State permitting laws structurally determine community influence over siting

Evidence

Conventional industry wisdom counsels private companies to target sites that are in neighborhoods “least likely to express opposition”— those with poorly educated residents of low socioeconomic status. Not surprisingly, many communities that host toxic waste sites possess these characteristics. State permitting laws remain neutral, or blind, toward these inequalities; they therefore perpetuate, and indeed exacerbate, distributional inequalities. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 353 (#expands, via linked claim)

The crux of successful lawsuits based on environmental law is the focus on procedure. Many state and federal environmental laws, especially those related to permitting facilities, are procedurally oriented: they set out a series of procedural hoops to be jumped through; once an applicant has successfully jumped through the hoops, the applicant receives a permit. For example, lawyers using this approach filed suit on behalf of Mothers of East Los Angeles to point out flaws in the environmental review of a proposed toxic waste incinerator. When the community group won the lawsuit, the incinerator company withdrew its application rather than complete a full environmental review. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 557 (#expands, via linked claim)

First, to the extent that public expectations affect street-level bureaucrats there is often considerable disagreement about what street-level bureaucracies should primarily do. Street-level bureaucrats within limits may define the ways in which they will pursue their objectives. But often community opinion is diffusely apprehended, creating role conflict. In different cities and within the same city some communities may expect police to enforce the law vigorously and impartially and to have a strong legalistic orientation, while others are content to have the police primarily focus on maintaining order. Some parents want schools oriented toward achievement in basic skills, while others want schools oriented toward developing community values and vocational training. The punitiveness of welfare administration in some cities and the liberal orientation of other welfare offices demonstrate clearly how the same statutes can spawn agencies with vastly different bureaucratic cultures. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 366 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Waste-facility permitting uses notice-and-comment modeled on federal rules; Neutral permitting laws perpetuate waste-siting inequalities — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 353; Environmental-law suits succeed by attacking permitting procedure rather than outcomes — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental…, 557 (+2 more)

Related

• Neutral permitting laws perpetuate waste-siting inequalities (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Neutral permitting laws perpetuate waste-siting inequalities #expands (0.90) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 353
• Environmental-law suits succeed by attacking permitting procedure rather than outcomes #expands (0.75) — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 557
• Identical statutes produce divergent agency cultures through community influence #exemplifies (0.72) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 366