The Institute (協会)

Could it just be that property values in these areas are lower and it's cheaper to build there? Typically poorer communities have lower property values, no matter what race (which is one reason why they're poor). From what you've posted, I don't see racism, but frugal developers instead.

"In fact, more than half of the 9 million people living within two miles of the nation's hazardous waste facilities are minorities." How much more than half? If it's not a lot more, then that's not a very convincing stat. He could've said, "Less than half of the 9 million people... are non-minorities." But, that wouldn't raise many eyebrows. If it's way more/less than half, then it wouldn't matter which way it was stated.

I was going to say the same thing as Paul. It's similar to the flood zones in New Orleans. Minorities were over-represented in those areas, because they were higher risk properties, which led to lower prices, and in turn, was associated with individuals who were either poor or risk-taking to move in. This is not an enough to conclude systematic racism. If the polluting bodies were not in these areas, then property values would be higher, and in turn some of these low-income individuals (how many is an empirical question) would be forced to move out because of the higher rents.

hmm...I live in a planned community, property taxes run about $7,000 a year now, the community assessment runs almost $700.00 a year now, and my neighbors two doors down own a home larger than mine, have their landscaping professionally refreshed each season. They're a minority, black. How the heck did they escape institutional and enviormental racism?

Question: were the plants, etc., there before the neighborhoods or after?

I know that here, several of the refineries, etc., were there years ago. Communities were built around them for the workers. Then, as their livelihoods bettered, they moved out and lower income families--largely minority--moved in. I wonder if that isn't the case in many other areas, and if that was taken into consideration.

I agree that it would be helpful to know which came first... the dump or the people.

I do know that it was the (largely) white, rich liberals that continually resisted alternative power options like windmills in MA. The wealthier a neighborhood, the more resources they have to block future environmental hazards.

Another thing to consider is that now America is mostly minorities. I spent more time than desired trying to find the facts on the US Census Bureau site. Not user friendly... figured it would be simple to get. Nah! But if this is true, it would make perfect sense that most of the people by these things would be 'minorities'. To charge racism they would have to show that this is significantly larger than population rates (and economic factors aren't involved).

To add another wrinkle to this subject: trains run everyday through wealthy neighborhoods in the Houston-metro area. Just last night, there was a report about a recent train derailment in one of the wealtiest neighborhoods in Houston. These trains carry the most toxic substances, through wealthy and poor neighborhoods. You wouldn't believe the gas pipelines crisscrossing everywhere in the Houston area. I maybe wrong about this, but I don't think this Bullard guy is looking at things honestly. I think the name "Enviromental Justice Resource Center" says alot about the "grid" through which he looks at life.

Anthony,
Having studied Birmingham for some time now, I can tell you that the physical layout of the races is not as much the market demand as one would be led to think. Blacks were only allowed to live in certain areas of the city, the one that the whites didn't want to live in. In Birmingham, it is typically the North/West side of town, the side prone to flooding.

That is not to say that racial zoning is still the culprit, and that market demand is a lesser power than race, but peoples have a harder time leaving 'ghettos' than staying in them, and when the land is cheap it is valueless to those in charge.

Interesting twist; Due to historical racial zoning, it would take an act of congress for someone other than a Black person to be elected as mayor of Birmingham.

I agree with most of the other commenters so far. Mr. Bullard has made a(n almost) solely racial argument about environmental injustice for decades now. I agree that poor and politically disadvantaged communities get the raw deal in siting decisions, but I haven't yet seen him point to anything other than a high correlation between minority status and facility siting. Like other posters here, I think the relationship can be explained just as well using economic data (property values, purchasing power, availability of resources for public campaigns, etc.) as racial data.

I think the argument for an economic explanation is supported a look to other countries, where other groups have picked up the "environmental justice" banner with some success - regardless of the racial identity of the parties involved. The pattern is pretty clear: the poorer the community and the less $$ it has to fight back, the more likely a cement plant, incinerator, etc. will be sited close by.

Unfortunately in this country minority status is often a good proxy for economic status. But there are so many other economic factors involved that I don't agree with Mr. Bullard's argument that this sort of problem is primarily a racial targeting issue.