Toxic waste siting itself drives post-siting white flight and resegregation

Evidence

The second hurdle, proving segregative effect, may be less difïŹcult to overcome. Anecdotally, and on the basis of common sense, one can easily argue that once a locally unwanted land use is allowed into a neighborhood, whites tend to move out—thus, the facility has had the effect of increasing segregation. This has been true in several situations in California. Eighty-four percent of the population of Kettleman City, for example, was Latino in 1980, just one year after the Chemical Waste Management toxic dump was sited nearby; ten years later, 95 percent were Latino. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up, 1132

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly complicates the market-dynamics siting debate the book engages in chapters 7-8 — Been’s ‘market dynamics’ argument vs. post-siting segregative effects — and the Kettleman data pays off earlier chapters’ focus on that town. — connects to: Proximity to black neighborhoods triggers white flight that intensifies with black population share. — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental
, 1046; Waste-siting creates a self-reinforcing land-value deprivation cycle — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental
, 360; Questioning why whites reject waste facilities exposed the racial targeting of Tribes — Luke W. Cole and Sheila R. Foster, From the Ground Up: Environmental
, 609 (+3 more)
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: how far the longitudinal Title VIII strategy proposed here has actually succeeded in later litigation.

Broader Connections