subscribe to this page
Malthus Lives in Anti-Immigrant Ads
Professor of Natural Resources and Environment
Environmental Justice; Environmental Policy; Environmental Sociology
Since 1978, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has worked to show urban communities locally and all across the country how to develop more sustainably. With smarts, creativity and innovation, and before the term sustainable development was even widely used, CNT has been demonstrating its unique brand of sustainable development: development that is good for the economy and the environment; makes better use of existing resources and community assets; and improves the health of natural systems and the wealth of people-today and in the future.
CNT's organizational model is part think tank, part incubator. While the organization carries out complex research and analysis, it's the application of that research for the benefit of real neighborhoods and real people, especially those most in need, that really drives the organization to excel. Sometimes this application is about changing markets, and other times public policies. Sometimes it requires changing both.
Over the years, CNT's work, especially in the areas of energy, transportation, materials conservation and housing preservation, has paid off by fueling a generation of community development institutions and learning, garnering CNT a reputation as an economic innovator and leader in the field of creative sustainable development.
Civil Action No. 88-1275
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10895
August 9, 1990, Decided
August 14, 1990, Filed
COUNSEL: [*1]
Deborah Harris, Esq., Irv Acklesberg, Esq., COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ALL DEFTS EXCEPT ROBERT J. THOMPSON, David P. Bruton, Esq., Michael Kubacki, Esq., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
JUDGES: Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: HUYETT
OPINION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this civil action, plaintiffs n1 allege that the means utilized by defendants n2 to allocate federal subsidies received pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1601-13, has a discriminatory impact upon the black community of Philadelphia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. SEPTA has filed a motion for summary judgment, and oral argument was held on October 3, 1989. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the parties wished to discuss an amicable resolution of this dispute. Therefore, I stayed disposition of SEPTA's motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. After several months, the parties advised that negotiations had proved unfruitful and sought disposition of the instant motion. For the reasons stated below, I will now grant SEPTA's motion for summary judgment. [*2]
No. 90-1656
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
935 F.2d 1280; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12485
February 1, 1991, Argued
May 29, 1991, Filed
NOTICE:
[*1]
RULES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; (D.C. Civil No. 88-01275); District Judge: Hon. Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd.
JUDGES: Sloviter, Chief Judge, Nygaard, Circuit Judge, and Barry, District Judge. *
* Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION: Affirmed
By Joe Grengs
No other governmental program comes close to influencing the divided geographic patterns of our metropolitan regions like that of federal transportation. Yet most citizens would be hard-pressed to name who decides how and where transportation dollars are spent. Metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs, are the bodies through which billions of federal dollars are distributed to state and local governments each year in support of transportation projects. Nearly every transportation project you see-new roads, fixed roads, interchanges, bus lines-has federal transportation dollars behind it. MPOs decide which projects get funded and which do not. These projects, in turn, influence where homes, jobs and stores are located. Yet the people who make up these MPOs, and the manner in which they arrive at their decisive choices, are mysterious to all but the most dedicated citizen activists.
The problem with MPOs is that most of them are biased against central cities in their voting structure. By allotting votes on a "one government-one vote" basis instead of a "one person-one vote" basis, MPOs grant outlying suburban jurisdictions considerably more political power in the decision-making process compared with center cities. Scholars and activists contend that this bias exacerbates sprawling urban development and further disadvantages poor households and people of color in the urban core. Whether this bias leads to worsening social equity remains an open question, but on a procedural basis a highly skewed representational scheme within an MPO may be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thus making such a structure unconstitutional.
Should the actions of transportation officials be subject to democratic accountability? Not in the state of Michigan, according to a judge's ruling in August 2004. A civil rights lawsuit alleged that transportation officials in the Detroit metropolitan region choose projects and spend public dollars in a way that favors the largely white and wealthy suburbs and unfairly ignores the needs of the central city and its inner suburbs. At issue was the voting structure of the MPO. The judge found that voting strength of an MPO need not be in proportion to population because an MPO has limited responsibility as a special-purpose government. Unfortunately, as a result of the ruling, Detroit's famously segregated metropolis will continue to develop under the influence of a skewed procedure that builds in a bias toward building roads for suburban commuters over strengthening transit service for inner-city bus riders. But the case does offer important lessons that planners elsewhere can learn from to mount challenges against undemocratic practices in transportation funding.
...