WolfeNotes.com

Managed Retreat Must Be The Priority Policy and Planning Focus

“Equity” is Not An Adequate Land Use Planning Policy

I was just Googling around to check out what was happening at Cornell’s Department of City and Regional Planning (where I studied for the Master’s degree in 1983-85), and came across the following recent interesting Cornell study:

• Equitable buyouts? Learning from state, county, and local floodplain management programs

New Jersey’s “Blue Acres” program was one of 5 programs analyzed in the national study.

Climate-exacerbated flooding has renewed interest in home buyouts as a pillar of flood risk reduction and managed retreat from coastal zones and floodplains in the United States. However, floodplain buyout programs, especially the country’s largest one funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have drawn widespread criticism for being overly bureaucratic and socio-economically and racially inequitable (Hino et al. 2017; Howell and Elliott 2018; Mach et al. 2019; Peterson et al. 2020; Elliott et al. 2021). A growing body of research examines how to reform federal policies, what policies to replace them with, and what barriers stymie policy implementation (Kraan et al. 2021; Mach and Siders 2021; Hino and Nance 2021). More research on past and existing buyout programs is needed to support policy learning and coordination (Greer and Brokopp Binder 2017).

In this paper, we examine five dedicated subnational (state, county, and local) buyout programs in New Jersey, Washington State, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina), Harris County (Texas), and Austin (Texas) to understand whether regional buyout programs offer alternative approaches that can inform either future federal policy reform or an expansion of subnational buyout and floodplain management programs.

Right off the bat, the narrow focus on equity and criticism of bureaucracy set off alarms bells.

But the Cornell authors did recognize the need for and benefits of buyouts as a part of “managed retreat”:

Conceptually, buyouts are a triple win: vulnerable residents move out of harm’s way, the government reduces its liabilities, and land can be restored and increase the area’s resilience to future floods. Done well, buyout parcels can generate additional social and ecological benefits, from reducing urban heat islands to creating habitat corridors and public green space.

But, as I’ve written many times, voluntary buyouts are just one small part of a “managed retreat” policy, planning, and management framework. And “equity” is just one dimension of a buyout program.

Clearly, NJ’s scattershot reliance on willing sellers can not address the massive magnitude of a managed retreat program.

In addition to voluntary buyouts, a real “managed retreat” program would require regional planning, including restrictions on rebuilding storm damaged properties, revocation of NJ’s “right to rebuild” storm damaged properties, condemnation of property, regulatory mandates, and resettlement land use planning and financial assistance for displaced residents as we retreat from flood prone coastal and inland river locations.

I had hoped the Cornell study would address these larger issues. And push the envelope into more progressive solutions, honoring the intellectually bold planning approach that I learned there 40 years ago.

Sadly, I was disappointed by the narrow focus on traditional voluntary buyout programs:

In this paper, we focus on FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which accounts for 70% of federally funded buyouts and has bought out over 43,000 properties since its inception in 1989 (Mach et al. 2019).^{Footnote 1} FEMA funding is awarded to state or local governments, who must provide a 25% match, following a presidential disaster declaration (FEMA 2016). The program’s chief goal is to reduce the National Flood Insurance Program’s liabilities for helping insured homes rebuild after repetitive floods.

I was also embarrassed by the “analysis” New Jersey’s “Blue Acres” program, which is not only misleading but riddled with fact errors. Here’s how it was described: (emphasis mine)

New Jersey Blue Acres

New Jersey, the densest state in the country, is also one of the most flood-prone, with heavily developed floodplains near New York City and development along the sandy coastal plain (CDC 2011; U.S. Census Bureau 2021). The combination of increased rainfall and development in the region have contributed to eight federal flood-related disasters in New Jersey since 1962 (FEMA n.d.). Hurricanes and tropical storms are expected to reach New Jersey’s latitude more regularly under climate change, causing heavier rainfall, storm surge, and riverine floods (NJ DEP 2020). In 1961, the state Department of Environmental Protection founded the Green Acres program to acquire and preserve undeveloped land to create a statewide open space network. In 1995, it established Blue Acres as an extension and partner of Green Acres to address flood prone properties. Blue Acres acquires contiguous parcels to maximize ecological benefits and uses voluntary buyouts to return properties to nature and restore them to passive recreational green space.

Established through three bond acts totaling $36 million, Blue Acres was initially entirely state-funded before securing $273 million from FEMA and HUD after Hurricane Sandy in 2012. As of 2020, 6% of New Jersey’s corporate business tax supports the program,which has enabled Blue Acres to do buyouts on a more strategic, longer-term basis (Spidalieri et al. 2020). These funds enable the program to hire a diversified staff of legal, real estate, financial, and policy experts who help homeowners overcome hurdles and relocate faster than through the federal process (Weber and Moore 2019). Blue Acres’ director, Fawn McGee, has led the program since 1995, developing over time a team of “dedicated and passionate staff” who are in “constant communication” with FEMA and New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (FEMA 2021a, b). In total, Blue Acres has secured funding for 1200 properties and demolished 700 properties (ULI 2020), mostly in inland municipalities. It has not adopted explicit social equity goals or social vulnerability metrics.

The people of NJ impacted by Sandy, flooding, and DEP and FEMA might have a very different and critical assessment and description of what went down. Did the authors interview the real people they purport to be concerned about being dealt with equitably?

But this description is not just misleading, incomplete, and factually false. It is a shockingly poor example of academic rigor.

First of all, NJ DEP’s Blue Acres program is not “strategic”. That’s the term DEP uses on the Blue Acres website. It is not reality. There is no strategy and no enforceable land use plan. The DEP Blue Acres program is opportunistic and relies on scattershot individual willing sellers.

[Update: A reader I trust just sent me an email to advise:

Its worse than you think – it was changed under Christie from Neighborhoods – to property by property – so they do not negotiate by blocks even but each house  – it takes 4 times longer that way – also as the state buys out one property- the property next door can get rebuilt. ~~~ end]

The DEP Blue Acres does not “acquires contiguous parcels to maximize ecological benefits”. That’s a slogan, not an achievement in the field.

The “Corporate Business Tax” (CBT) does not provide 6% to Blue Acres, as the study claims:

As of 2020, 6% of New Jersey’s corporate business tax supports the program

The CBT provides 6% to a wide array of DEP and land acquisition programs – just a tiny fraction of the 6% of CBT revenues goes to Blue Acres. It is shocking that an academic paper would not know this. [A reliable reader writes: “Blue acres gets 10% of open space funding or about 7% of CBT funds.”]

In addition to misrepresenting NJ’s Blue Acres program, the study ignored NJ’s statutory “right to rebuild” under the Coastal Area Facilities Act (CAFRA) and Flood Hazard Management Act. That “right’ is a major driver of NJ’s national leading repetitive loss claims.

There is NO MENTION of NJ DEP’s land use planning and regulatory programs, including CAFRA, flood hazard, and stormwater regulations, or the NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan. And this omission is from an ACADEMIC REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM!

The Cornell folks also completely ignored NJ Gov. Christie Christie’s actual post Sandy Rebuild Madness policy, which resulted in BILLIONS of dollars of FEMA and HUD financial aid after Hurricane Sandy driving reconstruction, not buyouts.

And then, after these huge and misleading errors and omissions, the Cornell study goes on to focus primarily on equity and inclusion issues.

I strongly urge readers to read the whole Cornell paper.

But, I also must mention here that the Cornell study not only misrepresented NJ’s Blue Acres and non-existent “managed retreat” programs, it legitimized false premises about “bureaucracy” :

Path forward

President Biden’s Administration has increased disaster funding, reduced their bureaucracy, and prioritized support for disadvantaged groups. Support includes $5 billion for FEMA, doubling the Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities (BRIC) program, requiring 40% of investments to benefit disadvantaged communities, and increasing federal cost share to 90–100% for buildings in socially vulnerable communities under the new Swift Current program (White House 2021; FEMA 2022b). These address many distributive and procedural justice concerns in the literature. However, they do not resolve constraints inhibiting subnational buyout programs from achieving greater equity outcomes, nor do they extend what made subnational programs effective to other geographies. Below, we identify additional ways for federal programs to make buyouts more equitable.

“Bureaucracy” is a very small part of the problem, but a convenient whipping boy and right wing anti-government slogan. It is remarkable that research from an academic planning program echoes that garbage.

Equity is not a land use planning or a policy that can deliver actual “managed retreat”.

Here are some of the headers of the study’s recommendations, which while legitimate, none of which grapple with the primary “managed retreat” policy and planning problems:

• Increase federal funding for institution building at state and county levels
• Create multi-sectoral programs at federal, state, and local levels to enable more integrated problem solving
• Allow local governments to spend federal funds more flexibly, including for pre-disaster mitigation
• Grow a professional cadre trained in inclusive and anti-racist planning and practice

This study is an embarrassment and a far cry from real regional land use planning we will need to adapt to the climate emergency.

I’m really disappointed by the folks at Cornell allowing this to pass for scholarship.

The Legal Stakes Are High 

Murphy DEP Determination Is Based On Flawed Reasoning And Weak Science

“Imminent” – about to happen

“Peril” ~~~serious and immediate danger

I have been perhaps Trenton’s most lengthy, consistent, and aggressive advocate of strong DEP regulatory power. But not in two recent cases of DEP “emergency rules”.

This summer, I strongly opposed DEP Commissioner LaTourette’s plan to adopt DEP flood rules via “emergency rulemaking” because, despite the very real climate emergency, the legal standard of “imminent peril” was not even close to being met and because as a matter of principle I strongly oppose government edicts that trample people’s Constitutional rights, no matter how well intentioned.

The DEP “emergency” power is tyrannical. It provides DEP with sweeping unilateral power to impose regulatory mandates and without any justification or public review and comment. As such, it eliminates Constitutional due process protections and is fundamentally anti-democratic because it eliminates people’s rights to participate in regulations that effect their lives. It should rarely be invoked and only on the strongest scientific and factual grounds that compelling demonstrate a real “imminent peril”.

The ends do not justify the means.

In addition to legal violations and principles, the DEP’s assertion of the existence of an “emergency” was a flat out lie.

Any risks to people from flooding that could have been reduced by the DEP emergency flood rule were created by DEP themselves. DEP delayed flood rules for YEARS, while they continued to issue hundreds of new permits for development in flood hazard areas, putting more people and property at risk. DEP had ample time and opportunity to go through the normal public notice and comment rulemaking process. The DEP may not base an “emergency” on conditions they created. By attempting to invoke “emergency” rules, DEP obscured these flaws and dodged public accountability, while trampling on Constitutional rights.

We have many of the same conditions present in DEP’s emergency declaration to authorize the bear hunt –

You can read DEP’s “emergency rule” that provides the scientific and factual basis for that declaration. Read Gov. Murphy’s Executive Order #310 – which is required by the NJ Administrative Procedure Act -that concurs with DEP’s declaration.

I hope the lawyers for the bear supporters do not get bogged down in the scientific arguments, unreliable data that supports DEP’s determination, and serious flaws in logic in DEP’s emergency declaration and Comprehensive Black Bear Management Plan (more on that in a future post).

I hope they can stay focused on the Constitutional due process issues and the statutory legal basis for declaration of an emergency, which requires DEP to document an “imminent peril”:

Absent “an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare,” the APA requires public notice and an opportunity for comment before the adoption of any rule. See N.J.S.A.52:14B–4. (NJ Supreme Court)

The NJ corporate business community strongly opposed DEP’s plan to adopt emergency flood rules. In a letter to Gov. Murphy, they clearly threatened litigation if DEP were to invoke emergency powers.

If this DEP emergency declaration is allowed to stand, the business community knows that they might be the next target of DEP emergency rules.

For example:  To support an “imminent peril” determination from bears, DEP used: 1) unreliable data (not independently verified, no QA/QC); 2) statistically inferred or interpolated population estimates that deviate from prior methods (due to lack of data); 3) questionable and unpublished science; 4) non-transparent and non-validated models; and 5) non-published and non-peer reviewed Reports and a slew of studies.

The DEP rule didn’t even provide the underlying data, population models, and citations to or links to supporting science.

In terms of the reliability of the DEP “bear incident data”, could you imagine if you and your neighbors could just call a DEP hotline and complain about air pollution and DEP would then declare an “imminent peril” and ratchet down on air quality standards and permit regulations based on your phone calls?

All of this is anathema to good science and regulatory policy.

All these flaws have long been alleged and used by the business community to attack DEP regulations, science, and risk assessments.

DEP then relied very heavily on projected fertility rates, projected huge growth in the bear population (27% over 2 years!), and projected future human-bear conflicts as the basis for an “imminent permit” finding.

By definition, a condition that is projected to occur in the future, can not possibly be “imminent”.

Logically, DEP assumed that bear population was the primary if not sole driver of human – bear conflicts. They ignored a lot of published science that demonstrates that access to human food (garbage, bird feeders, pet food, baiting, feeding, etc) significantly impacts bear – human interactions – spatially and numerically – and conflicts. DEP also repeated prior false claims about compliance with bear safe garbage storage in bear country.

The DEP logic would be like a transportation safety expert, in 1960, projecting huge increases in the number of cars, expansion of roads, and increase in vehicle miles travelled to then base a projection of increases in highway fatalities, without considering the impacts of seat belts, which tremendously reduced fatalities!

If this DEP declaration becomes the legal standard for the data, science, projections, and models to support “emergency” rules, then DEP can get away with virtually anything.

Let me suggest a hypothetic example:

1. There is good data on current adverse health effects of air pollution: heart attacks, strokes, respiratory distress (asthma, hospital emergency room visits, etc), particularly in urban areas.

2. There is good science on the relationships between air pollution levels and temperature, particularly during hot summer bad air days (ozone and fine particulates).

3. There is solid science and models that project significant increases in the number of extreme heat days, due to climate change.

4. Based on #1 – #3, suppose DEP projected an increase in adverse health effects associated with climate change, warmer days, and higher air pollution levels, and then used that projection (along with current data) to declare an “imminent peril” to public health and adopt emergency rules that required that major source of air pollution shut down operations during summer months or extreme heat days?

Can you see where this is going?

I could provide numerous examples.

Environmentalists also must beware because the DEP “emergency power” can also be used to roll back regulations.

We already saw that in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, when the Christie DEP declared an emergency to roll back DEP solid waste transport and disposal requirements, CAFRA, and other DEP infrastructure permit requirements.

DEP could also roll back air and water pollution regulations in an “economic emergency” (public welfare is included in the definition of “imminent peril”). We’re already seeing that in Europe, as the energy situation resulting from termination of Russian gas is forcing dirty old coal power back on line.

This DEP rule must not be allowed to become the standard for science and law. Period.

More of the details on DEP’s science and data flaws in a future post.

Preserved Green Acres Lands Targeted In DEP “Hot Topics” Proposal

[IMPORTANT Update Below]

Just days after Governor Murphy spurred public outrage over his betrayal of his “commitment” to stop the bear hunt, the Murphy DEP just grabbed the third rail of NJ’s Green Acres conservation legacy with both hands!

The Murphy DEP just floated an outline of plans to privatize, commercialize, develop, and even expand logging of State lands, including Green Acres.

Repeat: DEP is actually considering plans to destroy Green Acres lands.

This outrageous move by DEP – which is certain to prompt another round of public outrage when the public finds out about it – comes after horrible plans to log Pinelands forests and expand logging on Sparta Mountain.

The DEP proposal is so absurd on its face that I actually initially thought it was a hoax.

It goes far beyond and is worse than the Christie administration’s horrible “privatization” and revenue generation plans for State lands, most visibly displayed in the huge battle over Liberty State Park.

Has DEP lost their minds? How is it possible that something like this could be issued by DEP as a serious proposal? Is anything sacred?

Are there no issues that are off the table? Is everything up fo grabs?

The DEP Green Acres revisions were distributed in a “Dear Partner” letter to the conservation community seeking “Stakeholder” meetings on Green Acres program revisions.

The November 17, 2022 DEP letter attached a “Hot Topics” proposal for revising the hugely popular Green Acres land preservation program and regulations.

Notably absent from DEP’s issues for Stakeholder discussion were common sense science based necessary new initiatives, like afforestation (expanding forests), increasing urban forestry, addressing the climate emergency, addressing environmental justice, and collecting market based revenues from existing leases and concessions on public lands.

For today, just to get the word out and let the public know what’s going on, here are just some of the more outrageous proposals in that DEP “Hot Topics” trial balloon – we will discuss the individual proposals in future posts.

The DEP puts the objective right up front – and it is very clear it is about “allowing” uses of public lands:

What considerations should govern whether, and in what circumstances, NJDEP should allow the following types of uses on parkland:

Here is what DEP wrote(emphases mine):

What considerations should govern whether, and in what circumstances, NJDEP should allow the following types of uses on parkland:

• Restaurants/Food Service Vendors
• Limit to certain types of venues such as marinas and golf courses?

When are these uses amenities as opposed to operation of commercial businesses on parkland?

• Event Space (particularly for weddings, but also indoor event spaces)
• Overnight parking
• Flood control facilities
• Green infrastructure
• Leasing of Parkland

How can NJDEP improve its oversight of the leasing of parkland, while protecting the public interest and natural resources?

Are changes needed to NJDEP oversight of farm leases on parkland?

• CSAs (community supported agriculture)
• Greenhouses

How can NJDEP better articulate the criteria for use of historic buildings on parkland?

Bond counsel review requirements for leases of bond-funded parkland by commercial entities

Hunting-–Although hunting is not required on Green Acres encumbered parkland, where it is allowed, how can OTPLA ensure that hunting privileges are administered fairly?

Small Scale Solar Projects on Parkland—Should NJDEP allow small scale solar projects on parkland to support the State’s clean energy goals and provide revenue for park maintenance?

Forestry

What constitutes “forestry” on parkland?

Should forest stewardship plans be required when forestry management is undertaken on parkland (as opposed to woodland management plans or other types of plans)?

How to address tree removal by utilities?

Tree compensation requirements for disposals, diversions and temporary use of parkland

How can NJDEP Improve the Diversion/Disposal Application Process?

DEP is sure to have created a hornets nest of controversy with this trial balloon.

I’m predicting that these “Stakeholder discussions” will be nixed as a result.

If the “conservation community” can’t reject this DEP trial balloon out of hand and instead engages in the DEP “Stakeholder” process, they are worse than lame.

[Update: We suspected that lame NJ conservation groups would participate and play the inside DEP Stakeholder game. As suspected, we just were made aware of that fact.

Check out Julia Somers, Highlands Coalition, email distributing the DEP invitation to local groups who DEP had shut out.

Julia clearly was aware of this DEP initiative and she failed to raise a red flag and warn her own member groups, never mind alerting the press and warning the public about these threats to Green Acres lands. Yet this clueless idiot is “surprised” to learn the people were pissed off. Look how she points the finger at DEP’s failure to “publicize the LAST of these meetings” (which means Julia was aware of PRIOR meetings!

Julia was distributing this DEP email invitation:

So, now the lame conservation community will sit around the table negotiating the fate of public Green Acres lands, with absolutely no public awareness or participation!

Who the hell do these people think they are? They don’t own the public lands!

We know how that always turns out. After months of meetings, they will mount a campaign AFTER THE PUBLIC FINDS OUT AND AFTER DEAL IS DONE.

Despicable.

Remarks Almost A Caricature Of Ineffective Activism

But hey, he’s got some great posters!

NJ Spotlight reporter David Cruz’s show “Chat Box” featured a very interesting conversation with “environmental and social justice activist Marcus Sibley and Jeff Tittel, former director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, [who] talk about climate change and the environment in the state.”(listen, segment starts at time 13:35).

At the outset, I must note that Mr. Sibley was not properly identified – he works for the Northeast Office of the National Wildlife Federation as Director of Conservation Partnerships. His boss is my old friend Curtis Fisher, formerly head of NJ PIRG and an environmental policy advisor to Gov. McGreevey.

To give you just 2 quick examples of how far my friend Curtis has fallen from his current well feathered roost up in Maine at the NWF from when I worked with him in NJ: [also see End Note]

1) Curtis ran a campaign opposing the Whitman administration’s deregulation of energy. He toured the State and held protest events with a flatbed truck with a 30 foot tall screw under banners “You’re Screwed!” Where have those bold activist tactics gone?

2) Curtis served as inside champion and diplomat for my work at DEP and Jeff Tittel’s at Sierra Club to convince Gov. McGreevey to back the Highlands Act. It wouldn’t have happened without him. Where has the focus on strong legislative standards gone?

Now, at NWF, Curtis’ NJ partner is Exxon Mobil backed NJ Audubon. Yikes! How the mighty have fallen.

I also note that I was previously Policy Director or NJ Chapter of Sierra Club and worked with Jeff Tittel for more than 6 years and maintain a friendship with him.

There is no better conversation to illustrate what’s wrong with the current situation, particularly the approach of what passes for today’s environmental activists and the destructive role of identity politics (as I’ve written many times, what professor Nancy Fraser calls “Progressive Neoliberalism”).

The conversation began with a Cruz question to Tittel as to whether NJ has made any progress since Sandy.

Tittel accurately and bluntly described the situation:

No. In fact I think we’ve gone backwards because we’ve allowed all this development to happen down the shore in some of the most vulnerable areas when it comes to sea level rise and storm surge. … We built back a lot of hat was destroyed by Sandy in the same location, … so we’re really becoming more vulnerable.

Mr. Sibley was then asked for his views. He contradicted Tittel’s devastating critique with this:

I think, I think we’re doing a good job. There’s always more work that can be done. We’ve definitely acknowledged what’s been causing these storms

What. The. Fuck? Strike 1.

Sibley was then asked to identify the biggest collective success and failure coming out of Sandy. He replied:

I’ll start with the biggest failure. We really don’t understand how we have to meet this moment. We are in a climate crisis. … The biggest success is that we see what’s been happening in a  lot of low and moderate income black and brown communities. The flooding that happened under Sandy has been happening in black and brown communities all along.

What? Where do you begin to deconstruct that?

Happening all along? Sandy was a 1,000 year storm that killed 38 people in NJ. It caused $37 billion in damage.  That scale of destruction clearly has not “happened all along” in poor black and brown communities. There was no racial component to Sandy’ storm surge and flood elevations. It is true that poor, black and brown people frequently live in the most hazardous locations and least desirable real estate, but the magnitude of Sandy literally swamped those discriminatory land use practices (pun intended). The EJ land use issues are clear, they don’t need to be exaggerated by false Sandy claims.

We “don’t understand”? There is no lack of scientific, technical, legal, and financial understanding on how to “meet this moment”, both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to renewable energy, and mitigate some of the worst impacts (excluding extreme heat, which is an existential threat to human survival).

The current Murphy DEP Commissioner also likes to blame the public and claim there is a lack of public awareness. Former Corporate lawyers and bureaucrats always point the finger – diverts from their failures.

Tittel  provides an opposite take on that same question:

The success is public awareness of climate change and flooding. The failure is that we haven’t stemmed the tide or come anywhere close … we’ve just barely begun to scratch the surface. Even though we have a lot of public support we have to get the political will to make climate change one of the top issues facing the voters and holding politicians accountable to make sure they actually do things and not just give lip service. 

But, it gets even worse. Much worse.

Cruz then tries to stop the bleeding and bail Sibley out with a softball question about neglect of urban areas.

Sibley’s reply was pretty good in describing disproportionate environmental and health impacts in poor, black and brown communities. I completely agree with him, but he lacked any specifics or any linkages to what DEP is doing in permit programs and failure to implement the seriously flawed EJ law.

[Before readers assume my criticisms stem from a clueless, racist, old white man privileged perspective, check out how I write and talk about these urban EJ issues, and have done so for a long time, certainly long before the major Foundations began grant funding and the National Wildlife Federation did, e.g.

• Justice (2008)
• Corzine asked to prevent schools from being built atop pollution

• DEP Discovers Discrimination – Dumps Environmental Justice Issue in Christie’s Lap
• Father of Environmental Justice Movement Speaks at Drew
• Gov. Christie Looks To Johns Hopkins Gentrification of Baltimore as Model For Camden
• Camden NJ and the Democratic Convention
• Governor Christie Worsens NJ’s Childhood Lead Scandal
• Newark Garbage Incinerator Emissions: “A Billion Lead Bullets to the Brains of Newark’s Kids”
• NJ’s Landed Gentry – Open Space Has Become A Tool For The New Restrictive Covenants
• NJ Business Lobbyist Blasted For Using “Red-Lining” To Attack Environmental Justice Legislation
• Time To Shut Down NJ’s Highly Polluting And Racist Garbage Incinerators
• Worst Place in Jersey – Toxic Torture Tour

Take a look at all these toxic emission sources – and this is not counting the Port, which creates regional impacts. All that toxic pollution isn’t just blowing over to Staten Island! Inmates and staff of Essex County jail are being “air boarded” every day! (We’ve heard about episodes of waterboarding at Guantanamo and torture at Abu Ghraib, but not about daily “toxic air boarding” at Essex County Prison.)

Cruz then asks Sibley why politicians are not responding and here’s where Sibley starts to go off the rails, and badly.

Sibley correctly notes that the core issue is political power. I agree.

But Sibley blames the victims for their lack of power! And he ignores the corporate criminals and their government puppets!

And he blames social justice activists who seek “more attention” and focus on things like police violence at the expense of “investing” in climate.

Sibley neglects to mention real problems. According to Sibley (by what he says and doesn’t say), the problem is not powerful corporation, billionaires, captured government, a rigged system, and corrupt politicians. The problem is not Gov. Murphy and the DEP and the NJ legislature. The problem is not a depleted lapdog stenographic corporate owned media who fail to cover the stories and hold the powerful accountable. The problem is not totally ineffective but well funded co-opted cheerleading environmental groups. The problem is not fake activists who play inside games and give politicians passes and political cover. The problem is not because the activists have abandoned traditional activism in favor of DEP “Stakeholder” meetings, press events with the Governor, and social media and identity politics. No, it’s none of that.

No, the problem is those poor black and brown people who don’t vote hard enough for politicians who provide no more than “lip service”. It’s those activist who seek “more attention” and are “not invested” in climate and EJ issues.

Sibley provided this deeply troubling assessment:

Politicians are not talking about it because they don’t feel this group has enough political power. It all comes down to power. So this is why we encourage all communities to get out and vote and not only vote to hold people accountable. … We have the numbers to make change, but a lot of people aren’t really invested in this particular topic because other topics give more attention. So, like police brutality is a police issue. That will get more attention than pollution, but pollution, air pollution specifically, is killing more black people than anything. This is one of those issues where we have to make sure we’re focused on social justice and policy brutality and criminal justice issue. But we also have to get engaged in what’s happening with our climate because that’s just as important.

Sibley then gets the political manipulation by politicians correct, but in doing so he went on to even more pointedly blame the victims and other social justice activists, while ignoring and giving a pass to those who hold real economic and political power:

Because we aren’t focusing our attention on it [climate] like we should, politicians think that they can just come around, 3 or 4 weeks before an election, hug a couple of people, shake a couple of hands, and that counts as their engagement with the community. So the community has to do more to show that they are viable.

You mean hug a few people and shake some hands like Gov. Murphy and DEP Commissioner LaTourette repeatedly do with members of NJ Environmental groups and EJ activists? Strike 2.

Cruz then asks Tittel if the environmentalists need a “Super PAC”, which of course Tittel dismisses as he lays out what kind of activism works (a backhanded criticism of current environmental groups who back Gov. Murphy and DEP):

We got things done because we showed up. … We need to go to the streets, we need to go to the barricades, we need to protest, we need to lobby.

We got a lot of important things done in this state because we stood up to the politicians and we made the environment an issue. We didn’t just sit and go to meetings where they get a chance to tap dance around us. We actually grabbed power by being politically active…. We have to not only get to the streets we have to mobilize … like we were doing before COVID with some of the student groups around the country that were demonstrating.

Now here’s where Sibley’s total collapse comes.

After Tittel just explained what works, what does not work (e.g, insider games and meetings) and the absolute imperative to hold government officials and politicians accountable, Sibley said this in response to Cruz’s question on “the environmental record of the Murphy Administration”:

I would say that the Murphy administration is doing a really good job.

A heckofajob! (Sibley here sounds more like the man Cornel West called the “black mascot of Wall Street” than his poster heroes Baldwin and Malcolm!)

After the Murphy administration diverted millions of renewable energy funds, has seriously harmed NJ’s solar industry  – leading the industry to fear “collapse” – and just days after the Murphy BPU punted on financing off shore wind transmission and PSE&G publicly threatened to terminate their investment in off shore wind, amazingly, Sibley then said this:

There’s been absolute investments in off shore wind and and other renewable energy sources. So we’re excited about that.

Sibley, despite Tittel’s direct criticism, then exposed the harm from playing inside games and elevating identity politics above policy:

I’m fortunate to be on a couple of coalitions that work directly with the Governor’s Office to make sure we putting the input and that equity is at the forefront of everything that we’re doing. So, in that regard, the Governor’s Office has been absolutely open to feedback and criticism at times as well. But also, we need to continue to push because incongruent decisions are made. So, on one end, we’re pushing toward renewables but in the next sentence we will make a reinvestment in a fossil fuel project….

I truly believe that we can continue to make these investments and work together, we could help the planet and help the people that have been exploited.

Strike 3, you’re out, Mr. Sibley (but nice tie, handkerchief, and posters!)

[I wonder if Mr. Sibley and his coalitions were invited to the Gov.’s decision briefing meetings on his $1 billion PSE&G nuclear bailout (increasing at $300 million/year), or the amendments gutting of the EJ bill, or expansion of the NJ Turnpike, or permits for LNG export, or denial of Empower NJ’s petition for rulemaking to impose a moratorium on new fossil infrastructure, or the many flaws in the BPU Energy Master Plan, or the DEP’s massive Clean Water Act water quality standards “variance” loophole, or DEP’s Pinelands logging plan, et al]

Tittel then further embarrasses Sibley and sets the record straight on the Murphy administration’s record:

I think the Murphy administration has been a lot of talk and no action. Every major Christie rollback, from costal rule to dealing with flooding, are still in place … 5 years after he became governor and 4 years after he promised to get rid of those rules and replace them with stronger rules. We’re still working under the same rubric of Gov. Christie rollbacks, giving out [DEP] permits in places we shouldn’t build. (more)

Off shore wind is good, but there’re no guarantee that any of that off shore wind is going to replace any on shore fossil power plants. At the same time thee Governor talks about off shore wind, [DEP] is permitting fossil projects throughout the state. … So there’s been a lot of talk …. but we have to see deliverables. It’s 10 years after Sandy and we have yet to see one rule proposed and adopted that actually deals with climate change across the board. We have to reform our coastal programs that are still pro-development and don’t look at flooding from climate change. And it’s across the board. And unfortunately I think that the Governor likes to play to the audience, but there have to be deliverables and the deliverables are not there yet and time is running out for us and for the planet.

Ouch!

And the NJ Spotlight producers/editors obviously get it, because Tittel’s remarks were made against video showing environmental cheerleaders embracing the Gov. during his toothless Executive Order signings!

[End Note: If you’ve gotten this far, you must be a wonk, so 2 more points that can take Curtis off the false pedestal I created and more accurately portray Curtis Fisher and shed more light on his compromises:

1. Curtis was involved in all the political deals that paved the way for passage of the Highlands Act, including a score of amendments that significantly weakened the introduced version of the bill I was involved in drafting, S1, including something like 17 exemptions!

2. During the Whitman administration, before Tittel arrived at Sierra, I was Acting Director. Whitman DEP supported and the legislature passed a really bad “Grace Period” bill that would have gutted DEP enforcement. Here’s Whitman confirming what that bill was all about in her US Senate Confirmation testimony as Bush EPA Administrator in a typical Whitman highly misleading response to a Question by notorious climate denier Senator Inhoffe:

Rather than giving them a letter or a notice of violation immediately with the fine attached, we go to them saying, these are the problems. This is what is happening. How are you going to clean it up? What can we do to work with you to clean it up? We give them a grace period in which they can resolve the problem, without resorting immediately to the threat of fines and sanctions.

But here’s the accurate description of Whitman in the New York Times of December, 26, 2000 (``Two Grades, One Record,” pps. 1 & 26.):

. . . she cut its budget (NJDEP) by 30 percent and laid off hundreds of workers. She ordered that State regulations be no more stringent than Federal rules. And she cut inspections, eliminated penalties and introduced grace periods for violators, to the point that collections of environmental fines plunged 80 percent. Adopting the motto “Open for Business,” Governor Whitman eliminated the environmental prosecutors Mr. Florio had introduced, and replaced a public advocate’s office, which had at times sued the State on behalf of environmental groups, with a business ombudsman’s office to guide businesses through the permitting process. And she sought to move away from punitive measures toward voluntary compliance. (P.26)

After the Grace Period bill passed, I took the lead and wrote the environmental community’s letter to Whitman requesting that she veto the bill.  The letter flagged 7 fatal flaws. We got a meeting with Whitman’s Chief of Staff Eileen McGuiness. Curtis was there and at the time, he was a Trenton leader, while I was a relative newbie in ENGO circles, after a decade at DEP.

She went around the room, seeking a compromise, and asked for each group to priorities 1 or 2 issues that the Gov. might include in a Conditional Veto (CV). When it was my turn, I insisted on all 7 issues in the letter. McGuiness got red faced angry. She said we were not going to get everything we wanted and that the meeting was over if I insisted on all 7. I remained at the meeting.

About a half hour later, at the end of the meeting, McGuiness again surveyed the group seeking 2 or 3 priority issues. Again, when she got to me, I insisted on 7.

In the Statehouse hallway after the meeting, Curtis angrily chewed me out for violating negotiating basics, and said I harmed his and everyone’s credibility.

But I knew I was right, I knew the bill was very bad, and I was not going to comprise and cut any dirty deal.

And Whitman did issue a CV and it included every single one of my 7 demands!

The legislature concurred and the bill was enacted into law and it still sucks, but it could have been much, much worse, especially if people had followed Curtis’ compromised political instincts.

Here’s Curtis leading his pack of cheerleaders at Gov. Murphy’s second inaugural in some corporate venue in the NJ Meadowlands. It’s kind of the opposite of that classic scene where Emerson tries to bail Thoreau out of jail for not paying his taxes. Emerson says, Henry, what are you doing in there? Thoreau replies: Ralph, what are you doing out there? Curtis and friends: what the hell are you doing in there?

Tales Gone Down The Memory Hole

A (True) Homage To Sandy

Since the NJ media is doing Sandy nostalgia and revanchism and all the important climate science, land use planning, DEP regulation, and public policy issues are either being ignored or shoved down Orwell’s Memory Hole, we thought we’d reprise “Sandy’s Greatest Hits” (TM) (not the crap you’re reading in NJ media):.

We begin with a post I wrote as Sandy was making landfall to remind people that we’ve been here before:

• A Dirge To McHarg and Mumford – Who Are Rolling Over in Their Graves: “Ignorance is compounded with anarchy and greed to make the raddled face of the Jersey shore.”

(Update: wow, I just realized that 3 days BEFORE Sandy made landfall, I wrote this:

• “Frankenstorm” Another Example of Global Warming Extreme Weather –  
• NJ’s Longstanding High Vulnerability to Major Storms Ignored  
• Climate Change Adaptation Planing Neglected – Shore Poorly Prepared

From there, we wrote about NJ DEP lack of preparation despite decades of warnings, lack of land use planning and lax regulations that compounded the disaster, lack of legislative oversight, and Gov. Christie’ “Rebuild Madness”:

• The Deafness Before the Storm

• Memo to Gov. Christie: Sea Walls and Engineering Don’t Work

I posed the essential – and existential – question (and exposed Gov. Christie’s “Rebuild Madness”):

• “Strategic Adjustment” – Or Rebuild Madness?

But Christie was not alone in ignoring scientific warnings and making the problems worse:

• Catastrophic Failures and Catastrophic Fools

We suggested humorous ways out:

• If Gov. Christie Had A Sense of Humor, Humility, or History

We held Gov. Christie accountable when the NJ media was promoting and making Christie a hero:

• Christie Killed Corzine Shore Protection Initiatives

And, when few people were talking about the climate science of extreme weather, in another policy debate still alive and relevant, we exposed the King with no clothes:

• Gov. Christie’s Post Sandy Hazard Mitigation Plan Pays Lip Service To Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

There was absolutely no media coverage of this taboo – despite the introduction and movement of Legislation in Trenton:

• Proposed Legislation Would Restrict “Right- to-Rebuild” Storm Damaged Property Along the Coast

Ah, it hurt when we outed that Achilles heel of the Rebuild Madness resilience crowd:

• Back Bay Flooding – In The Face of Climate Change – Highlights Imperative of Strategic Retreat

We were the primary source in a killer national story by Huffington Post: (followed by a TV discussion)

• Jersey Shore Development Failures Exposed By Hurricane Sandy

“[Christie has] done the exact opposite of what’s needed to be done,” said Bill Wolfe, a former Department of Environmental Protection planner and policy analyst who now leads the watchdog group New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “He has been affirmatively promoting regulatory relief and taking away any development, land use planning and infrastructure expertise at the department.”

And we were an expert source in an award winning documentary – (interview by NY Times journals Mark Bittman)

• Years Of Living Dangerously – Episode 5

Still crazy, after all these years – and Still Lurching From Drought To Flood. Happy Halloween!