Download
1 / 7
70 likes | 185 Views
Community Benefit Agreements. Healthy People Global Goods Conference September 23, 2011 Adam Cutler, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. The Public Health and Environmental Justice Law Clinic.
E N D
Community Benefit Agreements Healthy People Global Goods Conference September 23, 2011 Adam Cutler, Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
The Public Health and Environmental Justice Law Clinic • Providing legal assistance to low income and/or minority communities where environmental impacts intersect with public health issues. • Educating and empowering residents of EJ communities to address the environmental issues affecting their daily lives. • Training and preparing new environmental lawyers. • Assisted by law students from the Drexel University Earle Mack School of Law.
Community Benefit Agreements A Legal Perspective • Subject matter • Mitigation of environmental & related impacts (noise, traffic, etc.) • Economic development goals – jobs, housing, etc. • Parties. • Inclusiveness • Authenticity • Enforceability/mechanisms for enforcement. • Consideration: the quid pro quo • Injunctive relief vs. liquidated damages • Standing • Timing. • Before land use development agreement vs. after
Legal Structures? • Connecticut Environmental Justice Communities Act • Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-20a (effective Jan. 2009) requires meaningful public participation plan and initial meeting with local officials, before permit application is filed, to “evaluate the need for” a community environmental benefits agreement (mitigation of environmental impacts, traffic, parking, noise, etc.). • PA – no such requirement. • PA DEP’s Enhanced Public Participation Policy is entirely voluntary for facility, though strongly encouraged, but no requirement even to evaluate need for CBA, much less discuss with public officials, and it follows the application.
The Law Center’s Recent Experiences • Frustrations • In SE PA, the land use development agreement tends to be completed before many EJ communities ever get wind of the project, at which point leverage is diminished. • Chester stadium project: a mixed bag for community benefits. Opportunities for coalitions were limited. • Eddystone metal shredder project (Phase 2 includes piers for shipping materials in and out): positioning has been much less collaborative, more adversarial.
The Law Center’s Recent Experiences, Cont’d • Successes. • Hunting Park: C&D processing facility • Began as adversarial, became more collaborative • Organizing and educating the community was a key factor • No enforceable agreement, but company abandoned plan to expand operations, made significant changes favoring the community (truck routes, higher walls, mural, collaboration on community events. • Hunting Park: scrapyard for new construction waste • Community now organized and educated, negotiated with owner. • “Community Benefit Commitments” – unilateral obligations • Creative enforcement mechanism – amendment of state permit application to include Commitments in operating plan. • Collaboration taking account of community and company goals.
Lessons Learned • Coalitions matter. • Opportunities for environment/public health/labor stakeholders to collaborate for maximum leverage. • Build inclusive coalitions early. (But beware too-many-cooks tensions.) • Finding the win-win. • Cutting pollution & improving conditions while improving economics. • Looking for efficiencies in operations. • Prospect of costly litigation can be an enormous incentive. So can an educated and well-organized community. • Timing matters. • Don’t wait, be proactive.
