Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice confronts policies and practices that disproportionately create disadvantages, either intended or unintended, for individuals, families, or communities based on race or physical appearance. Historically, public policies in conjunction with industry practices have provided inequitable benefits for governments and corporations at the expense of discriminated populations.
|
Redlining |
|
In 1933, during the Great Depression, the Franklin Roosevelt Administration created a policy with the intention of reducing home foreclosures. This law was later institutionalized as the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and led to the establishment of the Federal Housing Association (FHA). In conjunction with FHA, the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) developed the policies that coined the popular phrase, “redlining”.
FHA and HOLC created maps in the interest of informing insurance companies and banks about what areas of cities were not promising to invest in. These undesirable areas were shaded red, in contrast to more desirable areas that were colors of blue or green. While this information claimed to be purely financially informed, redlined areas more often reflected racial discrimination, rather than financial concerns. These racially fueled, widespread disinvestment of redlined areas created disproportionate environmental hazards, public service provisions, along with inequitable income and wealth distribution. |
Slum Clearance Projects |
|
The National Housing Act of 1949 approached public housing challenges through federally subsidizing slum-clearance projects. This method paved the way for redevelopment projects pursued by private investors, corruption included with additional costs. In 1952, the National Association of Real Estate Boards convention asserted that public housing was “contrary to the beat interests of the country and its people”, a statement that earned public housing projects a federal investigation. Enhanced regulatory approaches to public housing and slum-clearance projects expanded and concluded that all displaced families be provided with shelter that accommodate their financial standing.
Eminent Domain |
Eminent domain has been historically used to acquire property for public uses. In practice, it is to honor the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including the fact that private property will not be acquired “for public use, without just compensation.” Therefore, the property owner is lawfully required legitimate compensation, the fair market value of the property.
Under the federal Uniform Act, a public authority cannot take advantage of a decreasing price when a property is condemned and is prohibited from depreciating the value of a property that is intended for future construction of a government project. The property owner may avoid the consequences to the valuation of the property if action by the government intentionally depressed the property's value later in condemnation. Often even with suffice evidence that properties pursued by eminent domain reflect damages as a result of pre-condemnation landowners often have difficulty proving the declined value of the land as a result of dishonest government action. |
Work Cited
Include photo credits
John H. Gilmore, Insurance Redlining & the Fair Housing Act: e Lost Opportunity of Mackey v. Nationwide Insurance Companies, 34 Cath. U. L. Rev. 563 (1985).
Gregory D. Squires, ed., Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions.Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press 1997.
Catherine E. Beideman, Eminent Domain and Environmental Justice: A New Standard of Review in Discrimination Cases, 34 B.C. Envtl. A . L. Rev. 273 (2007).
Law Research Digest. Eminent Domain and Fair Market Value in a Depressed Real Estate Market. October 2014, Volume 62. https://www.nap.edu/read/22253/chapter/1
The United States Department of Justice. History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain. 2018. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain
John H. Gilmore, Insurance Redlining & the Fair Housing Act: e Lost Opportunity of Mackey v. Nationwide Insurance Companies, 34 Cath. U. L. Rev. 563 (1985).
Gregory D. Squires, ed., Insurance Redlining: Disinvestment, Reinvestment, and the Evolving Role of Financial Institutions.Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press 1997.
Catherine E. Beideman, Eminent Domain and Environmental Justice: A New Standard of Review in Discrimination Cases, 34 B.C. Envtl. A . L. Rev. 273 (2007).
Law Research Digest. Eminent Domain and Fair Market Value in a Depressed Real Estate Market. October 2014, Volume 62. https://www.nap.edu/read/22253/chapter/1
The United States Department of Justice. History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain. 2018. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain