New Jersey’s Landed Gentry Live Here, And At Taxpayer Expense
A New Twist On “How The Other Half Lives”
At the heart of NJ’s “historic” (Gov. Murphy’s term) environmental justice law is a radical concept involving what some might refer to as “Marxist”, “divisive”, and promoting “class warfare” (and some other’s would frame the issue as the 99% versus the 1% – like our friends at Workers Strike Back).
The law is designed to address and remedy disparities and disproportionate public health and environmental impacts between the environmental conditions in poor and minority communities as compared to wealthy white communities.
Here’s how the EJ law expresses that comparison: (emphases mine)
the department shall, after review of the environmental justice impact statement prepared pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection a. of this section and any other relevant information, including testimony and written comments received at the public hearing, deny a permit for a new facility upon a finding that approval of the permit, as proposed, would, together with other environmental or public health stressors affecting the overburdened community, cause or contribute to adverse cumulative environmental or public health stressors in the overburdened community that are higher than those borne by other communities within the State, county, or other geographic unit of analysis as determined by the department pursuant to rule, regulation, or guidance adopted or issued pursuant to section 5 of this act, except that where the department determines that a new facility will serve a compelling public interest in the community where it is to be located, the department may grant a permit that imposes conditions on the construction and operation of the facility to protect public health.
We hereby nominate Harding Township, NJ as the baseline conditions, under the Act’s standard:
“other communities within the State, county, or other geographic unit of analysis”
The Murphy DEP is about to adopt proposed regulations.
The methods and standards in those proposed regulations don’t come close to enforcing the comparative burden established by the EJ law (more on that to come – but here’s the kind of table you won’ see DEP publish. DEP tried that once by comparing air toxics in Paterson versus Chester. DEP suppressed those data and findings). See:
So today, instead of providing additional criticism of both the law and the DEP regulations, we thought we would repost some photos to illustrate “what’s goin’ on”, see:
Over and out (for now).
