Search

The policy is a program funded by the EPA called C.A.R.E. (Community Action for a Renewed Environment). The aim of this program is to build the public voice in environmental matters, and to give access to different sources of information from the community. 

A process is placed that allows for social justice to take place in the development phase. 

"Commercial and Industrial developers have to go through the following process when proposing for a building: 

1. Reference the city’s ERI and prepare a checklist of pollutants
2. Submit checklist and development application to the city
3. Checklist goes to the Environmental Commission
4. Checklist goes to the Planning or Zoning Board (where appropriate)

The public has full access to this checklist to weigh in on it and make their voices heard." 

The first point that peaked my interest is when Dr. Nicky Sheats brought up the real world example of a powerplant that was placed in the Ironbound District. It's an example of how government standards don't reflect or align with individual standards. I thought this was interesting to see how the people didn't have their due justice in deciding to have a polluting plant in their neighborhood. The other fact that caught my eye is that Newark zoning laws, previous to being updated in 2012, had been grandfathered in since 1954. This goes to show the complete lack of awareness for public health that has resided in New Jersey's History. The last point that truly shaped this article is how steps were being taken to prevent environmental justice issues. Commercial and Industrial developers have to go through the following process when proposing for a building: "

1. Reference the city’s ERI and prepare a checklist of pollutants
2. Submit checklist and development application to the city
3. Checklist goes to the Environmental Commission
4. Checklist goes to the Planning or Zoning Board (where appropriate)

The public has full access to this checklist to weigh in on it and make their voices heard." 

The policy is to have stronger land use and environmental rules on a local level. It aims to mitigate use of pollutants, and give careful attention to low-income, minority citizens as to not pollute their communities.

In the article, the authors used data from the 2011-2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census, 2010 U.S Census, and George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.”. They looked at data follwing children under 18,  and followed poverty trends such as census tracts for concentrated areas of high poverty. They used the number of children in Essex County Cities and compared it to the the amount of children in poverty in those cities, for the years of 2000 and 2015. Henceforth, they created an arguement stating that Child Poverty rates have risen within those 15 years, and even by 50% in some areas. The only issue I have with some of this data is that in some cities, we see a decrease in child population - and while there is an increase in child poverty in those areas, I feel like the reduced number of children in that area plays a big part in the so called "Increased Child Poverty Rates".