The Ethics of Land Use Decisions

Political conflicts frequently emerge over decisions about where to locate  facilities known as “LULUs” or “locally undesirable land uses” (Stoecker, 2010).  LULUs – such as interstates, water treatment plants, trash incinerators, and energy plants -- are facilities that appear necessary to the common good and yet locally undesirable because they concentrate harm (i.e., displacement or pollution) within their host community. Because LULUs are disproportionately placed within neighborhoods populated with low-income racial minorities (Bryant, 1995; Mohai & Bryant, 1992), their placement contributes to health disparities and environmental injustice (Berkman, 2004).  They are thus an important concern for social work intervention to improve the human environment (Hoff & Rogge, 1996; Kemp, 2011).  

 This paper begins by defining the term LULU and then situates conflicts over their placement within growth regime theory (Logan, Whaley, & Crowder, 1997; Molotch, 1976). It goes on to address:

 (1)                   What macro political and economic forces incentivize the disproportionate placement of LULUs in low-income communities of color – and what are the ethical implications of this trend?

 (2)                   How do residents respond to land use decisions and how do concepts of “what is ethical” or “what is just” influence these decisions?

 The paper concludes by posing ethical concerns inherent in the placement of LULUs in marginalized neighborhoods, suggesting policy alternatives of interest to social workers and their clients.

 Method:

 To answer these questions, I draw from original data collected through a three-year (2011 – 2014) political ethnographic study within a low-income, highly industrialized Southwest Detroit community that was identified to host a LULU – a new border crossing and interstate. In addition immersing within the neighborhood, I draw from in-depth interviews (n=77) with residents, pro-development advocates, and elected officials as well as printed media and official reports such as market studies and the project’s environmental impact statement utilizing inductive and deductive coding.

Results:  

             Consistent with growth regime theory, I identify a pro-growth regime that identified the host community for the new border crossing based upon a set of factors that included affordability and predicted political acquiescence.  This decision exacerbated environmental harm – as predicted in the project’s environmental impact statement. 

 Further, because of the community’s high unemployment rate and public divestment, the new development offered unmatched hope for residents to benefit economically.  Thus, residents cautiously supported the new development, despite understanding that it would bring about diesel emissions, truck traffic, noise, and congestion that would culminate in health problems and displacement.

 Conclusions and Implications: 

 The paper demonstrates how the economics of poverty – combined with an absence of protective policies – incentivize the placement of LULUs in poor areas.  However, it also it identifies specific points in the policy-making process in which social workers can intervene to offer alternative developments in places like Southwest Detroit, to mitigate harm associated with LULUs, and, ultimately, to prevent environmental injustice.

 I conclude by arguing that local conflicts over land use decisions offer an important and under-examined site for Social Workers to actualize their commitments to social justice, health equity, and self-determination.