Cities As Segregated Green Spaces

Given the practical impossibilities of counting each and every American, census data is rarely black and white. But it is always suggestive, and it has nearly always been racially charged.

And so it was with recent census data that suggested two trends. Each trend relates peripherally to the environment, reflects racial divides, and forces an ounce of justice.

According to a recent New York Times article, the great tide of "white flight" has turned. Newly released census data shows whites are moving back into New York City. Whereas in the 1990s alone the white population of New York City declined by more than 350,000, more than 100,000 have moved back into the city since 2000. Half of that increased occurred between 2006 and 2007.

While the recent increase relative to the total historic migration out of the city remains proportionally small, the fact that the number has turned is cause for news. The NY Times quoted Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, as describing the trend as a "harbinger of racial equilibrium."

Equilibrium, perhaps, but certainly not racial equality when viewed through the prism of environmental protection. Seem a bit strong? Hang with me. Here's what I mean.

Running against this current of a recent white influx is a second, countervailing movement of Latinos out of the city and into the suburbs.

The Times article, as well as others, point to declining job opportunities in states like New Mexico, Colorado, New York and New Jersey, and the availability of better schools and cheaper homes in the suburbs, as determining this out pouring. All of these factors certainly contribute. But there's another, more insidious cause, too.

For all the talk of our cities becoming stages of environmental activity -- of farmers markets, and commuters on bikes, and hybrid cars -- the quality of the environment of our metropolitan neighborhoods remains largely racially determined. In the U.S. racial background ranks higher than income in determining the likelihood of whether a hazardous waste site will be located in your neighborhood.  

A few months ago, I visited students in the Bronx Theater High School. I came prepared with a basic introduction to climate change; they came with questions about wind farms and water quality. They came with a hunger for more information, and expressed a deep regret that their neighborhoods -- from which you can see the Harlem River -- were not sites of public environmental concern.  

For cities to be effective solutions to global warming, they have to be well designed not only for the affluent who can afford their sustainably harvested wood paneling, or new prefab homes, but for every neighborhood, and for every family.

The challenge is, as Kaid Benfield has pointed out over on Switchbosrd, that increased affluence traditionally generates outwards sprawl. We need to stem the movement of Latinos and African Americans out of the city before we have two more races taking flight because they can't afford what is theirs by right: clean air, clean water, and a healthy life

(Photo credit: Courtesy of midweekpost @ flickr, used under the Creative Commons license.)

UPDATE (9/30/08):

A friend wrote to me to with the suggestion that I needed to, in his words, make a "clearer distinction between issues of climate change/energy responsibility and issues of environmental quality."

What he was referring is the way that the two demographic trends – whites beginning to flow back in to cities like New York while Latinos flow out – correspond to two environmental trends: first are those whose activities are motivated by a desire to reduce their impact on the world; second are those whose activities are motivated by a need to remove themselves from the damages caused by others.

The problem is simply this: that while the white demographic trend tends towards a reduction in global impacts, there’s still not enough focus given to those whose lives continue to be adversely impacted by the most elemental, and therefore most widespread, environmental harms.

Now, I don’t mean to question the sincerity of those who ride to work, buy organic, or retrofit their homes. Indeed, as an indicator of the acceptance individual environmental responsibility, it’s more than a good thing –- it’s something we need more of.

My suggestion is that in the same breath we talk about polar bears and forests, we talk about rising asthma rates. And that in the same breath we talk about organic burgers, we ask why does it still cost more to buy carrots than it does to buy Twinkies.

For those of us fortunate to live in areas blessed by clean air and water, we have the breath to ask these questions. Others do not. And so lets us ask for them, just as we would ask for ourselves.