Street Roots • June 2-8, 2017
News
Page 9
wooaooooaoooeeoa«
C.M .: Very much so. I certainly won’t
take credit for any of the achievements that
have occurred even in the last
administration, but if you look historically
since EPA’s founding, if you look at things
like basic regulation around our
environment, like the Clean Water Act, The
Clean Air Act - these were things that
dramatically changed people’s lives, and not
just in terms of the kind of water or the
kind of air that you’re exposed to on a daily
basis.
If you look at water, for example. My
husband is from Portland, Maine, and he
grew up in a working-class neighborhood
that was on the water, because that’s where
working-class people lived from the turn of
the century through the mid century,
because water was polluted. That’s what
poor or working-class people could afford.
As of the Clean Water Act, that changed
dramatically, and that property became
valuable because the water was clean and
people wanted to be near the water. So
there’s all sorts of ways that improvements
and interventions have made improvements
to our public health and safety, and to our
economic bottom line.
So in the last administration we saw
movement toward clean power plants,
toward regulating green house gas
emissions from coal burning plants, and the
signing of the Paris Climate Agreement.
These are significant advancements. And it’s
a challenge to see how the science would
not support those actions.
One of the things on the subcommittee
itself, we had no regulatory power. But that
office does all the research that supports
those other offices. And one of the things
they’ve done, is make sure they’re aligned
with the Office of Air, the Office of Water,
so when those program offices have a long
term issue or a chronic incident - for
instance a toxic spill - the in-house Office of
Research and Development was there to
support that. We heard from not just our
office of R and D, we would hear from those
offices directly how supportive the R and D
has been. So when you’re eliminating the
Office of Research and Development,
eliminating any kind of potential guidance,
you’re actually affecting other parts of the
EPA as well.
J.Z.: In this election year we d id n ’t hear
anything about housing, affordable housing,
homelessness at the federal level. We heard o f it
at the local level. What does that tell u s? I t ’s a
massive issue in local com m unities, but it’s
not even getting a breath o f a ir at the federal
level.
C.M .: It’s gotten some air, but I would say
a deflated air. If you look at the proposed
HUD budget for Fiscal Year 2018, for
example, we see similar things that are
happening at the EPA. Major massive cuts
to vouchers, to all program offices, to
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, and the virtual elimination of
H O M E funds. So big sources of funding,
both to support low-income people and also
in the private sector, including residential
to provide housing for homeless
housing construction.)
populations.
It s the same kind of language: A policy
C.M .: California is one of the few states
context around budget cuts and programs
that actually requires that their low-income
that are proposed to be shutdown versus
tax credit properties pay prevailing wages,
the rhetoric around what the ultimate goal
so there are a lot of bills proposing the
is. So at the EPA, the goal was to have
elimination of that. And I think these
industry more at the table and reduce
strategies tend to pit people against each
regulations that prohibit economic growth.
other who would otherwise be very much in
And at H U D we’re seeing a greater burden
favor of each other’s position. We’re fighting
and reliance on “boostrappism,” of making
for crumbs. And when we’re fighting for
sure that the people who get housing
crumbs, we focus on who has the crumb,
assistance aren’t “too comfortable” the
instead of focusing on that fact that there is
phrase that we heard from (HUD Secretary)
a whole loaf of bread that somebody is
Ben Carson.
holding back.
Certainly the people that are appointed
are also a sign of the political context which
J.Z.: H ow do we get at that lo af o f bread?
we’re dealing with. Both in having Scott
Pruitt, who as a state
C.M .: Oh gosh.
attorney actively
That may be beyond
fought against many of
my ability to answer.
the EPA actions. And
But certainly we as
"1 c a i/t im a g in e anybody te ll-
Ben Carson is
citizens of all
somebody who hasn’t
la g me at least to m y face th a t backgrounds, of all
had that much
g w tttg a homeless person o r
income levels, have to
familiarity with how
fa m ily or hense Is a bad Id e a /" be aware of what’s
housing programs
going on in our
work.
governments. We
J.Z.: Portland is in a
housing crisis. In this
housing crisis, we have
housing projects that seem to trying to address
a lot o f issues. There’s always been the question
o f how m any problems should affordable
housing solve?
C.M .: It’s difficult to think about how
every housing development, every potential
housing program has a clear nuance, but I
feel like in some ways, some of the things
that add costs to developing housing should
clearly be noted, but some things that add
cost, maybe they add cost for a reason,
because there’s just as much of a public
good to gain from it. With some of the
energy efficiency and green building
techniques that are required of affordable
housing, some of those will actually
decrease the long-term maintenance of the
building, so it actually saves money in the
long term.
So, even though the up-front costs may be
more, but the long term maintenance of the
assisted housing development is going to be
a lot better for the developer, which allows
them then to build more housing down the
road. So we always have to think through
the nuances for each cases.
I won’t touch on the union prevailing
wages rule too much. I’m sure as
Oregonians you’ve been keeping track of
what’s happening in California but it’s a very
heated argument right now in California.
have to be paying
attention. We have to
realize that, even
among those of us
who are lucky enough to be middle income
or upper income, should know that they
benefit from low-income people living in
their neighborhoods, on multiple counts.
Culturally, socially, but economically they’re
also providing services in their local
neighborhoods. We all benefit from
everybody doing well.
Those are the decisions that we have to
make. So when things appear as if they’re
nuisances for some communities, like the
NIMBYism that so pervades, or for the
housing development community, the
additional costs for doing business - I can’t
imagine anybody telling me at least to my
face that giving a homeless person or family
or house is a bad idea.
J.Z.: I t ’s understanding that having an
extremely poor population in yo u r community
is a burden upon everybody in that
community.
C.M .: Everybody. It’s a burden on the
nation, because we’re not thinking about
how everybody can be productive. I don’t
like to resort to bottom lines, but if
everybody is productive economically, the
nation benefits.
J.Z.: What are some examples - that local
leaders aren’t even thinking about - to correct
our imbalance in our housing market?
J.Z.: You’re talking about the issue o f not
requiring low-income housing developers to
pay prevailing union wages fo r affordable
housing. (E ditor’s note: Num erous bills are
before the California State Legislature around
requiring - or elim inating - prevailing wages
C.M .: Portland certainly has been on the
vanguard of trying to think innovatively. You
may disagree with that - I say that because
I think most people in the communities
facing extreme housing affordability crises
are still feeling it. The crises hasn’t gone
away, so they don’t think their city or
communities have been that innovative. And
that’s the sad part; we’re still in this crisis
moment. Some of the experiments we’ve
seen, like inclusionary zoning, the creation
of accessory dwelling units, and the opening
up of people to be able to formalize what
may have already been existing under the
desk, like ADUs. Los Angeles’ experiment
to expedite the permitting process. That’s a
regulatory cost that doesn’t benefit anybody,
just making the process so slow and
bureaucratic that affordable housing
developers and even market rate developers
can’t develop. That doesn’t help anybody.
And all the major cities all have mayors
who are promising or trying to figure out
ways to experiment. So right now we’re just
tracking which of these have success.
J.Z.: What is the next great civil
engineering breakthrough that is going to alter
our housing market.
C.M .: I would like to think that the next
big civil engineering breakthrough is not
technological at all, and it’s social. It’s a
better alignment of engineering activity,
everything from research to actual building
and construction to maintenance that is
aligned to the social purpose - if it’s a
public good, if it’s housing a specific
population. I’ve always been of the mindset
that science and technology are neither
positive or negative nor are they neutral.
They always play a role. And if we as a
society determine that a certain activity has
to occur, engineering can be a tool for this.
It shouldn’t be driving it. That’s the weird
thing about the Flint water crisis or the
affordable housing crisis that many cities
are facing, is that it makes the practitioners
aware of the real implications of our work.
And I’ve always thought that as a
professional, my whole life, and I put it in
practice because I’ve worked in federal
government, I’ve worked in advocacy around
housing and research and around housing
quality, and I’d like to think that maybe
something like the EPA resignation
reminded me that the whole purpose why I
do what I do is for my communities.
Engineers and scientists - just like
medical doctors - there’s a certain amount
of authority we should view with them
because of their amount of experience and
exposure. But we’re all citizen engineers
and citizen scientists and citizen medical
people, right? We should all know where our
water comes from. We should all know
where the waste that we produce, where
that ends up going. Engineers certainly have
created the systems by which we are able to
forget and not have to pay attention to it,
but that doesn’t mean that as regular
citizens we shouldn’t be paying attention.
joanne@streetroots. org