Kirk & Chelsea
0 Comments
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 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. 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 Photo by Lola Goldberg
We had the opportunity to visit with representatives from many of the groups involved in the Lower Duwamish River Superfund site. The Duwamish river has a similar history to that of the Willamette--for thousands of years it was central to the lives of the native peoples of these lands--in this case the Duwamish tribe who spent their winters along its banks. The Duwamish people subsistence fished the river and travelled by canoe along its meandering course. After Chief Seattle of the Duwamish signed the treaty of 1855 allowing the City of Seattle to be built on their homeland, the river was straightened, deepened, and industrialized. The Duwamish river became a transportation hub for large ships and over the past century, a waste tank for wartime industry and rapid development that grew up around it. We visited the Duwamish Longhouse--a beautiful community center for the tribe to share their culture and history. The Duwamish tribe has been asserting their place in this landscape, having lived here for at least 12,000 years, according to Linda Dombrowski, the event coordinator who shared many tales of Duwamish history and of the river just across the street. Although the Duwamish community has their own visions for the river, they are willing to share the water and the land that contains it with their industrial neighbors. This surprised me. They only expect that the river be cleaned up so that all people’s needs for the river are possible, including fishing for subsistence. It’s not an easy task, but some assert it’s possible. We met B.J. Cummings, the founding coordinator of the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC) in 2001, to empower residents of South Park and Georgetown--the neighborhoods within the industrial sea along the Duwamish river. B.J. is a wealth of knowledge. She explained that Lake Washington was formerly the site of the City’s sewage dump, but after the affluent and largely white neighborhoods surrounding the lake complained, the City rerouted the sewage system to dump into the lower Duwamish river. Many communities have come together as very active agents influencing the process and plan for cleanup of the the superfund site. When we met with employees of the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the Environmental Protection Agency, they credited the DRCC and expressed gratitude for their persistent involvement pushing for stronger cleanup outcomes. Boeing, apparently did very well cleaning up their early action areas, using sophisticated technology to dredge contaminated river sediment without causing a spread of the contaminants. Using Boeing’s good example as well as documenting when dredging was poorly done for far less money, the DRCC continues to push for better cleanup methods. While communities of South Park have been highly vocal and active influencing stronger river cleanup, these low income communities--often communities of color--have not gotten the level of response that communities around Lake Washington received. Politics that govern cities have systematically left low income communities out of planning processes and adequate consideration. In “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Arnstein articulates the reason for citizen participation in processes affecting our public commons as a redistribution of power- giving voice to people so often excluded from the process (Arnstein 1969). This article was published in 1969 and yet still today citizen participation is often a box for government officials to check rather than fully listening and changing plans or designs based on feedback from the public- people who will be greatly affected by the decisions made. Furthermore, government rarely does outreach to underrepresented communities. Because of the strong and determined involvement by the DRCC and people of South Park, this dynamic may be slowly shifting for Seattle, however there is still a long way to go. -Lola Goldberg Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224, DOI: 10.1080/01944366908977225 We began our journey at the Duwamish Longhouse, this area of waterfront was the site of long houses along the shoreline where the tribe used to fish. Now we look out at the cleanup efforts and industrial uses The Community Engagement and Outreach Manager for the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, Paulina Lopez gave us a tour of her community in Southpark. A skatepark was built in attempt to help the community but is now seldom used because the graffiti has made the concrete too slippery to skate on. Stepping out of the skate park a mural that says “home” in 5 different languages representing the major demographics that comprise the Southpark community.
"White settlers came to the Seattle area in 1851, establishing a townsite they first called New York, and then, adding a word from the Chinook jargon meaning "by-and-by," New York-Alki.” -Seattle Municipal Archives
Discovering Seattle's deep history of industry, economic and community development put into perspective the complex issues revolving around development in both long and short term thinking. This past weekend I could see clearly how the past is still very present in today's world. The Duwamish River was a great example of this continued impact, for example the profound injustices demonstrated by the commandeering of the Duwamish tribe's land, to the negative effect the Superfund site has had on the health and safety of South Park's citizens. Although people have tried to control, utilize or tame the waters of the Duwamish, the problems morphed into systemic problems that possibly stemmed from the rivers complex history. -Katie Brief History of Seattle. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/seattle-facts/brief-history-of-seattle The excursion to the Port of Portland was insightful but not surprising. The hosts of the tour were friendly and informative. There were a few things of interest that was new, but much of it turned out to be a power-point review. The facilitator of the tour answered most of my questions through answering questions from my classmates. One question that was raised by a classmate had to do with the capping strategy for the Willamette River Superfund Site clean up, and if the capping would be compromised by dredging of the river for large vessels to navigate. The facilitator told us that there was “little too none” persistent organic pesticides in the deep channeled part of the river. I however asked three questions: 1. Where there treaty obligation that the Port of Portland had to honor? 2. Was there a role that the Port of Portland was participating in to encourage public comment by Portland citizen during the sixty-day comment period? 3. What where the circumstances that led to the Willamette River to be listed as a Superfund? The answer to the first question was yes. The agreements are negotiated and settled by the Federal Government and Tribal Nations concerning tribal waters and fishing rights. The tribes are an integral part of the process of deciding procedure for the Willamette River clean up. The second question was answered by what the EPA was doing by having community meeting and placing advertisements into the local papers. There was not an answer given about what the Port of Portland was doing to inform citizens. The last and third question about who instigated the listing of the Willamette River as a Superfund Site was explained as a bureaucratic endeavor by the state to clean up Oregon Rivers. However, it was my understanding that it was a group of Tribal leaders that went to Washington D.C. to lobby the government about the deleterious state of the Willamette River.
The Retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland, by Norman Krumholz conveyed a brave approach to delivering the advocacy and equity planning to the citizens of Cleveland. The outreach strategy that the Port of Portland has exhibited, in regards to the Willamette River Superfund Site, shows a willingness to keep citizens in the “sandbox” and placing them on “Indian reservations” (Krumholz, 1982). A bold and brave move for an agency who’s soul purpose is to bring business to the state of Oregon, would be to put democracy and the resources for the public good front and center, An activist approach to having a clean an viable river open to everyone will produce development, business, and revenue that the state desires. How much revenue has been lost to the risk of persistent organic pesticide contamination? How much development has been lost that could have promoted that cities ethics of a green corridor? When it comes to the Willamette Superfund, and participation outcomes, and the EPA, I have heard many Portlanders confess that they have succumbed to “meetingitis” (Arnstein, 1969) because of the length of time that this tragedy has been going on. To have citizens to stay continually abreast, neighborhoods need there own technician (possibly hired) to keep them informed and engaged. The city of Portland provides this to a degree with it’s community engagement systems but when large cleanups like Superfund impact our communities, the federal government should be providing educators and organizers to make sure that the community stay informed, engaged, and active in the decision making processes. By Michael Pouncil Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35:4, 216-224. Krumholz, N. (1982). A Retrospective View of Equity Planning Cleveland 1969-1979, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:2, 163-174. Last Monday, our class had the chance to visit Port of Portland Terminal 4. We learned from Port of Portland staff about the Portland Harbor Superfund site from their perspective. It was very interesting to learn about how the Port has been proactive in the cleanup process. To them, they view the superfund site as an embarrassment that has been put off for far too long. They became involved with other polluters to create the Lower Willamette Group in order to begin the process of determining a Superfund ruling. The Port has also been active in early restoration, and they showed us some of the work they had completed on Wheeler Bay by dredging contaminated sludge and stabilizing the bank. Pictures from the bay can be seen below: We had a short discussion about public engagement with Port of Portland staff. Not much has been done to engage the public so far, but they hope to hit the ground running once the proposal is released. After that, the public has 60 days to comment before the final decision is made. I believe Port of Portland will want community participation since they are a public entity, and part of the cost of cleanup will have to come from the public. As the Port of Portland develops public participation strategies, I hope they keep in mind the following: higher levels of participation empower the public, planners should stay engaged with the community for a long period of time in order to see effective change, and that information on the superfund process should be easily accessible and paired with community information so that those affected have the information they need to participate in the decision-making process.
Level of Public Participation Public participation in a decision-making process can range from non-participation methods such as manipulation and therapy, to higher degrees of citizen power such as partnership, delegated power, and citizen control (Arnstein, 1969). I hope that public participation on the Portland Harbor Superfund site is in the higher degrees of citizen power range. In order for this to be accomplished, citizens should be able to negotiate with the main decision-makers, and they should include a large part of the vote on the decision (Arnstein, 1969). It Takes Time… When Norman Krumholz reflected on his work as a planner in Cleveland, Ohio in the 70s, he concluded that certain skills and ideas were necessary for planners to use to create effective, equitable change (Krumholz, 1982). One of Krumholz’s conclusionary remarks was that in order to be an effective part of the decision making process, planners must participate in an issue for a relatively long period of time (Krumholz, 1982). Many of his cases evolved over a period of five to ten years (Krumholz, 1982). I became involved with Portland Harbor Community Coalition and my spokesperson there shared the same remarks on decision-making processes: it takes time. It takes time for planners and community groups to build the relationships needed to create consensus-based change in which all parties are in favor of the decision. It takes time to ensure that those involved have the resources they need--policy documents on how to clean up a superfund site are not easy reads. It also takes time within the EPA’s framework to go from listing a site as a Superfund site to the actual cleanup process. During that time, it is common to see community groups become exhausted of their time and members--they are often being involved on their own time while staffed positions are getting paid to be involved. I hope the Port of Portland recognizes that this time is a huge commitment for the public, and helps out by providing resources for technical information as well as reimbursement for those missing work or needing childcare to be involved. Street Knowledge Referring back to technical documents, it is important for the Port to be aware that the process of getting involved through the EPA’s framework isn’t a friendly process. This is often one of the tensions between communities and professionals. On the highest rungs of the public involvement ladder, the public is equipped with the resources they need to hire their own technical support in translating these documents to a more public-friendly format (Arnstein, 1969). One method of sharing information used by community groups is popular education--in which community members tap their own experiences and expertise to inform each other (Corburn, 2005). Another method to bridge the power gap between professionals and community members is street science, in which the technical science is paired with the community’s own knowledge and investigations (Corburn, 2005). I hope to see some of these considerations in practice once the superfund report is released. -Kristen Sources: Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224. Krumholz, N. (1982). A retrospective view of equity planning Cleveland 1969–1979. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 163-174. Corburn, J. (2005). Street Science, Local Knowledge in Environmental Health Policy In the New Yorker article “A Valuable Reputation” the author details one man’s fight against a company and a chemical. The company is Syngenta, who produces Atrazine, an agricultural chemical proved by Scientist Tyrone Hayes to have negative effects in both frogs and humans. The article describes the chemical company and their connections in the academic, scientific and media communities attempts to debunk Hayes’ findings. This article directly relates to EPA’s letter to Robert Wyatt and the “Economic Impacts of Remediating the Portland Harbor Superfund Site” report put forth by the Brattle Group. The main thread connecting these documents is complexity. This diverse set of documents highlights from a range of perspectives, the complexity of the polluters, stakeholders, the economic “risks”, all the way to the politics of the science being conducted. The politics of science is the most important level of complexity because the scientific evidence of chemical hazards are what all further decisions of banning chemicals or cleaning up superfund sites are based upon. These decisions in turn, have economic impacts as described in the Brattle Group’s report. The letter to Mr. Wyatt shows appears to be constructive discourse about a report studying the contamination of the Portland Harbor. The article regarding Tyrone Hayes’ fight against Atrazine however unveils a darker side of scientific conversations. Namely, that the arguments made against his work were not about the science at all. The lengths that Syngenta has gone through to discredit Hayes’ work serves as a reminder that the science behind these chemicals and cleanups must be scrutinized. Keeping in mind the fact that science is political, in part because of how much is at stake economically is important when analyzing the Portland Harbor cleanup. Kirk |
AuthorsWe are Portland State students who care about the urban rivers of the Pacific Northwest. Archives
May 2018
Categories
All
|