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
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. This week, our readings focused on environmental justice, how it was used in Warren County, and how it may pertain to the Duwamish River and Portland Harbor superfund sites. Environmental racism is a way to describe the institutionalized system in which people of color are more likely to be exposed to environmental and health risks (Bullard, 1993). Environmental justice movement calls for equal protection and fair treatment for all against environmental and health risks, focusing on people of color and low-income communities (Gilliland, 2014). We focused on a case study in Warren County, North Carolina, where the state was interested in dumping PCB laden soil in a secure landfill in Warren County (Geiser & Waneck, 1983). This contributed to the issue of environmental racism since the county was the poorest county in the state, and also 65% black (Geiser & Waneck, 1983). As stated by “Warren County Citizens Concerned about PCBs” leader Ken Ferruccio: “landfills are placed in environmentally unsafe, but politically powerless areas (Geiser & Waneck, 1983).” The community laid down in the middle of the street to stop trucks from dumping PCBs in their neighborhood--the first-ever environmental justice protest by people of color that gained national attention (Geiser & Waneck, 1994). This protest was also the first time where the term “environmental racism” was used (Geiser & Waneck, 1994). Here’s a video of the protest: The work of community members of Warren County led to recognition by President Bill Clinton, who issued an executive order requiring the consideration of environmental justice issues in the course of federal agency policy making (Gilliland, 2014). The approaches to environmental justice by agencies have varied, but the actions taken at the Duwamish River Site are seen as groundbreaking and used as a reference for other CERCLA sites (Gilliland, 2014). Even so, EPA’s environmental justice analysis strongly suggested additional mitigation measures to counter adverse disproportionate impacts felt by communities reliant on the river for subsidence (Gilliland, 2014).
-Kristen Citations: Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Cambrige, MA: South End Press. Geiser, K., & Waneck, G. (1983). PCBs and warren county. Science for the People, 15(4), 13-17. Geiser, K., & Waneck, G. (1994). PCBs in Warren County. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Gilliland, A. (2014) A Review of EPA’s First Environmental Justice Analysis in Conjunction with a CERCLA Remediation Plan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/environment_energy_resources/2014/03/43rd-spring-conference/conference_materials_portal/12-gilliland_alexandra-paper.authcheckdam.pdf 10:30 AM: We met with Linda Dombrowski, an anthropologist and member of the Duwamish tribe. She told us about the early settling of Seattle, and how the Duwamish were displaced from their lands. As the area changed to residential land, then to industrial, the river that the Duwamish people depended on became polluted. The most resonating statement that Linda made was that the Duwamish are not looking for complete restoration of the river, but are looking for community support and to use the best available practices to keep people safe. Photo below of Linda Dombrowski. 12:00 PM: We walked across the highway from the Duwamish Longhouse to Herring House Park, which offers views of the Duwamish. We met with BJ Cummings, who helped found the Duwamish River Community Coalition. The coalition consists of many organizations that had been working on trying to get cleanup to happen for many years, the longest standing being the Duwamish people. The coalition first worked as a watchdog organization of preliminary cleanup along the river. With their help, the Port of Seattle learned about the re-contamination introduced by sewer overflow and an inefficient dredging process. Throughout the process of planning, cleanup, and restoration, the influence of the DRCC has lead to an increase in community involvement planning. One thing I appreciated from DRCC was the commitment to not only provide daycare for children of parents involved in meetings, but also involving the children in the decision-making process. In Arnstein’s A Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969), providing child care and reimbursement for missed work to attend meetings is on a higher rung of citizen participation. Using Arnstein’s guide, DRCC may classify as a partnership style of citizen participation, since DRCC shares their findings and influences the Port of Seattle and EPA (1969). Photo below of BJ Cummings at Herring House Park. 1:45 PM: We headed to one of the hottest restaurants in South Park, Napoli Pizza, to meet with Julie Congdon, and other representatives from the City of Seattle and Port of Seattle. Julie is currently in the process of revising the Duwamish River Superfund Community Involvement Plan. Her colleagues shared with us how important it has been to have DRCC’s influence on the cleanup process. They also shared their community engagement process for South Park residents for Terminal T117, which we were able to tour. I was happy to hear the process was very community driven, with Roy commenting that “if you communicate, the community responds positively.” DRCC gave guidelines to the City of Seattle on what levels of community engagement they should aim for. Photo below of our class on the tour of T117. 4:00 PM: We head to the South Park Community Center to talk with Paulina Lopez and two of her Youth Corps Members. Paulina is the Community Engagement and Outreach Manager for DRCC. We went on a walking tour of South Park, and learned some of the downsides to when entities try to do work without communicating with the community. An example of this would be the skatepark we saw, that was built by a private donor without the community’s feedback (seen in some of my classmates posts). The park soon became covered in graffiti and unusable to skate. We headed to Muy Macho after the tour for some great food.
7:00 PM: Our last destination before heading to our AirBnb for the night was the South Park Senior Center for karaoke night! Overall, it was a long day of learning. We heard from multiple stakeholders about the importance of community engagement. I’m glad to be involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition, and plan to learn more about how community engagement is happening around the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. -Kristen References: Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 The similarities between the Lower Duwamish River in Seattle, Washington and the Lower Willamette River in Portland, Oregon are truly fascinating. The two rivers have a braided history of being labeled “industrial/ economic engines”. Both rivers have been rerouted and deviated from their natural course, deep channeled for shipping, and heavily contaminated with persistent organic pesticides, The current conditions of Lower Duwamish and the Willamette rivers contribute to negative impacts on the health and lives of tribes, immigrant, and poor who live adjacent to its shores. The neighborhood of South Park, in South Seattle, has very similar economic, cultural, and social makeup as St. Johns, in North Portland. Each neighborhood is impacted with heavy transportation, industry, and high amounts of cultural diversity.
|
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|