[CPEO-BIF] Do's and Don'ts of Community Involvement

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

[The following is a slightly modified version of a presentation I made 
yesterday, April 21, 2005 at the Phoenix Brownfields University. To 
download a formatted version, go to 
http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/Do's&Don'ts.doc. - LS]

THE DO'S AND DON'TS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION
Lenny Siegel
April, 2005


As smart developers, project managers, and regulators know, community 
support can be one of the most important assets in promoting and 
implementing brownfields projects. Still, in many cases, brownfields 
decision-makers treat community activists with suspicion if not 
downright hostility. I believe, however, that sensible, pro-active 
community relations programs more often than not lead to smoother 
processes and better projects.

As a member of U.S. EPA's Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on All 
Appropriate Inquiry, I consistently argued that the people who live and 
work on or near a project site should be informed from the moment a site 
investigation begins. Some of the private sector participants, however, 
said the secrecy was essential to make many projects happen. One cited 
the example of a possible plant closure-where the owner wouldn't want to 
tip off the soon-to-be-displaced workers. Perhaps there are better 
examples-for property assembly, for instance-where some level of 
confidentiality is useful, but this plant closure argument raised a 
fundamental question about brownfields policy: Should public policy 
encourage projects that do not serve the public good? The corollary 
question is: How does one determine the public good?

My position on the first question should be obvious. Our governments 
should not implement, subsidize, ease regulatory oversight for, or 
otherwise encourage any projects that do not, in balance, benefit the 
public at large. My answer to the second question is: Establish an 
inclusive, effective program of public participation.

The first challenge, in setting up a community relations program, is 
determining who the community is. I know consultants who get paid big 
bucks for conducting community relations surveys, but that's usually not 
necessary. The key is to identify people who are likely to be impacted, 
either by existing property conditions, or by cleanup and redevelopment. 
If the site has important natural resources, I would include 
conservation or recreational interests as well, even if they don't live, 
work, or study nearby.

And I would go a step further. Don't limit the concept of the affected 
community to those people impacted by or interested in a specific 
project. In most brownfields scenarios, both the blight and the vision 
of recovery are at least neighborhood-wide. It not only makes sense to 
work from a neighborhood plan, but it's easier to generate consistent 
community involvement when meetings and information materials are not 
limited to single projects.

Next, don't assume that the elected representatives of a community-or 
the officials they appoint to manage programs-fully represent the 
community. Ideally, at the end of the public involvement process, 
official and grassroots views will be harmonized. But if the issues 
surrounding a project or neighborhood have never been the focus of 
elections, hearings, or other democratic processes, it's unreasonable to 
expect that officials elected for other reasons speak for the community 
on cleanup and redevelopment.

Remember, in most localities, local government is actually a complex 
overlay of multiple agencies, each of which may have its own reasons to 
be involved in overseeing a project. I serve on the Restoration Advisory 
Board for the former Moffett Naval Air Station, in the San Francisco Bay 
Area. It's generally considered a national model for constructive 
community involvement. In addition to activists and individuals, we have 
had five local agencies-each with elected boards and taxing 
authority-represented: two cities, the water district, the Open Space 
District, and the County. For a few years, the regional council of 
governments sent a representative as well.

My point is simple: No single entity, even the government with planning 
jurisdiction, is the sole elected voice of the public. A good public 
involvement process helps the agencies, as well as other community 
participants, achieve a common position. If they can't, it at least 
narrows and delineates the differences.

It's not enough that the agencies leading brownfields activities are 
"closer to the people" than U.S. EPA. Many policy-makers view 
brownfields as part of a larger trend of regulatory reform, which is 
devolving more responsibility for cleanup and reuse decisions from the 
federal government to the state and local levels. This environmental 
devolution relies on private market forces and encourages more 
streamlined regulatory oversight. In fact, there are severe limits to 
the notion that devolving brownfields responsibilities to state and 
local governments will make projects more responsive to community needs 
and interests.

This is particularly true in poor and non-White communities, including 
communities of all colors in major Northern cities, immigrant 
communities in the Southwest, and African-American areas throughout the 
South. Community relations programs may therefore need federal 
involvement on the side of environmental justice. They should, in any 
case, identify such environmental discrimination from the start. They 
should target less empowered constituencies through education, 
trust-building exercises, translation, and other tools. Silence, from 
traditionally excluded populations, should never be assumed to indicate 
support. It should trigger special effort to stimulate involvement.

Speaking of exclusion, I have one cardinal rule: Don't exclude people 
because you consider them uncooperative. I know there are many community 
activists who are obstructionist, or who come to meetings just to raise 
issues that have nothing to do with those meetings. That's a challenge, 
but in most cases it's easier to resolve if those trouble-makers are 
inside the tent. That's what happened to me back in 1990. The Navy 
started listening to me, so I had to be constructive. Even when people 
aren't as reasonable as I, it's generally possible-though maybe very 
difficult-to work with other community participants to get the 
problem-children to play by the rules, or leave of their own accord.

In the brownfields context, individuals and organizations "come to the 
table" with a variety of agendas. First, there are the ostriches, who 
don't want to hear about problems. This includes people who don't want 
to hear any public mention of contamination or even potential 
contamination because they believe it depresses their property values. 
It's important to be sensitive to their concerns, because some of them 
will pull their heads out of the ground once the news is out. Once 
contamination reports are widely circulated, it's in their interests to 
do something about it.

Second, there are those people who are primarily concerned about future 
use. Will redevelopment force them to move their homes or businesses out 
of the neighborhood? Will the new use generate too much pollution, 
noise, or traffic? It may be in the interest of a property owner or 
developer to redevelop an industrial site as industrial, because the 
cleanup standards are likely to be less stringent, but in a mixed-that 
is, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses-that may 
simply perpetuate a long-standing problem for the neighbors.

Then there are the people who care most about the health risks of 
existing contamination. At most genuine brownfields-sites with 
relatively little contamination-this isn't a major issue. But if 
contamination is significant, or there is (or is proposed) a sensitive 
use, such as a school, senior center, or day care center, exposure to 
contaminants becomes much more important. The emerging issue of vapor 
intrusion, in which volatile contaminants rise into houses and other 
structures, is heightening health concerns at a number of brownfields 
sites, because there is a completed exposure pathway.

And in my community, vapor intrusion issues have helped identify, 
conceptually, one more constituency: future residents or workers. People 
who moved into the award-winning homes at the former GTE site in 
Mountain View were surprised and upset to learn that TCE vapors might be 
intruding into their homes. Some have even gone to court. A 
forward-looking community relations program, therefore, needs to 
consider the people who haven't arrived yet.


Six Elements of Effective Public Involvement

It would be presumptuous for me to suggest a one-size-fits-all approach 
to involving these disparate publics in a constructive process for 
overseeing brownfields activity. Still, I offer six key elements that I 
believe should form the core of an effective public participation 
program. Regardless of the specific tools used, the primary objective of 
a public involvement program is to establish trust-not necessarily 
agreement-among the responsible parties or developers, regulators, local 
officials, and the grassroots public.

1.	Define the neighborhood. In many places the boundaries are obvious, 
but in others it takes some thought. Are the environmental and 
development questions fairly homogeneous over the area? Are there enough 
people living within to create an ongoing process? Are there too many?

2.	Inform the public early and often. One of the most common sources of 
distrust is the belief that decisions have already been made, that the 
public is being invited in as window-dressing or as a rubber-stamp. The 
best way to overcome this is to establish a process before any decisions 
have been made: Hold meetings. Depending upon the community, distribute 
information on fliers or via the Internet. Listen!

3.	Create an advisory group. This group, perhaps called a neighborhood 
revitalization committee, should be representative of the various 
constituencies and interests within the community. Ideally, it should 
address revitalization issues within the entire neighborhood. It should 
meet regularly, to give community participants a chance to learn the 
ropes of cleanup and reuse, as well as to give all parties a chance to 
get to know each other.

It should be clear, from the start, that this is an advisory group. Once 
everyone recognizes that the committee doesn't own property, zone, or 
otherwise make binding decisions, then membership and procedural 
questions become less contentious. But participants should know, from 
the start, that if their advice is ignored, that they can pursue their 
interests through the political processes that existed in the absence of 
the advisory group.

There may be cases where a neighborhood organization or community 
development corporation wants to take the lead on a brownfields project. 
That approach, as well as the traditional developer-led or city-led 
scenario, is compatible with the advisory group approach. But a 
community-based developer is not the same as a neighborhood advisory 
committee.

4.	Provide technical assistance. If brownfields activities involve 
technical decisions on public health, hydrogeology, or other areas of 
expertise beyond the capacity of the community, then the advisory group 
needs its own, independent technical consultant. This may seem like an 
extra expense, but it usually pays off. With such help, directed by 
community participants, the residents are better able to frame their 
concerns in a way that decision-makers can address.

5.	Develop a "community impact statement." If practical, one of the 
first activities of the neighborhood revitalization committee should be 
to draw up a community impact statement (CIS), to document environmental 
conditions and concerns within the community. The CIS differs from the 
well known "environmental impact statement" in three ways: First, it is 
not written in response to a specific development or infrastructure 
proposal. Rather, it describes the neighborhood, from the point of view 
of its residents. Second, it is not confined to issues regulated by 
environmental agencies. Should the neighbors wish to describe traffic, 
crime, or other issues, then those belong in the statement. And third, 
the level of detail is flexible. Because the CIS is not required to meet 
a statutory requirement, the depth and breadth may be determined by the 
level of effort that both volunteers and the sponsoring government 
agencies are able to sustain. In the hands of potential developers, as 
well as local officials, the CIS gives a hint about what forms of 
property use the community is willing to tolerate or support.

6.	Persevere. Brownfields redevelopment, particularly in low income and 
people-of-color neighborhoods, requires intense effort over many years 
and under changing circumstances. Development projects often move 
forward slowly, while both political leadership and private sector 
representation changes.. In the face of changing circumstances, 
community-based institutions can provide continuity, serve as a forum 
for creative negotiations, and act a lever to keep brownfields projects 
viable.



A carefully constituted program of public involvement, entailing these 
elements, is likely to build public support for local revitalization 
efforts, either by winning support for the proposals of project 
proponents or by helping those proponents adjust their plans to suit 
community preferences.




--
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields