions have been in the trenches for over 15 years since the EPA’s listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund. It is my opinion that the length of time of the recognized listing by the EPA has been a difficult challenge for the coalitions, this large time frame allows for a revolving door of concerned citizens who become “meeting fatigued” or “life” simply happens and folks move on to other things. I am not sure why the work of building a strong social fabric in the community has not happened with the PHCAG, I would think that this work would be essential. What I have learned during this course is that nuance is very important, even the nuance in mission statements between DRCC and PHCAG, the DRCC says in it that it will “…ensure… accepted by and benefits the community…” and PHCAG’s says it will, “…ensure…through community participation. One is about giving community control and the other is about letting the community be a part of the show. I find that the approach PHCAG may hamper impacted community involvement, there is not a sense of power, or charge of destiny and this can be felt in trying to galvanize the community to make comment about the up coming scheduled superfund proposal. Progress happens when communities are engaged, have shared concerns and sense of urgency these are avenues for progress. I would define progress as an educated citizenry who can make meaningful comment about the superfund site after the proposal is announced. Currently, however, many individuals who live near the impacted areas in North Portland are not aware of the proposal, cleanup or comment period. The city of Portland and some community action groups (to a certain degree) can be blamed for some of these equitable failures. Communities want to be informed and industry and local/ national government want to promote a fake democratic public participation. The LWG approach the Portland Harbor from a position of power and privilege, they have resources to monitor community engagement and they have the knowledge concerning the science. E.J. Woodhouse explains how industry and governments are not cognizant, “…in recognizing that rapid R&D and scale-up usually prove problematic, nor in thinking through the manifestly undemocratic implication of the privileged positions of science.” and how the, “scaled[ing] up by industry and governments [move] far to fast to allow the relative slow learning from experience that humans and their organizations know how to do.” Coalitions have to remain nimble, tough, and inventive to keep folks informed and bring new blood to the coalitions. Coalitions have to create new stories of the same story to keep the community interested in involved. The community has to feel invested in the cause, so they can’t be intellectualized over or talked down to. It is also my opinion that keeping it simple, staying vigilant, and diversification in outreach (religious organizations, ESL, and youth) are the strengths of coalitions to keep communities informed and engaged. By Michael Pouncil Woodhouse, E. J. (2006). Nanoscience, green chemistry, and the privileged position of science. The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power, 148-181. Photo from: https://popdevprogram.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/in-this-for-my-people-nia-robinson-on-race-the-environment-and-climate-change/ Environmental racism has a long history in the United States with wealthy white people in well-cared-for areas of cities and countrysides, while wastes are dumped and toxic industrial facilities sited along the homes of people of color and poor people (whom are more often people of color). Firstly, planners are often white and perpetuate this divide, not wanting a landfill or chemical refinery next to their homes. Second, it is known that wealthy, more highly educated neighborhoods of white people feel empowered to fight against any development in their area that would negatively impact them. As a result, attempts toward such developments are not even considered. People of color in this country have been oppressed by systematic racism in every form from every authoritative agency and have been disempowered to fight for their own civil rights. Environmental racism is about civil rights--“It is unlikely that this nation will ever achieve lasting solutions to its environmental problems unless it also addresses the system of racial injustice that helps sustain the existence of powerless communities forced to bear disproportionate environmental costs” (Geiser and Waneck 1983).
The environmental movement started in the 1970s and environmental activists are often well-educated white people focused on environmental conservation. For years a strong part of my own identity has centered on environmental conservation. While I have slowly become more aware of environmental justice issues, the focus of my activism has remained on conservation of forested lands and watersheds. I realize the privilege I have to choose my activism focus--being middle-class and white, I am not directly affected by environmental risks and inequalities that so many people of color and poor people cannot escape. I appreciate the opportunity to increase my awareness of environmental justice issues and the inseparable nature of social justice, environmental justice, and environmental conservation. -Lola Goldberg References: Geiser K and Waneck G 1983. PCBs and Warren County. Science for the People pp 13-17. |
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|