Return-path: [log in to unmask] From: [log in to unmask] Full-name: MDK10 Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:32:29 EDT Subject: Re: Why are Some Buildings More Interesting Than Oth To: [log in to unmask] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 In a message dated 9/22/1999 3:56:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes: > > Since we are on topic, does anyone know what "environmental racism" is? I > > overheard this as being a subject of profound seriousness and I am curious > to > > know more. This was one of the counts in the litigation "Township of Montclair vs NJ Transit" - the effort to halt or mitigate the construction of a rail link through an ethic (Italian, Latino, African American) historic district composed of workers housing from the late 19th & early 20th centuries. The argument is that the offender (in this case, NJ Transit) had selected the project area primarily BECAUSE it was an ethnic, blue collar district. This would be considered "environmental racism." The argument, as I understand it, is fairly new in the law, and has not received consistent support from the bench. In the Montclair case, the federal judge reserved judgement on this count, as I recall, and sent it back to NJ Transit because it did not sufficiently examine other alternatives to crashing through the historic district (DOTA Section 4(f) to the rescue!). (PS, they went back to the drawing board, thought up some alternatives, said that no other site would do, and the parties settled). Oh well. Mary