Property Rights and Environmental Justice

Buying a home is a major milestone in a persons life; for some, it is one of their biggest goals. Once you buy it, it is your land, your private property. But, if you want to add onto your house, you need permits from the city and to, at least somewhat, have the approval of your neighbors for anything that may effect their property and its value. Take this to the next level and consider the private property that is owned by a company or that is used for some industrial value. It's their property after all, their version of a house. But do they have a right to build whatever they want on that property? Now, what if what they want to do is build a waste incinerator, a landfill, a factory, or a chemical processing plant? What is and ought to be the balance between the rights of the property owner and the health and general well-being of the surrounding areas and population? These are the questions I seek to explore in this post.

First... Where's the tie to reproductive justice? Environmental justice? As I talked about in my previous posts, low income and minority communities tend to bear a greater burden of environmental risk than does the general population. This means, in practice, that landfills and chemical processing plants and other polluters of the sort are more likely to be placed in areas where low income and minority communities live. Why? Because oftentimes these communities have less resources to fight the construction of these hazards. This turns into a reproductive justice issue because if a site is turned into a lot that emits some pollutant, then the health of surrounding communities is negatively impacted. As I mentioned in my first post, these adverse health effect can include breast cancer, infertility, spontaneous abortion, and birth defects, among other things. Essentially, this question has to do with environmental racism and how it interacts with property rights.

Take South Central Farms in Los Angeles, for example. Its history and the court case that has ensued is trying to answer what this relationship should be between environmental justice concerns and property rights. The fight to maintain South Central Farms has been a long one and in it is contained many property rights and use disputes. The story begins in 1985 when the Los Angeles Department of Public Works took control of the property, that would eventually become South Central Farms, via eminent domain where it planned to create a trash-to-energy incinerator, the Lancer Project. This proposal held all the potential for negative health effects discussed above; the surrounding community, primarily African American, clearly thought so too. They formed the nonprofit Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. to combat the creation of this incinerator and they demanded public hearings and a risk assessment -- recall the previous post's discussion of EIS (Environmental Impact Statements). They were successful in their efforts and as a result of the incinerator project was terminated. The Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. won the first round, but their battle wasn't over just yet. After the city's plans were foiled, they eventually sold the land to the L.A. Harbor Department who in July of 1994 granted use of the land to the L.A. Regional Food Bank, a private nonprofit, who would go on to create South Central Farms -- a community garden. However, this land use permit was a revokable permit which opened up the land to future struggles over its use. The next battle over the use of the land came a few years later when the L.A. City Council began discussions concerning the use of the land and proposed turning into an industrial park. Then, in 2002, with the construction of the rail-cargo expressway which passed alongside the farm, the property became very valuable realestate. All the while, the farm continued to grow.

Recall now that the city initially took control of the land back in 1985 by eminent domain and then proceeded to sell the land to another owner. A question that should have come to mind, that I will now address, is what happened to the private owners that owned property before the city of Los Angeles claimed it? The majority owner of the property pre-1985 was the Alameda-Barbara Investment Company, but the real name to remember is Ralph Horowitz who was a partner in the company that formerly owned the land. Following the sale of the land to the L.A. Harbor Department, Horowitz sued the city for not asking if he, a former owner wanted to buy back the land the city had appropriated from him, which he claimed was a breach of contract. The result was that in 2003 the city of Los Angeles sold the property to Horowitz as a part of the settlement. If you've been following along, this clearly doesn't bode well for the farm, which at the time of the settlement is still growing, because if you recall, Horowitz was among those that wanted to turn the land into a trash-to-energy incinerator and the L.A. Regional Food Bank still is using the land under a revokable permit. If you thought this, you would be right. On January 8, 2004, Horowitz gave the Food Bank a notice that their revokable permit to use the land would terminate, effective February 29th of the same year. This time, the farmers filed a law suite claiming that due to the closed process of the settlement negotiations, the eviction of the farm was a violation of their rights. This time, the farm wasn't so lucky: the appellate court ruled against them and upon appeal, the CA Supreme Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the ruling against the farmers stood. Then, in 2006, Horowitz filed an eviction notice and the South Central Farms was taken off the land and the community once again was under the immanent threat of environmental injustice.

It's been thirteen years since the eviction of South Central Farms from the land, so clearly the story goes on and I will tell is shortly. But this is an important history of the struggle of the surrounding community for environmental justice regarding just one plot of land that holds in its hand the future of the environment and health of the community. Clearly, up until 2006, there was a struggle over the use of the land and how a private owner, or the city for that matter, should use the land. However, up until this point, we have dealt with primarily public owners, in other words, the city of Los Angeles. But now, going forward, the land is in the hands of a private owner (Horowitz) who will seek to develop the land in a way that the community of South Central L.A. is largely against. Should Horowitz have to take into account their wishes? After all, it is his property. Should the community have a say in what is built on the private property of their neighborhood?

Following the eviction of the farm and the community protests that ensued, the land has remained empty and unused. However, the city and PIMA Alameda Partners have plans to build a major industrial park on the property. This is the current battle the community of South Central L.A. faces in the development of this plot of land and the development and health of their community. In August of 2014, the urban farmers filed another lawsuit that claimed the construction of this industrial park would violate the CA Environmental Quality Act which requires state and local government agencies create Environmental Impact Reports for all proposed projects and that they reduce the environmental impacts to the extent possible. While the struggle is ongoing, the community has persevered against the obstacles presented to them and they are still fighting, thirteen years later, for the restoration of their farm.

So what is the balance between property rights and environmental justice? It seems like we're still trying to figure it out. However, the necessity of environmental impact reports does suggest that at least to some extent, the community must have a voice and be considered in any project proposal and construction processes. As exemplified by the example of South Central Farms, the interaction is an ongoing struggle between community interests and industrial or economic interests. Which one should have primacy? I would argue, and I believe reproductive justice would also argue that the community interests should take primacy and that human health is more important than economic growth. But what about job creation and the economic well being of the community? What is the proper use of land in an urban area? How should the community be benefited? These are hard questions and clearly there are strong arguments and interests on both sides. However, in a capitalists society, will we always favor economic and laissez-faire growth? Is this systematic? South Central Farms is a great example in which a community organizes in favor of their own interests and to some extent has had great success in the preservation of its health, but its fait is yet to be determined.

On a larger scale... Factories, chemical processing plants, waste incinerators, and landfills in our current society are necessary things. Obviously, the burden of them shouldn't fall on low income and minority communities, but just as obvious, the burden shouldn't fall on any community especially because of the negative health risks that come as a result. Then arises the question, where should the burden fall? Where do we put these polluters until we come up with the necessary technology to prevent the adverse health effects?

These are all huge questions that I am leaving you with. All I ask you to do is think about them. What ought to be the interaction between private, industrial interest and environmental justice, community interests? Unfortunately, I can't give you the answers; after all, this is an exploratory blog.

---

Sources

“CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act.” Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State of California .

Hoffmann, Jessica. “History of the South Central Farm: How the Community Has Used the Land since 1985.” The NewStandard, The NewStandard.

Ngo, Audrey. “Hope Grows At The Once 'Magical' Site Of LA's South Central Farm.” LAist, Southern California Public Radio, 20 Aug. 2018.

“Press/Media | SOUTH CENTRAL FARM.” SOUTH CENTRAL FARM, South Central Farm.