The City of Cincinnati, Ohio has an ongoing discussion over a potential ordinance involving environmental protection and regulation within its city. The article, cited from early January 2010, reviews a traditional battle between business growth and environmental sacrifice in an urban setting. The ordinance, aptly titled in the report as “the first-of-its-kind” attempts to place strong oversight over business development, pollution, and waste with the use of a general review board. Furthermore, it would attempt to prevent industrial pollution from occurring in its traditional settings of lower-income and minority neighborhoods.
However, the issue remains of whether to implement the new ordinance due to a couple of different issues. First, the city is struggling like most other municipalities, with a budget deficit for this fiscal year at around $40 million. Secondly, city officials see this ordinance as a deterrent to business development in a time period where new revenue is desperately needed. These issues bring up some things that Press and Manzmanian talk of in sustainable production. Such things as market-based incentives and bringing these businesses to the table for their own input might be healthy solutions (Vig, 221-223). Also, seek to get the surrounding communities involved in order to prevent their own well being from being exploited.
In the past several of the poorer areas of the city have been imposed on by industry being developed and using their locality as their advantage. There has been vast amounts of pollutants that have plagued these areas in Cincinnati, which looked upon with a blind eye. This occurred mainly because of the wealth in industry and manufacturing it saw. However, now the city along with Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore, sees itself apart of the deteriorating “Rust Belt.” The issue of cost to implement this new ordinance would be up to $300,000 per year. However, the cost could amount to more with another incident similar to that of 2005, when a styrene leak occurred forcing hundreds to leave the Columbia Tusculum area. More legal costs could amount if something preemptive does not take hold.
As stated in the Vig readings within chapter 10, focusing on examples of companies shifting the way they conduct business is key. Such examples like Jupiter Aluminum Corp and SSAB, Iowa Inc being more environmental sound and more sustainable should be referenced. Also, the use of Marc Eisner’s proposition of market rewards, more reliance on business associations, and more transparent methods of tracking a company’s pollutant levels needs to be discussed here in Cincinnati (Vig, 234-238).
This also got me thinking of where the city plans to go as far as implementing this plan. It seemed as if there was not a plan to possibly deal with business reacting negatively to more environmentally strict regulations. Paehlke brings this type of thinking to mind in chapter 11 with the idea of the “triple-bottom line” of being economically prosperous, maintaining social well-being, and improving environmental quality. As he states it might be harmful for some industries if sustainability does not fit their business plan, however the urban area needs to design a better overall plan to improve this (Vig, 245-249). Moreover, the city might look to improve some of those communities affected by industrial toxic waste through brownfield redevelopment and express to all of its citizens as Paehlke states an “urban-oriented environmental vision.” (Vig, 250).
Lastly, it is important to not rely on a too heavily regulated government and a relaxed form of business policing itself. Through reading several authors in environmental policy, it seems like this creates the “deceive-and-achieve game.” Both private business and government entities need to be on the same page striving for what many of these authors state as a “win-win strategy.” (Potoski and Prakash, 2004).
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-19706-slow-ride-to-nowhere.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very similar to what Dave posted for this week. He discussed the decisions between helping change the riverbed in Phoenix and the effects of the dust and pollutants it would cause. What do you think you would recommend in the Cincinnati situation?
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in the post, they need to think long-term about these issues, not focus on the short-term gain from not implementing this ordinance. Along with saving $300,000 with possible legal actions taken by a few firms, it might be less than lawsuits brought on by distraught, discriminated, and displaced citizens and interest groups. Also, it would have the potential to present the city in a negative manner, something to which this city does not need.
ReplyDeleteAs with many of the Rust Belt cities, the most common theme I find is the lack of foresight and diversity. With economic development projects and growth that accompanies it as well, incentives can be provided to draw in business. This must occur as well, with the use of smart growth principles. In all of these discussions, what people need to realize is that there will be winners and losers within pushing higher standards and "green living" for some in the private sector. It's the nature of capitalism. I think the Queen City will figure it out, unlike their kin from the north Detroit and Cleveland.
Blake, I loved that you focused on Vig's discussions of business voluntarily cooperating and "proposition of market rewards, more reliance on business associations, and more transparent methods of tracking a company’s pollutant levels needs to be discussed here in Cincinnati" (Vig, 234-238). I would like to see more of a systems approach to environmental problem solving where companies engage and actually think about how they impact the environment.
ReplyDeleteBlake, This is a very good and interesting post about Cincinnati. You mentioned chapter 11 and the “triple-bottom line” about being economically prosperous, maintaining social well-being, and improving environmental quality. Since cities such as Cincinnati and others are hurting so bad economically I wonder how effective businesses can really be with the "triple-bottom line" concept and still be profitable.
ReplyDeleteBlake, I agree with your comment, that there will be winners and losers, but action must be pushed forth. There is always a trade-off, and business' must forecast the tradeoffs that economically may effect them in the present, as opposed to the benefits they could acrue later. Much easier said than done, and the risks are obviuosly higher with tht eeconomic crisis.
ReplyDeleteThanks,,,This article seems to be very meaningful to students to study about environemental justice in terms of law and politics.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, first of all, I like to say about the stakeholders. Simply saying about that, we can expect through the article that the distinct interested groups can be companies making investments in the city, companies that are likely to produce toxins and dangerous pollutants, and the city’s poorest residents, according to the article. Also, it may be applied to the local government to want to increase the budget. By the way, as your saying, thinking the environmental justice ordinance in long-term approach, the stakeholders are likely to expand to all city residents because the investment of companies can influence other groups as well as the poor.