THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING THE PARADOX OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION
A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of ^ the requirements for the Degree
- a o \ \ Master of Arts C* o G In •TU Geography
by
Erika Nicole Poveda
San Francisco, California
December 2017 Copyright by Erika Nicole Poveda 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
I certify that I have read The East Bay Greenway: Exploring the Paradox of
Environmental Gentrification by Erika Nicole Poveda, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Geography at San Francisco State
University. THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING THE PARADOX OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION
Erika Nicole Poveda San Francisco, California 2017
The San Francisco Bay Area has a close and contentious relationship with gentrification, displacement, and environmental justice. Little research to date has explored how these three factors interact with one another through the process of environmental gentrification. Through a case study of the proposed East Bay Greenway development project in Alameda County, California this research examines if environmental gentrification is being considered by urban planners, city officials, and community residents during the early planning stages of the greenway. Rather than measuring gentrification after development, this study is uniquely situated to offer an analysis before greening efforts take place in disadvantaged urban communities within the San Francisco Bay Area. Through providing a valuable snapshot of an area prior to the completion of a countywide sustainable development project, the research offers a more complete understanding of the complex relationship between environmental gentrification, environmental justice, and sustainable development than has thus far been done. Data for this study was gathered from planning documents, an online questionnaire and semi structured interviews with stakeholders. Insights from this case study can benefit community residents, activists, and urban planners.
bstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. Ii / Chair, Thesis Committee Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisers, Tendai Chitewere and Jennifer Blecha, for your time, encouragement, and guidance. I would also like to thank my husband, Carlos Poveda, and my mother, Connie Lindstrom, for the constant support throughout the thesis process. Thank you to the Academic Technology team at San Francisco State University for graciously providing meeting space. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the participants. I would like to thank each individual for sharing his/her valuable experience, knowledge, and beliefs with me. Each individual added an immense amount of insight to this study.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables...... viii
List of Figures...... ix
List of Appendices...... x
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW...... 3
2.1 Gentrification...... 4
2.2 Environmental Justice...... 7
2.3 Environmental Gentrification...... 13
2.3a Drivers of Environmental Gentrification...... 14
2.3b Outcomes of Environmental Gentrification...... 14
2.3c Contesting Environmental Gentrification...... 16
3.0 CASE STUDY...... 19
3.1 East Bay Greenway...... 19
3.2 Study Area Geography & Demographics...... 27
4.0 RESEARCH METHODS...... 31
4.1 Archival Data...... 31
4.1 a Census Data...... 31
4.1b Planning Documents...... 32 4.2 Online Questionnaire...... 32
4.2a Questionnaire Procedure...... 33
4.2b Questionnaire Design...... 35
4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews...... 38
4.3a Interview Procedure...... 38
4.3b Interview Design...... 39
5.0 DATA ANALYSIS...... 40
5.1 Quantitative Data...... 40
5.2 Qualitative Data...... 41
6.0 FINDINGS...... 43
6.1 Community Context...... 43
6.2 Equity...... 44
6.3 Community Concerns...... 49
6.4 Community Impacts...... 53
6.5 Gentrification...... 55
6.6 Public Engagement & Responsibility to the Community...... 60
7.0 LIMITATIONS...... 63
8.0 CONCLUSION...... 64
References...... 67
Appendix...... 76
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of Questionnaire Participant & Study Area Demographics 34
2. Breakdown of Interview Participants...... 39
3. Sample Qualtrics Analysis Table...... 41
4. Community Concerns (Community Questionnaire)...... 51
5. Housing Tenure & Gentrification Concerns...... 52
6. Community Impacts (Semi-Structured Interviews)...... 53
7. Community Impacts (Community Questionnaire)...... 55
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Devalorization Cycle...... 6
2. The High Line in New York City, NY...... 11
3. Ohlone Greenway...... 21
4. Existing Conditions at Hayward BART Station...... 22
5. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station...... 24
6. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station...... 25
7. Map of Alameda County...... 27
8. Map of the East Bay Greenway...... 28
9. Study Area Population by Race...... 29
10. Distribution of Households in Study Area...... 30
11. Lack of Green Space Near Hayward BART Station...... 45
12. Litter at Coliseum BART Station...... 47
13. Community Concerns (Interview Participants)...... 50
ix LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. Community Online Questionnaire...... 76
2. Interview Guides...... 84
3. Interview Quotes...... 87
x 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A word search for “environmental justice” on the American Planning
Association’s webpage generates over 104,000 results for planning initiatives, articles, webinars, and events that connect environmental justice concepts to housing, transportation planning, parks and recreation, and planning for health equity (“American Planning
Association,” n.d.). Throughout the nation, many urban planners have started to promote urban sustainable development projects such as green infrastructure, open space acquisition, and alternative transportation in an attempt to address environmental injustices in underserved communities. Despite the notable efforts of urban planners and environmental justice activists, some equity-focused sustainable development projects have had ironic outcomes by displacing the residents who could benefit the most.
The process by which improvements to the environmental quality or environmental amenities in a neighborhood spur gentrification and often the displacement of low-income and minority residents, is termed “environmental gentrification,” which is an evolving area of study in urban planning literature (Checker, 2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Hamilton
& Curran, 2013; Quastel, 2009). While similar terms such as “ecological gentrification”
(Dooling, 2009) and “green gentrification” (Gould & Lewis, 2012; Ngom et al., 2016) have also been used throughout the literature, for the purpose of continuity, environmental gentrification will be the term used throughout this work. Given that the populations displaced by environmental gentrification are oftentimes the intended recipients of development projects, environmental gentrification can result in a complex paradox in 2
which underserved communities must decide between cleaning up or clearing out
(Checker, 2011; Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014).
To date, the research on environmental gentrification is limited in two respects.
First, most of the literature on environmental gentrification has examined the economic and social outcomes in low-income communities and communities of color various environmental improvements take place, while little research offers an analysis before sustainable development projects occur. Second, environmental gentrification has not been studied extensively in the San Francisco Bay Area, which has a close and contentious relationship with gentrification and displacement, largely due to the tech boom and related housing crisis. Furthermore, scholars have offered few viable solutions to contest the process of environmental gentrification (see Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Hamilton &
Curran, 2013).
However, much more progress can be made in understanding how to prevent displacement from environmental gentrification. I argue that the case study of the proposed
East Bay Green way development project in Alameda County, California addresses these gaps in the current research by examining if the paradox of environmental gentrification is being considered by urban planners, city officials, and community residents during the early planning stages of the greenway. The primary objective of this research is to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the environmental justice concerns o f the communities surrounding the East Bay Greenway? (2) How does the East Bay Greenway address the environmental justice concerns o f the affected communities? and (3) Have the 3
agencies involved in the greenway considered potential gentrification in the planning o f this project? If so, what are they doing to prevent environmental gentrification from occurring? Findings indicate that the majority of project stakeholders have neither considered nor planned for environmental gentrification resulting from the greenway development. Considering that the San Francisco Bay Area is often seen as both environmentally and socially progressive, this lack of attention to environmental gentrification could signal that this oversight is widespread.
In the sections that follow, I will first review key concepts and relevant literature.
The research methodology and data analysis is then outlined in detail, followed by a discussion of the key findings. Finally, I provide recommendations for planners, policy makers, and community members who might seek to prevent the unintended consequence of displacement that is often brought on by sustainable development projects.
2.0 BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to analyze the East Bay Greenway’s potential impact, I draw on concepts from literature on gentrification, environmental justice, and environmental gentrification.
Here I provide a brief background of these concepts, followed by a discussion of the scholarly literature on the drivers, outcomes, and methods of contesting environmental gentrification. 4
2.1 Gentrification
Neil Smith (1982) defines gentrification as "the process by which working class residential neighborhoods are rehabilitated by middle class homebuyers, landlords and professional developers" (p. 139). Gradually since the 1970s, many major cities throughout the United States have experienced a “back to the city movement” in which individuals relocate from suburban communities back to urban areas (Hamnett, 1991; Smith, 1979).
Some scholars (Berry, 1980; Florida, 2003) have attributed this trend to cultural changes guiding the consumption patterns of young, middle-class professionals. Beginning in the
1960s and 1970s and continuing throughout today, young professionals have shifted from embracing the single-family suburban lifestyle of post-World War II towards a more urban lifestyle, characterized by denser and more diverse neighborhoods with access to amenities such as neighborhood walkability and access to public transit (Florida, 2003).
However, Smith (1979, 1982) argues that the phenomenon of gentrification cannot be entirely justified by shifting consumer preferences given that it is highly unlikely for individual preferences to change in unison on a national or even international scale. The gentrifier (e.g. the young professional) as consumer is only one of the many actors involved in the process of gentrification, which is also consumed and produced by builders, developers, mortgage lenders, government agencies, landlords, and other entities. While examining consumption patterns is helpful in determining the makeup and character of areas following gentrification, Smith maintains that gentrification is part of a larger process of uneven development, which is driven by capitalist modes of production. 5
“Uneven development” refers to the notion that development on any scale is temporally and spatially diverse, with some geographical locations benefiting at the expense of others (Smith, 1982). Although uneven development can occur across all scales,
Smith applies uneven development theory to the urban scale as a framework to better understand the macroeconomic factors behind gentrification. Smith (1979, 1982) draws on historical trends of investment, development, and land values to support the argument that gentrification is a predictable outcome guided by larger capitalist modes of production.
Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, industrial and residential capital gradually shifted from urban areas to the suburbs due to a higher potential of economic returns. The migration of capital resulted in a lower tax base for the inner city, physical neglect, and disinvestment, all of which resulted in a dramatic depreciation in urban land values. The land value “valley” of US inner cities further deepened and widened as suburbanization peaked from the 1940s through the 1960s (Smith, 1979).
Smith (1982) also applies the economic principles of the “devalorization cycle” and the “rent gap” in order to explain how the drastic depreciation of land values in the inner city ultimately provided the foundation for gentrification to take place. According to the devalorization cycle (Figure 1), when capital is invested into the built environment, the land becomes restricted to a specific use (e.g. single-family residential, commercial, etc.), which creates a barrier to redevelopment of the area for a different type of land use. If additional capital is not periodically re-invested through maintenance or improvements to the area, the original investment into the land will gradually depreciate over time. This is 6
often accompanied by the physical decline of the area, which results in the decline of the actual ground rent (i.e. the market value) of the property. Once the difference between the actual and potential ground rent (i.e. the potential value under the land’s “highest and best use”) of the area becomes too great, redevelopment becomes the most feasible option to increase the market value of the area (Smith, 1982). According to the devalorization cycle, the initial shift of capital to the suburbs clearly laid the foundation for the future gentrification of the inner cities.
Redevelopment Physical Decline
\ / Ground Rent Decreases
Figure 1. Devalorization Cycle
While Smith (1979, 1982) argues that gentrification is a predictable outcome of capitalism, concerns often arise once the social aspects of gentrification are considered, such as the in-migration of middle-class residents, an increase in property values and rent costs, and the displacement of low-income and minority residents. 7
2.2 Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Bullard & Johnson, 2000, p. 558). The environmental justice movement emerged in response to low-income communities and communities of color being disproportionately exposed to environmental and health hazards in relation to more affluent and white communities (Bullard, 1996). The movement can be traced back to the 1982 protests in
Warren County, North Carolina, which helped unite the environmental movement with the civil rights movement as white, black, and Native American residents came together to fight against a PCB-contaminated landfill in a community that was already overburdened with hazardous environmental facilities (Chitewere, 2010; Sister, Wolch, & Wilson, 2010).
The Warren County protests prompted numerous studies including the o f
Hazardous Waste Landfills and Their Correlation with Racial and Economic Status o f
Surrounding Communities, published in 1983 by the United States General Accounting
Office. The report revealed that although minority populations made up only 20% of southern states included in the study, they “hosted” 75% of the hazardous commercial landfills (Bullard & Johnson, 2000). The environmental justice movement gained further momentum when the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice produced a watershed report in 1987 titled, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States.
The report was the first national study to correlate the siting of waste facilities with 8
socioeconomic variables, with race being the strongest variable in predicting where hazardous facilities are located (Bullard & Johnson, 2000; Chitewere, 2010; United Church of Christ, 1987).
While the environmental justice movement goes beyond race-based inequalities by also attempting to combat income, gender, cultural, and geographic disparities, some scholars have criticized the movement for deemphasizing environmental discrimination fueled by racism (Bullard, 1996; Chitewere, 2010). The concept of environmental racism refers to “any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages
(whether indented or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color” (Bullard, 1996, p. 497). Environmental racism played a prominent role in the environmental justice movement and the Warren County protests by drawing attention to structural racism and race-based environmental discrimination (Chitewere, 2010).
Laura Pulido (2000) for one, highlights the ways in which structural racism has historically shaped the urban landscape through the processes of suburbanization, zoning, and redlining. Together, these processes have created landscapes with disproportionate concentrations of environmental hazards in minority and/or low-income neighborhoods while allowing white residents to avoid such concerns and secure a higher quality of life by relocating away from industrial zones. By introducing the concept of white privilege, which refers to “the privileges and benefits that accrue to white people by virtue of their whiteness” (Pulido, 2000, p. 13), Pulido challenges the way in which environmental justice literature has narrowly defined the concept of racism. 9
Although the internal debate between environmental racism and environmental justice remains, the related research has evolved from having a limited focus on the
presence of environmental “bads” or “disamenities” (e.g. hazardous waste facilities) to also
analyzing the lack of environmental “goods” or “amenities” (e.g. park space) throughout
disadvantaged communities. One concentration of current research is the relationship
between public health and urban green spaces such as parks, trails, and community gardens
(Cutts, Darby, Boone, & Brewis, 2009; Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006;
Sister, Wolch, & Wilson, 2010; Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014).
Several national quantitative studies have concluded that the distribution of
environmental resources and their related public health impacts favor affluent, white
communities (Gordon-Larsen et al., 2006; Joassart-Marcelli, 2010; Sister, Wolch, &
Wilson, 2010; Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach, 2005). However, for disadvantaged
communities, the disproportionate health burden is often twofold, with the presence of
environmental “bads” and the absence of “goods.” Communities located near
environmental “bads” have been shown to have higher rates of respiratory illnesses
including asthma, while the lack of environmental “goods” like is correlated with higher
levels of obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease (Corbum, 2005; Gordon-Larsen et
al., 2006; Taylor, Floyd, Whitt-Glover, & Brooks, 2007). In response to studies such as
these, many urban planners, city officials, and activists have started to promote equity-
focused sustainable development as a blanket solution to addressing environmental justice
concerns primarily through the acquisition of green space and urban brownfield 10
remediation (Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014). However, some scholars argue that there is a fundamental divide between mainstream sustainable development and environmental justice principles (Agyeman, 2008; Checker, 2011; Chitewere, 2010; Dooling, 2009;
Pearsall & Pierce, 2010).
The Report o f the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future, defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The report also states that an important aspect of sustainable development is
“extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations for a better life” (Bruntland,
1987). While equity is implicit in the given definition of sustainable development, recent environmental justice literature highlights the disconnect between the two concepts. In what he terms “equity-deficient environmentalism,” Agyeman (2008) suggests that the literature on sustainability has had relatively little to say about social or environmental justice. Furthermore, Pearsall and Pierce’s (2010) nationwide analysis of over one hundred local sustainability plans indicates that environmental justice agendas have often been overlooked by sustainable development discourses.
The relationship between equity and sustainability can be further illustrated by the
High Line development project in New York City, New York. Once an abandoned elevated train line, the High Line (Figure 2) was transformed in 2009 into an iconic linear park that incorporates various sustainable design elements such as the adaptive reuse of the existing railroad structure, an emphasis on drought-tolerant vegetation, and integrating mixed land- 11
uses (Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014). Today, the project is considered a renowned example of sustainable development and is upheld as an example for similar development projects, including the Bloomingdale Trail in Chicago, IL (American Planning
Association, 2013; Friends of the High Line, n.d.).
Figure 2. The High Line in New York City, NY. (Source: Jeffrey Tsumura) 12
While the High Line is praised for increasing public access to urban green space, the “sustainable solution” is also correlated with an increase in surrounding property values by 103 percent between 2003 and 2011, despite an economic recession (Wolch, Byrne, &
Newell, 2014). Furthermore, the High Line was commended by former New York City
Mayor, Michael Bloomberg and the lead designers, James Comer Field Operations, for initiating new economic development in the area. With more than thirty projects planned or under construction in close proximity to the new landmark, the High Line proved to be
“a powerful catalyst for investment” (James Comer Field Operations, n.d.; Pogrebin,
2009). From the viewpoint of property owners, developers, and city officials concerned with economic development, this is a notable achievement. However, as sustainable development becomes tied to economic development, little room remains for concerns of equity in terms of who is helped and who is harmed by such improvements.
The model of “just sustainability” is suggested by Agyeman (2008) as a middle- ground between environmental justice and sustainability, which he maintains are at odds with one another. Agyeman argues that a truly sustainable society can only be accomplished once environmental quality and human equity are considered with equal importance. Just sustainability is defined by Agyeman (2008) as, “the need to ensure a better quality of life for all, now and into the future, in a just and equitable manner, whilst living within the limits of supporting ecosystems” (p. 753), thus bringing equity to the forefront of sustainability discourses. Interestingly, despite claims of just sustainability creating a bridge between sustainability and environmental justice, there is little attention 13
paid to how this new paradigm will be successful in avoiding or mitigating environmental gentrification or displacement following sustainable development.
2.3 Environmental Gentrification
The term “environmental gentrification” was first acknowledged by Joseph P.
Tomain in 1991; however, it was not directly addressed again in published literature until over a decade later by Sieg, Smith, Banzhaf, and Walsh (2004). Throughout the literature, environmental gentrification has been associated with traditional forms of gentrification, with the main distinction being that environmental gentrification is predicated on an environmental agenda such as sustainable development and environmental justice activism
(Checker, 2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Dooling, 2009; Hamilton & Curran, 2013;
Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014). Environmental gentrification uses a political ecology framework to critically examine the structural forces behind the inequitable distribution of environmental amenities and disamenities. Quantitative and qualitative scholars alike have contributed to the discussion of this emerging phenomenon by researching the drivers
(Checker, 2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014), the outcomes
(Banzhaf & Walsh, 2004; Dooling, 2009; Quastel, 2009; Sieg et al., 2004; Tomain, 1991) and methods of contesting environmental gentrification (Curran & Hamilton, 2012;
Hamilton & Curran, 2013). 14
2.3a Drivers of Environmental Gentrification
The concept of environmental gentrification is situated at the intersection of environmental justice activism, sustainable development efforts, and the process of gentrification (Checker, 2011). While some scholars have attributed environmental gentrification to profit-driven sustainable development projects, this study specifically examines the ways in which environmental gentrification can also emerge from equity- focused development efforts and policies that aim to address environmental injustices in underserved communities (Checker, 2011; Sieg et al., 2004; Tomain, 1991; Wolch, Bryne,
& Newell, 2014).
Though the intentions behind development projects that aim to address environmental injustices may differ from profit-driven sustainable development efforts, the outcome is the often same. In both cases, improvements to the environmental quality or amenities in a community can naturalize the exclusion and displacement of vulnerable communities as improved areas become targets for new development projects that are usually intended for more affluent residents (Curran & Hamilton, 2012).
2.3b Outcomes of Environmental Gentrification
Much of the scholarly work on environmental gentrification has analyzed the outcomes following environmental improvements, with many scholars agreeing that environmental enhancements have a significant economic impact on the surrounding locations through increased property values and rent costs (Banzhaf & Walsh, 2004; 15
Garrod & Willis, 1992; Irwin, 2002; Leggett & Bockstael, 2000; Sieg, et al., 2004). Sieg
et al. (2004) and Tomain (1991) utilize quantitative cost-benefit analyses in order to
critically examine the social and economic costs related to environmental policies and
programs. Despite the fact that the two studies were conducted in different contexts and
analyzed at different scales, Sieg et al. (2004) and Tomain (1991) both found that the
outcomes of such environmental improvements are not distributed equally nor equitably,
with affluent, white communities often reaping the benefits, while lower-income and
minority populations shoulder the costs.
Quantitative scholars have also explored the social impacts of the uneven
distribution of environmental costs and benefits through research on environmentally-
driven migration, which refers to the geographic adjustment (e.g. relocation or
displacement) of households in response to changes in environmental quality or amenities
(Banzhaf & Walsh, 2004). Due to higher levels of economic flexibility, affluent households have been found to relocate to neighborhoods with improved environmental quality of
amenities (Banzhaf & Walsh, 2004; Sieg et al, 2004). The in-migration of affluent residents
often results in environmental gentrification as property values and rent costs rise in
response to the increased desirability of the area (Checker, 2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012;
Hamilton & Curran, 2013; Sieg et al., 2004; Tomain, 1991).
While quantitative studies provide empirical evidence of the phenomenon of
environmental gentrification and environmentally-driven migration, they can risk reducing
the lived experience of environmental justice, gentrification, and displacement into 16
statistical equations and models. Qualitative scholars have expanded on the quantitative evidence of environmentally-driven migration by critically exploring displacement as an outcome of environmental gentrification. Several studies have revealed that the exclusion of vulnerable populations including the homeless, low-income residents, and communities of color, has become somewhat naturalized as environmental gentrification and displacement are considered to be inevitable outcomes of sustainable development and equity-focused development efforts (American Planning Association, 2013; Checker,
2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Dooling, 2009; Hamilton & Curran, 2013). Given the risk of gentrification and displacement, vulnerable communities are confronted with the
“paradox of environmental gentrification” in which residents must choose between improving green amenities at the risk of being displaced, or rejecting new development in an attempt to continue residing in a neighborhood that may be livable, but is far from equitable (Checker, 2011; Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014).
2.3c Contesting Environmental Gentrification
Scholars have developed a limited number of approaches to challenge the paradox of environmental gentrification: development that is “just green enough” (Curran &
Hamilton, 2012; Wolch, Bryne, & Newell, 2014) and “gentrifier-enhanced environmental activism” (Hamilton & Curran, 2013). The strategy of “just green enough” was proposed by Curran and Hamilton (2012) following their case study of the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY. The strategy implies that development efforts can be just green enough 17
to improve the quality of life for existing residents, but should resist the urge to support new sustainable development that attracts middle-class gentrifiers. Throughout their case study, Curran and Hamilton also explore the need for additional analysis of who defines the concept of “green.”
In other words, is sustainability a prescribed formula for development in which all buildings are LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified, all new developments are high-density and transit-oriented, and all roadways are redesigned to be complete streets? Or is the concept open to interpretation and able to be applied in various ways based on community context? Curran and Hamilton argue that unlike the blanket solution of sustainable development, the context-specific strategy of “just green enough” is shaped by community concerns or needs and often applies bottom-up strategies that are focused on small-scale, evenly distributed amenities in order to avoid the creation of a central focus for development and gentrification (Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014).
Somewhat related to “just green enough” is the strategy of “gentrifier-enhanced environmental activism,” which Hamilton and Curran (2013) also explore in their research on the Greenpoint neighborhood. Gentrifier-enhanced environmental activism refers to the capability of long-term residents and middle-class gentrifiers to forge coalitions with one another in neighborhoods that are not yet fully gentrified. While it may seem contradictory to actively involve gentrifiers as environmental justice activists and opponents of further gentrification, Hamilton and Curran (2013) explain that middle-class gentrifiers generally possess certain skills and socioeconomic status that may bring necessary media and 18
political attention to the environmental justice movement in a community. However, equally important to the success of gentrifier-enhanced environmental activism is the idea that long-term residents should act as the primary voices for the community. When the balance between potential gentrifiers and long-term residents is achieved, as it was in
Greenpoint, the results can be twofold; not only does the community reap the benefits from environmental improvements, but the assumed inevitability of environmental gentrification is also challenged during the process.
While Curran and Hamilton have made valuable contributions to the literature on environmental gentrification, the strategies proposed are somewhat problematic. The success of the gentrifier-enhanced environmental activism strategy is partially reliant on the role of gentrifiers and runs the risk of communities not being able to find a balance between both subsets of residents. Furthermore, the strategy of “just green enough” implies that the communities most vulnerable to gentrification and displacement should only receive “just enough” rather than be granted the same level of environmental resources as more affluent communities. As a result, this strategy may perpetuate existing environmental justice concerns in some cases by not allocating resources equitably among communities.
Given the remaining questions and concerns surrounding the proposed solutions, it is important for further research to not only deepen the understanding of the paradox of environmental gentrification, but also to explore other potential strategies that challenge the presumed outcome of gentrification and displacement. As indicated by the strategies 19
discussed above, future research should be done at the community level as solutions to environmental gentrification are extremely context specific and rely on the involvement of community residents and activists.
3.0 CASE STUDY
3.1 East Bay Greenway
The East Bay Greenway is a proposed bicycle and pedestrian pathway that will run under approximately sixteen miles of elevated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tracks from the Lake Merritt BART Station in Oakland to the South Hayward BART Station (Alameda
County Transportation Commission, 2016). The concept of the greenway was initially proposed in 2008 by Urban Ecology, a San Francisco-based non-profit community planning organization. Urban Ecology was praised by environmental justice scholar Julian
Agyeman as operating within the “just sustainability” paradigm, which applies an environmental justice framework to sustainable development (Agyeman, 2008).
Urban Ecology’s 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan specifically highlights the need to address environmental equity issues in the surrounding communities, namely the lack of access to urban green space relative to more affluent and white communities in the
East Bay. For example, the concept plan looks at the existing Ohlone Greenway (Figure 3) in Berkeley, Albany, and El Cerrito as a model for the proposed East Bay Greenway. While the BART tracks further north provide the infrastructure for the Ohlone Greenway, which promotes neighborhood connectivity and provides an alternative means of transportation, 20
the same elevated BART tracks in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward (Figure 4) are neglected, unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians, and create a physical disconnect between communities (Urban Ecology, DKS Associates, & Human Impact Partners, 2008). Urban
Ecology specifically addresses this disparity within the concept plan, stating:
“Although the cities, conditions, and resources of the two areas are very
different, we believe the communities and residents along the East Bay
Greenway corridor deserve access to the same types of paths and public
spaces as the citizens of Berkeley, Albany, and El Cerrito” (Urban Ecology,
DKS Associates, & Human Impact Partners, 2008, p. 3). 21
Figure 3. Ohlone Greenway (Source: weekendsherpa.com) 22
Figure 4. Existing Conditions at Hayward BART Station
Initial funding for the preparation of the East Bay Greenway Conceptual Plan was provided by the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Endowment, and the
Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund (Urban Ecology, DKS Associates, & Human Impact
Partners, 2008). While the goal of the California Coastal Conservancy is to promote ecological health and to improve access to urban open space (Coastal Conservancy, 2006), the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund and the California Endowment both strongly advocate for equality, with the California Endowment focusing specifically on the issue of 23
health equality. The East Bay Greenway Health Impact Analysis was prepared by Human
Impact Partners as an element of the East Bay Greenway Concept Plan and was funded by the California Endowment in order to evaluate the greenway’s impact on physical, mental, and social well-being in the surrounding communities. Together, the primary funders of the concept plan supported Urban Ecology’s vision of a greenway that would address environmental injustices, promote health equality, and provide recreational and community amenities.
However, in 2012, leadership of the East Bay Greenway was taken over by the
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) following the dissolution of
Urban Ecology (URS Corporation, 2012). The mission of the Alameda CTC is “to plan, fund and deliver transportation programs and projects that expand access and improve mobility to foster a vibrant and livable Alameda County” (Alameda County Transportation
Commission, 2012). Under the Alameda CTC, the first half-mile section of the greenway
(Figures 5 and 6), which runs from the Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART station to 85th
Street, was opened to the public in November 2015 (Alameda County Transportation
Commission, 2015). 24
Figure 5. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station 25
Figure 6. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station
The remaining segments from Lake Merritt BART to South Hayward BART are currently in the environmental analysis phase, which is required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The remaining environmental studies are fully funded by the Active Transportation
Program Grant through Caltrans, and Alameda County Measures B and BB. Both funding sources share Alameda CTC’s goal of increasing and improving alternative transportation services throughout the county. Given that the majority of the East Bay Greenway is in the 26
early planning stages with construction estimated to begin in 2018, the total project cost is still undetermined, with estimates ranging from $30 million to $110 million (Alameda
County Transportation Commission, 2016).
It is important to note that the portion of the East Bay Greenway that was constructed by Alameda CTC was not what was envisioned by Urban Ecology. As the
Alameda CTC adopted the role of the lead agency and the funding sources changed, the greenway notably shifted from an equity-focused development project to a project that solely promotes active-transportation, such as walking and biking. Given that the publicly- funded East Bay Greenway project is no longer directly focused on addressing the equity issues of the communities, it is crucial for adequate community outreach to take place.
Otherwise, the project runs the risk of not frilly considering the needs or concerns of the surrounding communities.
Although Urban Ecology is no longer formally involved in the development of the greenway, Alameda CTC is currently working with other local stakeholder agencies including BART, the East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda County, and the cities of
Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward in order to coordinate project design and implementation (Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2012). It is crucial to point out that in related planning documents, neither Urban Ecology nor Alameda CTC, directly acknowledge the potential of environmental gentrification following the completion of the
East Bay Greenway. 27
3.2 Study Area Geography and Demographics
Alameda County is part of the San Francisco Bay Area in California. It is bounded by Contra Costa County to the northeast, Santa Clara County to the south, and San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties across the bay to the west (Figure 7). Alameda County is 821 square miles with approximately 1.6 million residents throughout twenty incorporated and unincorporated cities (County of Alameda, 2017).
0 Cerrito Walnut Creek Discovery Bay
Mt Diablo 0 olden G'am National '.(.'creation Diablo [/Area , \ Oakland San Francisco
>an Leandro H Daly City Livermore Hayward Pleasanton
Sunol Mendenhall Springs San Mateo Fremont Batr island |Djon^Bcfwards San Francisco m Ha,f Moon Bay Milpitas
Figure 7. Map of Alameda County (Source: Google Maps) 28
The study area for this project was set at a quarter-mile radius surrounding the proposed East Bay Greenway pathway (Figure 8), which will run through the cities of
Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and the unincorporated cities of Ashland and Cherryland in Alameda County. The study area radius is informed by transit planners and scholars who have found a quarter-mile to be the upper threshold of walking distance to public transit
(O’Neil, Ramsey, & Chu, 1992; Zhao, Chow, Li, Ubaka, & Gan, 2003).
ke Merritt BART 5 Miles _J I
m m m m East Bay Greenway Fruitvaie BART City of Oakland BART # BART Stations Coliseum/Oakiand international Airport BART UPRR Rail Lines Coast Subdivision
— *— Niles Subdivision
— — Oakland Subdivision San Leandro BART
Bayfair BART Richmond City of Ashland
Walnut Creek San Leandro O -.M,n I Hayward BART
Hayward
Fremont City of Hayward South Hayward BART *
Figure 8. Map of the East Bay Greenway (Source: Alameda County Transportation
Commission, 2016) 29
The study area is predominantly made up of a mix of industrial and residential land uses, with limited open space available to residents. The estimated population of the study area is 223,300, of which 29% is of Hispanic or Latino descent, 27% of European descent,
16% of Asian descent, and 12% of African descent (Figure 9) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).
White 2 7 %
Hispanic or 2 9 %
Black 12%
Other 10%
Native American 1% Pacific Islander Asian 1% 16%
Figure 9. Study Area Population by Race (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015) 30
Approximately 75,750 households are located within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed greenway pathway (Figure 10), with renters making up 63% of households and home owners as 37% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). According to the American Community
Survey (2015), the median household income for the study area was $48,727, while the median household income for Alameda County was $82,249.
M ftrrltt
FRl'ITVALE BART
\ I anted a TChafcw*!A 1
. vjp*wrfc COLISEUM RART
Chuck V Lmtm , Cortc A X c Chabol Got# Go# toraphf'K \ yivi-Gpurah SAN LEANDRO BART San | ■Lean iln>\
LAY FAIR BART Ashland
t an vi San I o i e n z o Households
5 9 8 -1 2 0 8
1209 - 1667
SOUTH HAYWARD 1668 -2 2 0 5 BART
2206 - 2924 Svutaes Esn. HERE. DeLcirn*. fnterrrwc-. iroreAent P CwpJGEBCO. USGS. FAO, KPS. HHCAH. SeoEsse v tGN, Kadsster ML. Ordrsrce Survey Esn Japan MET). Esri C $ ra {Hon# Koofi). swBStopo. Waprrytr-os, ® Tins map was created vising the Natural Breaks classification m cthod ,, fr-* OpanSto— tMap opntrifcptcre sr'c th* OtSUsar Ccmlnunity
Figure 10. Distribution of Households in Study Area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015) 31
4.0 RESEARCH METHODS
The objective of this research is to critically explore the concept of environmental gentrification in the context of a proposed regional green infrastructure development project. In line with related qualitative studies on environmental gentrification (Checker,
2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Dooling, 2009; Hamilton & Curran, 2013), this study utilizes a mixed-method case study methodology in order to develop theoretical and applicable knowledge of a complex phenomenon. According to John Gerring (2004), a case study is an “intensive study of a single unit wherever the aim is to shed light on a question pertaining to a broader class of units” (p. 344). Data for this case study was collected through census data, planning documents, an online questionnaire, and semi structured interviews.
4.1 Archival Data
4.1a Census Data
In its initial concept plan for the greenway, Urban Ecology, used 2000 Census data to demonstrate the public health, safety, and environmental justice concerns of the surrounding communities and to highlight the need for the greenway. For more recent demographics, I analyzed 2010 Census and 2015 American Community Survey data on the distribution of households, race, household income, educational attainment, and housing tenure (e.g. rental or ownership) at the census tract level. I specifically focused on these demographic variables as they were informed by environmental justice literature, with race 32
being the most telling variable of environmental disparities, followed by income. ArcGIS software was used to isolate census data for the study area, which provided valuable context of the communities that will be impacted by the proposed East Bay Greenway.
4.1b Planning Documents
Planning documents related to the East Bay Greenway provided background on the proposed development project and insight about how stakeholder agencies understand the potential of environmental gentrification following the completion of the project. Specific planning documents included the 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan and the 2012 East
Bay Greenway Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. City
Council meeting minutes, citywide and countywide bicycle master plans and general plans from stakeholder agencies were also incorporated into this study. Additionally, insight into community participation and opinions on the development project was gained from the
Community Comments Summary from the 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan.
4.2 Online Questionnaire
Questionnaires are useful tools for providing primary data about the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of a population (McLafferty, 2003). Additionally, given that the greenway will span approximately sixteen linear miles upon completion, online questionnaires allowed me to gain insight into a study area that is geographically dispersed. 33
4.2a Questionnaire Procedure
The online questionnaire was open through Qualtrics Survey Software from
February 21, 2017 to May 21, 2017. My research sample for the questionnaire was comprised of adult (18 years or older) community residents living within the study area of a quarter-mile radius along the path of the proposed greenway. Purposive sampling was employed in order to recruit eligible community residents through posting research flyers throughout the study area. The research flyers briefly outlined the intent of the study and eligibility requirements for participation as well as a direct webpage link to the questionnaire and my contact information. Due to the considerable size of the study area, research flyers were concentrated within a square mile of the seven BART stations that will be connected by the East Bay Greenway (Lake Merritt, Fruitvale, Coliseum, Bay Fair,
San Leandro, Hayward, and South Hayward). In order to recruit a large number of diverse community participants, research flyers were strategically posted at areas of engagement such as bus stations, libraries, churches, laundromats, cafes, and community centers.
Additionally, a description of the study and a link to the questionnaire was circulated on
Facebook in order to increase the sample population of community residents.
A total of sixteen individuals participated in the online questionnaire. While this number is not statistically significant, the questionnaire provided valuable insight as to how the opinions of the community resident sample population compared to the agencies planning the greenway. It is essential to note that with any qualitative data, the questionnaire results were not generalized to portray the opinions and beliefs of all 34
community residents throughout the study area (Table 1). In fact, while questionnaire participants and residents in the study area shared relatively similar housing tenure characteristics, due to recruitment methods, there were large differences in the racial composition and educational attainment between both groups, with the community questionnaire sample group being largely made up of highly educated, white residents.
Questionnaire Participant Study Area Demographics Demographics
Home Owner 36% 37% Home Renter 57% 63% Other 7% (live with family) N/A Asian 6% 16% Black 0% 12% Hispanic or Latino 11% 29% Native American 6% 1% Pacific Islander 0% 1% White 61% 27% Other 17% 10% Two or More Races N/A 4% Education- B.A. or Higher 71% 22% Table 1. Comparison ol Questionnaire Participant & Study Area Demographics 35
4.2b Questionnaire Design
The community questionnaire was designed to expand on a 2007 community survey facilitated by Urban Ecology, which informed the 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan.
While the 2007 survey provided valuable data for the 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept
Plan and was a useful community engagement tool, it did not consider the potential outcomes of the greenway development. In order to address this limitation, the Qualtrics questionnaire designed for this study was largely informed by environmental gentrification literature and asked eligible participants to reflect on potential neighborhood impacts, both positive and negative, following the completion of the East Bay Greenway.
The questionnaire was organized into four distinct themes: public transit usage patterns, community concerns, knowledge and opinions of the East Bay Greenway, and participant demographic information. The first theme of the online questionnaire focused on public transportation usage along the BART line in order to expand on the 2007 Urban
Ecology community survey, which specifically asked residents which BART stations they primarily used as well as the mode of transportation used to get to a BART station.
Furthermore, it was crucial to incorporate public transportation and BART usage questions within the community questionnaire given that stakeholder agencies advertised the East
Bay Greenway as an alternative means of transportation along the BART line (Urban
Ecology, DKS Associates, & Human Impact Partners, 2008). 36
The second section of the online questionnaire was designed to assess community concerns in the study area. According to the 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan, the primary motivation behind the East Bay Greenway was to address the disproportionate access to quality green spaces for communities along the East Bay BART tracks (Urban
Ecology, DKS Associates, & Human Impact Partners, 2008). Participants were asked to gauge their level of concern for disproportionate access to open space in the context of other community concerns in order to determine if the East Bay Greenway meets the needs of local residents. Likert Scale questions were used to measure the level of concern participants had for air quality, equal access to recreational and public outdoor space, gentrification and displacement, neighborhood safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and public health. Participants were able to indicate their level of concern for each topic using a three-point range from “very concerned” to “not concerned.” In order to reduce the bias of satisfying behavior in which participants “act in ways that yield satisfactory outcomes”
(Hay, 2005, p. 387) such as selecting “very concerned” for every option, participants were further asked to rank the issues of housing affordability, job availability, outdoor recreation space, public health, and safety by order of personal importance.
Open-ended questions such as “What qualities do you like about your neighborhood?” and “What concerns do you have about your neighborhood?” were also asked in order to gain more in-depth information and give voice to questionnaire participants. Questions on community concerns served two purposes for this study. First, the questions were informed by Curran and Hamilton’s (2012) “just green enough” strategy 37
for avoiding environmental gentrification, which stresses the importance of incorporating community needs and concerns into development projects. Secondly, they provided primary data related to the research questions.
The questionnaire also focused on participants’ knowledge and opinions of the East
Bay Greenway, specifically asking about the participants’ level of familiarity with the proposed development, how he/she heard of the project, how the greenway will change the neighborhood, and if he/she agrees with the statement that the greenway will address social and environmental inequities throughout the study area. For example, participants were allowed to choose from the following options in answering the question of “How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change your neighborhood?”:
□ It will add recreation opportunities and public open space
□ It will make the neighborhood safer
□ It will make the neighborhood more attractive
□ It will increase surrounding property values and rent costs
□ It will not change anything
□ Other______
The 2008 East Bay Greenway Concept Plan provided the framework for the majority of the impact statements listed above. However, in order to assess the potential risk of environmental gentrification, participants were also asked if the development of the greenway would increase surrounding property values and rent costs. 38
Lastly, participants were asked to provide demographic information including age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, and housing tenure. Demographic data allowed me to evaluate if the participants were an accurate representation of the study area. The final question of the questionnaire gave the participants the opportunity to take part in an optional follow-up semi-structured interview that would build off of the community questionnaire.
4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews
Hay (2005) explains that interviews provide valuable primary data in order to understand diverse opinions and beliefs, fill gaps in knowledge, and to explore complex ideas. This study specifically utilized semi-structured interviews, which allowed for flexibility during conversations with participants. Semi-structured interviews with the research sample proved to be helpful in not only answering the primary research objectives, but also in attaining in-depth primary data from a diverse set of participants.
4.3a Interview Procedure
Former staff members from Urban Ecology and current staff members from the
Alameda CTC were asked to participate in the study. Community residents and project partners identified by the Alameda CTC including BART, the East Bay Regional Park
District, and staff and city council members from the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, and
Hayward were also asked to participate. Interview participants were recruited using 39
purposive and snowball sampling through an introductory email, which briefly described the purpose of the study and what to expect if participating in the study. A total of fourteen in-person interviews were conducted with eligible stakeholder agency representatives and community residents (Table 2). The interviews ranged from fifteen-minutes to over one- hour. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Interview Participant Category Percentage (n=14)
City/Agency Staff 36%
City Council Members 43%
Community Residents 14%
Non-Profit Staff 7%
Table 2. Breakdown of Interview Participants
4.3b Interview Design
Interview guides were designed to answer the research objectives of identifying the environmental justice issues in the affected communities, understanding how the East Bay
Greenway addresses or fails to address these concerns, and analyzing if the stakeholder agencies have considered gentrification as an unintended consequence of the greenway.
Three separate interview guides were developed; one for stakeholder agency staff members, one for city council members, and one for community residents. All interview guides contained questions about community context and concerns, potential neighborhood 40
impacts of the greenway, and the possibility of gentrification following the development of the greenway. Participants were also asked to identify any equity issues in the study area and to discuss public engagement during the planning process of the greenway. The interview questions that held the highest level of importance for answering the research objectives were:
What do you believe are the equity issues facing local residents? If any?
How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change the neighborhood?
Some scholars have studied how improving environmental amenities and environmental quality within an area can spur gentrification as the area becomes more attractive. Do you think gentrification might be one outcome o f the greenway?
Similar to the online questionnaire, questions in the interview guides were designed to build on existing planning documents from stakeholder agencies while incorporating environmental justice and environmental gentrification frameworks.
5.0 DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 Quantitative Data
Quantitative data for this study consisted of closed-answer questions in the online questionnaire, which required participants to choose between pre-selected options.
Qualtrics software was used to analyze quantitative questionnaire responses by generating statistics, graphs, and tables, such as the one shown below (Table 3) to analyze the associated question or instruction. 41
Please rank the issues below by order of importance 1 = Most Important, 5 = Least Important Question Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Housing Affordability 35.71% 7.69% 28.57% 7.69% 16.67% Job Availability 0.00% 46.15% 14.29% 23.08% 8.33%
Outdoor Recreation 14.29% 23.08% 28.57% 15.38% 16.67% Space Public Health 7.14% 23.08% 14.29% 30.77% 33.33% Safety 42.86% 0.00% 14.29% 23.08% 25.00% Table 3. Sample Qualtrics Analysis Table (n=16)
5.2 Qualitative Data
Coding is a common method of analysis used for qualitative data, and was employed for this study to analyze participant responses to interview questions and open- ended questionnaire questions. Meghan Cope defines coding as, “a process of identifying and organizing themes in qualitative data” (Hay, 2005, p. 281) with the goal of building theory. Coding qualitative material such as interview transcripts, allows for data reduction, data organization, and data analysis by filtering out key concepts, beliefs, and themes presented within the data.
The coding process for this study involved a close review of interview transcripts and answers to open-ended questionnaire responses for an initial set of “descriptive” codes, which were often in the form of key words, phrases, patterns or common themes among participant responses. Codes were developed using environmental justice and environmental gentrification frameworks and were also informed by greenway planning 42
documents. Community participation, sustainable development, increased neighborhood desirability, and gentrification were among the initial set of descriptive codes consistent with environmental gentrification literature, while the concepts of equity, disproportionate access to green space, and underserved communities were reflective of an environmental justice framework. Additionally, several descriptive codes, including alternative mode of transportation and pedestrian/bicyclist safety were informed by East Bay Greenway planning documents.
Following the initial set of “descriptive” codes, “analytic” codes were developed in order to further explore particular themes within a research project. An analytic code is defined as “a code that is developed through analysis and is theoretically informed” (Hay,
2005, p. 368). Throughout the review and analysis for this study, several descriptive codes developed into analytic codes as the primary data revealed more complex findings than originally anticipated. For example, participant responses to the question of whether the development of the East Bay Greenway might spur gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods were varied and brought up multiple viewpoints. Gentrification therefore evolved from a descriptive concept into a larger analytical theme based on preliminary findings, which suggested little consensus among participants.
Once the list of descriptive and analytic codes was compiled, a code structure was formed in which codes were grouped into related categories. Organization of themes and codes allowed for efficient and thorough analysis of a large amount of data (Hay, 2005).
The finalized code structure for this study consisted of eight themes that directly addressed 43
the research objectives: Community Context; Community Concerns; Public
Outreach/Engagement; Responsibility to the Community; Equity; East Bay Greenway
Community Impacts; Gentrification; and Funding.
6.0 FINDINGS
6.1 Community Context
Nearly all (93%) interview participants characterized the study area as being made up of underserved communities. Participants specifically used key phrases such as communities o f concern, lower-income, blue collar or working-class, and underserved when describing the subject communities. Some participants (50%) also noted the existing residential and industrial land uses throughout the study area and highlighted the expected increase in transit-oriented development and high-density development along the BART tracks.
So, diversity is high, income are, tends to be lower near transit corridors, because that property is not valued as much. It just the way that works. Right or wrong, that's how it is. -Interview Participant1
...I think part o f the reasons the area may be more affordable now is because it has some undesirable conditions. Has the kind o f mixed you know residential industrial use, a lot of it’s up against freeways or rail road tracks. You know, it has a kind of, in addition to those land uses, there also a history o f neglect, which you know doesn justify this situation, that just kind o f the current state. -Interview Participant
1 Due to the small sample size, interview and questionnaire participants were not identified by name or number in order to maintain anonymity. 44
Most of the communities along there are lower- middle-income, very ethnically diverse. - Interview Participant
Oh, I think those are low-income and challenged communities between Hayward and South Hayward BART Stations. -Interview Participant
6.2 Equity
There was a strong consensus among interview participants as well as questionnaire participants that environmental and health inequities are existing issues throughout the
study area. The majority of interview participants (78%) specifically emphasized the
disproportionate access to green space and recreational amenities in relation to more
affluent communities in the region (Figure 11):
And it’s unfortunate that you know we have a tremendous amenity over the hill that we don’t have on this side o f the I t’s talking about social equity, you know. The communities over the hill are more affluent than the communities over here on this side o f the So, if we ’re going to spend people ’stax money, what ’sthe better investment you know? Should we be spreading the money equally? We would argue yeah, that’s really important. -Interview Participant
I mean, it provides a, you know, a resource to a community that definitely underserved, you know, along the whole corridor in terms o f available green space and, you know, class I riding trails. So, I think in that it more o f an equity thing. I guess you could call it justice. -Interview Participant
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Because it’s cutting right through the, like I said, the lower middle-class parts o f town. There often aren’t enough parks ...Yeah, and so there is an environmental justice component in that sense because it would add a lot o f park space, a lot o f open space that usable. -Interview Participant 45
...[it’s] unfair, inequitable that the white communities had a park and a greenway underneath the BART tracks and the poor communities had nothing...the BART tracks were very derelict underneath the structure in East Oakland, whereas in Contra Costa County, in Albany, they ’re an asset to the community... -Interview Participant
Figure 11. Lack of Green Space near Hayward BART Station 46
While the majority of interview participants focused on the lack of environmental amenities in the communities surrounding the proposed greenway, a smaller number of interview (<25%) and questionnaire participants (<33%) highlighted the presence of environmental disamenities and related health impacts in the study area. These participants noted disamenities including high levels of illegal dumping, soil contamination, poor air quality, and the close proximity of residences to freeways (Figure 12). Environmental justice research has repeatedly shown that such environmental “bads” have historically been concentrated in low-income communities and communities of color - a pattern that was recognized by some participants in this study area as well.
...the geographical distribution of, you know, pollution and contamination in — is,like, correlates with race and class in really, you know, clear ways. Life expectancy for people in the flat lands is significantly different than that [in the] hills. And that matches up to racial differences you know. So, I think it is really apparent. -Interview Participant
Right now, one o f the big topics in our area is trash, litter, picking up mattresses and garbage and what not. You walk a street through Walnut Creek. “Hey, it’s nice to be here, I feel good, I feel good about myself. ... Walk through a slummy area, and you feel it. You ’re a part o f it. I f you live there, it becomes part o f your identity. “This is who I am. I walk through trash, I am a part o f that. ”And that in itself is a social inequity that we create. -Interview Participant
Litter is a real problem. People dump cups, pizza boxes, clothes and even mattresses and such, much o f it by the BART tracks. -Questionnaire Participant 47
Figure 12. Litter at Coliseum BART Station 48
The research topic of the greenway, which was initially proposed to address inadequate green space may have biased the participants to focus on the lack of environmental amenities rather than the collection of disamenities in the study area.
Additionally, participants may have found the availability and condition of existing open space in a community to be more tangible and therefore easier to identify than poor air quality or soil condition. It is also interesting that none of the questionnaire participants related individual environmental concerns to the larger concept of environmental justice.
It remains unclear if this is due to participants’ perception of environmental justice in their communities, or due to the format of the online questionnaire, which is less inviting of open-ended questions and answers than semi-structured interviews.
The majority of participants appeared to be more comfortable using the word,
“equity” in place of “environmental justice” during the interviews. Furthermore, only one study participant directly related the concept of environmental justice to institutional racism, stating, “...our institutions have certain blind spots and are more likely to serve some needs rather than others.” As some scholars (Chitewere, 2010; Pulido, 2000) have implied, participants may have felt more removed from the general concept of equity rather than the loaded concepts of environmental justice or environmental racism, and therefore found it easier to discuss. However, removing oneself from environmental justice or environmental racism does not cause the issue to disappear. While the individual participants may not have had a direct role in creating the environmental injustices described above, many are representative of the institutions that have historically 49
established such inequities, whether consciously or subconsciously, through land use planning.
This particular finding gives weight to Pulido’s (2000) argument that the definition and scope of environmental justice needs to be broadened. Expanding the definition of racism to consider the concept of white privilege allows us to explore a more systemic and subconscious form of racism. Therefore, rather than asking why a hazardous facility was intentionally located in a minority community or why a local park was not developed in an underserved neighborhood, the framework of white privilege provides the opportunity to question why a white community does not share the same environmental burdens.
Moreover, Pulido’s (2000) concept of white privilege can also be applied to the idea of environmental gentrification. Based on the literature on environmental gentrification, affluent white residents have been shown to benefit the most from environmental improvements, primarily through environmentally-driven migration. If the East Bay
Greenway spurs environmental gentrification, it is likely that white and/or affluent residents may reap the benefits of the improved environmental amenities while those who could benefit the most from the greenway could be displaced.
6.3 Community Concerns
Interview and questionnaire participants were asked to identify other community concerns in order to develop a holistic understanding of the study area. The community concerns identified in the interviews were organized into the following classifications: 50
crime and safety, economic instability, homelessness, housing affordability, lack of green space, a need for safe alternative means of transportation, poor educational performance, and population/density growth. Interview participants consistently recognized housing affordability as the primary concern for the subject communities, followed by crime and safety, and the need for safe alternative means of transportation (Figure 13). Interestingly, the lowest priority concern for interview participants was the lack of green space throughout the surrounding communities.
Figure 13. Community Concerns (Interview Participants, n= 14) 51
The results from the community online questionnaire varied slightly from the interview responses. Questionnaire participants indicated a greater level of concern for adequate green space than for housing affordability. As shown in Table 4, the primary concerns identified by questionnaire participants were neighborhood safety, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and equal access to recreational and public outdoor space. Along with a concern for public health, gentrification and displacement were the two lowest ranking items that questionnaire participants indicated having a high level of concern.
How Concerned Are You with the Items Below? Very Somewhat Not Item Concerned Concerned Concerned Air Quality 64% 21% 14%
Equal Access to Recreational & 69% 15% 15% Public Outdoor Space Gentrification & Displacement 57% 21% 21% Neighborhood Safety 71% 29% 0% Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety 71% 29% 0% Public Health 57% 29% 14% Table 4. Community Concerns (Questionnaire Participants, n=14)
A cross tabulation was generated (Table 5) in order to understand the correlation between housing tenure and level of concern about gentrification and displacement among community questionnaire participants. As expected, the majority of renters indicated that 52
they were “very concerned” with gentrification and displacement, while most home owners were either only “somewhat concerned” or “not concerned” with the issue.
How Concerned Are You with Gentrification & Displacement?
Very Somewhat Not Concerned Concerned Concerned Rent 50% 7% 0%
Own 7% 7% 21% Other (Live with Parents) 0% 7% 0% Table 5. Housing Tenure & Gentrification Concerns (n=14)
While the questionnaire participants may not accurately reflect the larger population of the study area, the discrepancy between the primary concerns identified by community members through the questionnaire and the interviews primarily with agency staff and city council members raises an important question of whether the East Bay
Greenway development project will meet the broader scope of residents’ needs.
6.4 Community Impacts
In order to reduce response bias and to gain a comprehensive answer, participants were not directly asked how the greenway will address specific environmental justice concerns of the affected communities. As illustrated in Table 6, interview participants had 53
a wide range of responses when asked to identify potential impacts of the proposed East
Bay Greenway. However, there was a strong belief among interview participants that once complete, the greenway would provide a safe alternative means of transportation for surrounding communities, which is the greenway’s current aim under the Alameda CTC.
Potential Community Times Mentioned by Impacts of the East Bay Greenway Participants Provides a Safe Alternate Means of Transportation 76 Environmental & Health Benefits 53 Provides Green Space & Recreational Amenity 34 Increased Desirability & Property Values 31 Enhanced Regional Connectivity 22 Increases Access to Employment Opportunities 17 Increased Criminal Activity or Disturbance on Trail 17 Improved Safety 16 Enhanced Neighborhood Connectivity 15 Ownership of Neighborhood & Sense of Community 11 Improved Access & Mobility 10 Will Spur New Development 9 Addresses Equity Issues 7 Extent of Benefits is Unknown 7 Loss of Privacy 7 Will be Utilized by Everyone 7 Regional Investment 5 Issue of Close Proximity to Residences 2
Table 6. Potential Community Impacts (Semi-Structured Interviews, n=14) 54
In comparison to interview participants, community questionnaire participants
(Table 7) focused largely on the greenway’s ability to provide additional recreation opportunities and public open space in the study area. While the majority of total case study participants noted that the greenway would provide environmental benefits, health benefits, and additional green space, the perceived ability of the greenway to directly address equity issues within the study area was only mentioned a total of seven times by four interview participants. The strong focus on active transportation rather than equity indicates that stakeholders have prioritized the project’s transportation goals under Alameda CTC over the project’s initial intention of addressing environmental injustices in the surrounding underserved communities. 55
How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change your neighborhood? (Select all that apply) Potential Community Impacts Response Rate It will add recreation opportunities and public open 86% space It will make the neighborhood more attractive 57% It will increase surrounding property values and rent 36% costs It will make the neighborhood safer 29% It will not change anything 7% Other- See Below for Responses: 21% “It may be an attraction for crime” 7% “I think it will be great, but it will not affect my 7% neighborhood in any way” “Serves as a cornerstone to creating a regional asset 7% connecting the entire East Bay” Table 7. Community Impacts (Community Questionnaire, n=14)
6.5 Gentrification
The following discussion primarily analyzes interview participant responses. As interviews with non-profit and agency staff, city council members, and community residents progressed, it became clear that participants’ opinions regarding gentrification were more varied than expected. Unlike the flexibility offered by the semi-structured interviews to modify and develop interview questions, the community questionnaire did not allow for individualized follow-up questions and could not be altered after the start date. Thus, the community questionnaire did not offer the same depth of responses 56
provided by the semi-structured interviews in regards to the green way’s relationship with gentrification.
While the majority of interview participants (71%) and over a third of questionnaire participants agreed that the East Bay Greenway would increase property values and the desirability of the surrounding area, it proved difficult to find a consensus among interview participants regarding the greenway’s relationship to gentrification. Some participants believed that the greenway could spur gentrification in the surrounding communities, while for many, the extent to which environmental improvements were related to gentrification was unclear. A limited number of participants (21%) even maintained that there is no direct connection between greening and gentrification, despite evidence that says otherwise (Banzhaf & Walsh, 2004; Garrod & Willis, 1992; Irwin, 2002;
Leggett & Bockstael, 2000; Sieg et al., 2004).
...something like this is going to be just a little percentage o f [gentrification] because it ’sgoing to be more appealing. So, I ’d rather have gentrification from this than from people trying to make a fast buck... So, I think gentrification was caused by some other folks. Not by being green. -Interview Participant
I mean, I think it’s really hard to draw a straight connection between a park and gentrification... I think, you know, it is access to open space does increase property values and a number o f different things. So, but I think a lot o f other different factors contribute to gentrification rather than just sort o f a direct establishment o f a park or something along those lines. -Interview Participant
Gentrification will happen. It will not be because o f a bike path. It going to happen because pressures o f real estate elsewhere and the locational value in this area. -Interview Participant 57
Participants’ opinions of the greenway’s impact on gentrification varied widely even among those who felt that gentrification could be a possible outcome of the project.
Responses ranged from participants stating that the greenway would only be a small contributor to gentrification, to the idea that the possibility of gentrification is contingent on the extent and project scope of the greenway in terms of size, planned amenities, and continued maintenance. The majority (57%) of participants though felt that gentrification is a process that is dependent on multiple factors, primarily macro-economic factors including regional real estate and job markets.
Again, I think it depends on how robust. I t’s a strip o f land. I mean not to belittle the effort in any way, but just, you know, if that becomes the new Santa Monica Pier o f the neighborhood, then absolutely it could...I don think it ’sone factor. -Interview Participant
.. .since it is such a long, linear feature that will go through a number o f different neighborhoods, it might be a contributing factor in terms of that desirability in some neighborhoods, but I think there are a lot o f other things that would contribute to that. -Interview Participant
...Ijust, I don ’tknow if the East Bay Greenway alone can be the culprit for causing gentrification in this area. There’s going to need to be other elements involve. It might be the start, it might be one o f the elements in there, but I don ’tthink alone you can blame the East Bay Greenway for gentrification. -Interview Participant
It will almost certainly be one o f the effects o f the greenway. I think that anytime that you improve an area, it’s going to lead to a slight increase in gentrification. You know, increased home values and what not, which is a challenge, because you don ’twant to say, “oh well, leave it horrible so that it remains affordable and it doesn ’tgentrify. That’s not the right solution. -Interview Participant 58
It could possibly, yeah... So, it is a risk I think. But I think it just kind of depends on the local government on how they’re going to focus on minimizing that impact. -Interview Participant
Despite the varying opinions regarding the greenway’s impact on gentrification, the majority (57%) of participants advocated for local housing policies in order to mitigate displacement from gentrification, whether it is, or is not an effect of the greenway.
...it starts to get into what are the tools of, what are the housing tools that would keep those neighborhoods affordable, even if the desirability o f the neighborhood was to increase. -Interview Participant
I t’s a difficult problem...You want to be able to improve things, but at the same time, because it’s going to increase land values, you need to add more low-cost housing while you ’re doing that. -Interview Participant
How do we keep people? We need low-income housing. -Interview Participant
...And then unless the city were to create protections or demands o f affordable housing elements, then yo u ’d only see those who could afford it live there and benefit from that amenity. So, it could be unbalanced... -Interview Participant
Such a strong focus on housing affordability and housing policies by participants was not anticipated from this study. While it is not the primary research focus, the housing crisis throughout the San Francisco Bay Area has received local, regional, and state-wide attention. According to Zillow (2006-2017), the median home list price for the cities of
Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward range from $604,800 to $687,000, which is approximately 30% higher than California’s median list price. Moreover, the majority of 59
Alameda County residents are renters (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). With a median income of $82,249 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015) and a median rent price of $2,950 (Zillow, 2006-
2017), 43% of the average renter’s monthly income goes to rent. This fact is particularly startling given that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers households who spend more than 30% of their monthly income on housing to be cost-burdened (U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, n.d.).
In response to the regional housing crisis, some local agencies including those in the study area are encouraging the development of below market rate (BMR) housing units through inclusionary housing policies, which require developers of market-rate housing units to provide a certain number of BMR units, and through programs that offer development incentives (e.g.- density bonuses, less strict standards) for the provision of
BMR units. Furthermore, California Governor, Jerry Brown recently signed a comprehensive housing package comprised of fifteen bills intended to address local accountability, a streamlined permitting process, and funding for housing projects. Notable bills in the housing package include SB 35, which streamlines permit approvals for multi family housing projects, and the Housing Accountability Act (AB 1515), which restricts the ability of local jurisdictions to deny housing developments without adequate justification (League of California Cities, 2017). 60
6.6 Public Engagement & Responsibility to the Community
The “just green enough” strategy for mitigating environmental gentrification highlights the importance of community involvement during the planning and implementation phases of a development project. Moreover, the concept of environmental justice relies on the meaningful involvement of all people. Prior to the 2008 East Bay
Greenway Concept Plan, Urban Ecology conducted a large amount of public outreach, primarily meeting with neighborhood groups in Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward.
While the outreach effort on the part of Urban Ecology was a useful community planning tool that engaged communities, more outreach is needed in order to better comprehend the needs and concerns of current residents given that the intent and scope of work of the greenway has since changed.
Half of the interview participants noted that under the Alameda CTC, little to no public outreach has been conducted at this time. However, all local or regional agency staff members and the majority of city council members interviewed expressed a desire to conduct public outreach in the near future.
Yeah, we haven ’tbeen involved in any community outreach specific to the East Bay Greenway. And I ’m not aware o f — staff to date doing that work. -Interview Participant
The key to good change in a community is getting lots o f people providing their input about what that change should look like early in the process. -Interview Participant 61
Another theme that emerged during the discussion of public outreach was the low participation rates from the local community. The majority (57%) of interview participants, including agency staff members, city council members, and community residents pointed out that despite outreach efforts of past similar projects, engaging the community within the planning process is a challenge. Additionally, if residents do become politically involved in a development project, their involvement often occurs too late.
Well, 1 think that the plan right now is kind o f the esoteric concept. I think when people realize how it directly impacts them, they’ll become more engaged... and that’s likely when they’ll get involved. -Interview Participant
So, I mean, it ’salways a challenge reaching out to people and trying to get them to connect. I think we ’re getting a little bit better in terms o f using the different media and outreach, but it’s always been a challenge. -Interview Participant
So, I think even with the best community engagement strategy getting people to attend to those meetings and get their input may be a challenge. -Interview Participant
...people have learned to not be interested in politics. So, it becomes part o f their culture to ignore political information. -Interview Participant
Interview participants also alluded to the responsibility that local government has to the community that it serves in terms of policy priorities, funding, and community needs.
Echoing the concerns of residents in other environmental gentrification case studies
(Checker, 2011; Dooling, 2009), interview participants questioned who the East Bay
Greenway was truly intended to serve. 62
And the other thing is while bikability and walkability [are] high priorities for policy makers and high [priorities] for people that do these things already, where it fits, especially in today’s political climate in terms o f priority is going to be a challenge regardless. -Interview Participant
At the same time, it ’san extremely captivating idea to electorates and policy makers. And that’s why I ’m totally convinced that it will get built, because it ’sgot all the, like you know, touch points o f you know, incredible press release and ribbon cutting. -Interview Participant
...the really important question to ask is if local government is going to invest in an underserved neighborhood, is that investment speaking to the existing residents’ needs? Is that investment solving the problems of the existing residents? -Interview Participant
Are the policy priorities related to the greenway, such as walkability, relevant to community residents, or only reflective of policy makers’ and planners’ sustainable development agendas? It is crucial for stakeholder agencies to answer to this question while the greenway is still in the early planning stages, prior to community engagement. As illustrated by the “just green enough” (Curran & Hamilton, 2012) strategy, the unintended consequence of environmental gentrification and displacement may be mitigated if East
Bay Greenway stakeholder agencies ground their work in the communities that the greenway will directly impact. 63
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The primary limitation of the study is the fact that the research sample of community questionnaire participants is smaller than anticipated and may not accurately reflect the larger study area, with the questionnaire participants largely made up of educated, white residents. Additionally, given that the Qualtrics questionnaire was only accessible online, the research sample was limited to participants with access to a computer or a mobile device and internet service. In order to address these limitations, research flyers were posted in and near public libraries throughout the study area. Furthermore, flyers were posted at various areas of engagement such as bus stations, churches, laundromats, and cafes as well as electronically posted through social media in an attempt to attract a diverse questionnaire sample population. However, the community resident sample population may have been further limited by the fact that research flyers and the Qualtrics questionnaire were only available in English.
The structure and design of the online questionnaire also complicated the data analysis, particularly when relating community questionnaire responses to responses from interview participants. For example, several follow-up questions were often required when discussing the possibility of gentrification with interview participants. However, the online questionnaire did not allow for follow-up questions, which restricted the questionnaire responses to somewhat superficial answers that were unable to be explored in-depth. 64
Furthermore, not all East Bay Greenway stakeholder agencies agreed to participate in the study. The lead agency for the greenway and several representatives from other appropriate agencies declined to be interviewed. Thus, I was unable to capture the views of all jurisdictions involved in the development project.
8.0 CONCLUSION
The question of whether the East Bay Greenway will spur environmental gentrification once completed cannot be answered in this study and will remain uncertain for quite some time even after the greenway is fully developed. This research, however, sought to determine if the paradox of environmental gentrification is being considered during the early planning stages of the greenway. The data indicate that the majority of project stakeholders have neither considered nor planned for environmental gentrification ensuing from the greenway development. On the other hand, awareness and concern was not entirely lacking. Interview participants revealed a spectrum of perspectives on the greenway’s relationship to future gentrification: that gentrification would be contingent on the extent and project scope of the greenway, that gentrification is a complex process that is dependent on multiple factors, or that there is no direct connection between greening and gentrification. Perhaps this basic awareness of the possibility of gentrification could be built upon through further outreach and engagement in the planning process. 65
In that regard, this study was successful in facilitating a discussion about environmental gentrification with representatives of the stakeholder agencies and community residents who will be directly affected by its development. Moreover, while discussing the greenway’s potential effect on gentrification, many participants highlighted the value of housing policies in avoiding displacement from development. The specific topic of housing appears to be outside of the scope of this study, however, participants’ strong focus on housing illustrates the fact that urban planning is an interdisciplinary field.
Although this study is specifically looking at a proposed countywide green infrastructure project, the East Bay Greenway is not an isolated development project. Rather, it is influenced by and will have an impact on numerous urban planning concentrations such as transportation, recreation, housing, public health, sustainable development, and equity.
Therefore, it is important for stakeholder agencies to engage in proactive holistic planning and to consider the unintended consequences of such development, especially given that it is still uncertain how the greenway will impact the surrounding communities.
In order for the greenway to avoid becoming another example of environmental gentrification, stakeholder agencies will need to thoughtfully incorporate the strategies of
“just sustainability” and “just green enough” early in the planning stages, while also being mindful of the strategies’ limitations. Additionally, given that the greenway was initially proposed as an effort to address local environmental equity concerns, it is important that the agencies involved apply the definition of environmental justice, which is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people...” To date, the East Bay Greenway 66
has not meet the condition of “meaningful involvement” due to the lack of public outreach, and is therefore not meeting the goals of environmental justice. I encourage stakeholder agencies to evaluate if the concept of justice is still being considered under the new focus of the project and to engage residents and reflect on how the new intention of the greenway will ultimately impact the surrounding communities.
Due to the fact that this research analyzes the understanding of environmental gentrification prior to the development of the East Bay Greenway, a follow up study examining the social and economic outcomes of the proposed development project would be valuable. Scholars aiming to better comprehend the paradox of environmental gentrification in the San Francisco Bay Area should also explore the recent influx of bike share facilities located throughout the East Bay and in San Francisco. Unlike the proposed
East Bay Greenway, Bay Area residents have identified bike shares as signals of gentrification that are representative of displacement (Taylor, 2017). Perhaps through further exploration of environmental gentrification, underserved and overburdened communities may no longer be faced with the paradoxical decision between cleaning up or clearing out. 67
References
Agyeman, J. (2008). Toward a ‘just’ sustainability?. Continuum: Journal o f Media &
Cultural Studies, 22(6), 751-756.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (2012). About Us. Web. Alameda County
Transportation Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.alamedactc.Org/appjpages/view/7
Alameda County Transportation Commission (2012). East Bay Greenway FAQs. Web.
Alameda County Transportation Commission. Retrieved from
http://www.alamedactc.Org/app_pages/view/l 9413
Alameda County Transportation Commission. (2015, November 6). East Bay
Greenway Dedication. Web. Alameda County Transportation Commission.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.alamedactc.org/news_items/view/l 7482
Alameda County Transportation Commission. (2016, March). Capital projects program:
East Bay Greenway. Alameda County Transportation Commission. Retrieved
from http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/18492/1457.001_
EastBayGreenway_LakeMerrittSouthHayward_Mar2016.pdf
American Planning Association (n.d.). Search Results for “environmental justice”. Web.
American Planning Association. Retrieved from
https://www.planning.org/search/?keyword=%22environmental+justice%22 68
American Planning Association (Producer). (2013, March 19). Just Green Enough:
Contesting Environmental Gentrification [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from
https://www.planning.org/tuesdaysatapa/2013/chi cago/mar.htm
Banzhaf, H. S., & Walsh, R. P. (2004). Testing for environmental gentrification:
Migratory responses to changes in environmental quality. In AERE Workshop,
Estes Park, CO (May).
Berry, B. J. (1980). Inner city futures: an American dilemma revisited. Transactions o f
the Institute o f British Geographers, 1-28.
Bruntland, G. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development:
our common future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to
document A/42/427-Developmentand International Cooperation:
Environment.[Online] Available at http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocfhtm.
Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice: It's more than waste facility siting. Social
science quarterly, 77(3), 493-499.
Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmentalism and public policy:
Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy
decision making. Journal o f Social Issues, 56(3), 555-578.
Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and
The paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210-229. 69
Chitewere, T. (2010). Equity in Sustainable Communities: Exploring Tools from
Environmental Justice and Political Ecology. Natural Resources Journal, 315-
339.
Coastal Conservancy. (2006, April 27). Staff Recommendation: East Bay Greenway.
Oakland, CA: Coastal Conservancy.
Corbum, J. (2005). Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health
Justice (Urban and Industrial Environments).
County of Alameda (2017). Cities. Web. County o f Alameda. Retrieved from
https://www.acgov.org/about/cities.htm
Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: contesting environmental
Gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment, 17(9), 1027-1042.
Cutts, B. B., Darby, K. J., Boone, C. G., & Brewis, A. (2009). City structure, obesity, and
environmental justice: An integrated analysis of physical and social barriers to
walkable streets and park access. Social Science & Medicine, 69(9), 1314-1322.
Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the
city. International Journal o f Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 621-639.
Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community, 2(1), 3-19.
Friends of the High Line. (n.d.). About the High Line: Fostering a strong community and
neighborhood. Web. Friends o f the High Line. Retrieved from
http ://www. thehighline. org/ about. 70
Garrod, G., & Willis, K. (1992). The environmental economic impact of woodland: a
two-stage hedonic price model of the amenity value of forestry in Britain. Applied
Economics, 24(7), 715.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political
Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.
Gordon-Larsen, P., Nelson, M. C., Page, P., & Popkin, B. M. (2006). Inequality in the
Built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity.
Pediatrics, 117(2), 417-424.
Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2012). The environmental injustice of green gentrification:
The case of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. In J. DeSena, & T. Shortell (Eds.), The
World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, immigration, and ethnic politics in a global
city (pp. 113-146). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Hamilton, T., & Curran, W. (2013). From “Five Angry Women” to “Kick-ass
Community”: Gentrification and Environmental Activism in Brooklyn and
Beyond. Urban Studies, 50(8), 1557-1574.
Hamnett, C. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification.
Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers, 173-189.
Hay, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in human geography. Canada: Oxford
University Press.
Irwin, E. G. (2002). The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land
Economics, 78(4), 465—480. 71
James Comer Field Operations, (n.d.). The High Line. Web. James Corner Field
Operations. Retrieved from http://www.fieldoperations.net/project
details/proj ect/highline.html
Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2010). Leveling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for
local parks and recreation in the Los Angeles region. Environment and Planning
A, 42(5), 1174-1192.
League of California Cities. (2017, September 29). Governor Brown Signs
Comprehensive Housing Package: League’s Blueprint for More Housing Included
in the Package. Web. League o f California Cities. Retrieved from
https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2017/September/Govemor-
Brown-Signs-Comprehensive-Housing-Package
Leggett, C. G., & Bockstael, N. E. (2000). Evidence of the Effects of Water Quality on
Residential Land Prices. Journal o f Environmental Economics and Management,
39(2), 121-144.
McLafferty, S. L. (2003). Conducting questionnaire surveys. Key methods in geography,
87-100.
O'Neill, W. A., Ramsey, R. D., & Chou, J. (1992). Analysis of transit service areas using
geographic information systems. Transportation Research Record, (1364).
Ngom, R., Gosselin, P., & Blais, C. (2016). Reduction of disparities in access to green
spaces: Their geographic insertion and recreational functions matter. Applied
Geography, 66, 35-51. 72
Pearsall, H., & Pierce, J. (2010). Urban sustainability and environmental justice:
evaluating the linkages in public planning/policy discourse. Local
75(6), 569-580.
Pogrebin, R. (2009, June 8). Renovated High Line now open for strolling. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/arts/design/09highline
RO.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FHigh%20Line%20(NYC)&_r=0
Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban
development in Southern California. Annals of the Association o f American
Geographers, 90(1), 12-40.
Quastel, N. (2009). Political Ecologies of Gentrification. Urban Geography, 30(7), 694
725.
Sieg, H., Smith, V. K., Banzhaf, H. S., & Walsh, R. (2004). Estimating the General
Equilibrium Benefits of Large Changes in Spatially Delineated Public Goods.
International Economic Review, 45(4), 1047-1077.
Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? addressing environmental justice in
park provision. GeoJournal, 75(3), 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0708-009
9303-8
Smith, N. (1982). Gentrification and uneven development. Economic geography, 58(2),
139-155. 73
Taylor, O. R. (2017, August 14). Bike-share program resented as sign of gentrification.
San Francisco Chronical. Retrieved from http://www.sfchronicle.com/
news/article/Bike-share-program-resented-as-sign-of-11816265 .php
Taylor, W. C., Floyd, M. F., Whitt-Glover, M. C., & Brooks, J. (2007). Environmental
justice: a framework for collaboration between the public health and parks and
recreation fields to study disparities in physical activity. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, 4(sl), S50-S63.
Tomain, J. P. (1991). Distributional Consequences of Environmental Regulation:
Economics, Politics, and Environmental Policymaking. Kan. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 1,
101.
United Church of Christ. Commission for Racial Justice. (1987). Toxic wastes and race
in the United States: A national report on the racial and socio-economic
characteristics o f communities with hazardous waste sites. Public Data Access.
Urban Ecology, DKS Associates, and Human Impact Partners. (2008). Concept Plan for a
Bicycle and Pedestrian Path: A healthier, greener, and safer passage from
Oakland to Hayward. Print.
URS Corporation. (2012). East Bay Greenway project final initial study and mitigated
Negative declaration. Oakland, CA.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Profile o f General Population and Housing Characteristics,
2010 Census Summary File 1. Retrieved from
https.V/factfmder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?reffesh=t 74
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). ACS demographic and housing estimates, 2011
2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?reffesh=t
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Educational Attainment, 2011-2015 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https ://factfinder. census, go v/ faces/nav/j sf/pages/searchresults .xhtml?refr esh=t
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Income in the past 12 months, 2011-2015 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, (n.d.). Affordable Housing. U.S.
Department o f Housing & Urban Development. Retrieved from
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/aff
rdablehousing
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.
Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los
Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban geography, 1), 4-35.
Zhao, F., Chow, L. F., Li, M. T., Ubaka, I., & Gan, A. (2003). Forecasting transit walk
accessibility: Regression model alternative to buffer method. Transportation
Research Record: Journal o f the Transportation Research Board, (1835), 34-41. Zillow. (2006-2017). United States home prices & values. Zillow. Retrieved
from https://www.zillow.com/home-values/ 76
Community Online Questionnaire
Q l.l As part of my Master's thesis in Geography at San Francisco State University, I am conducting a survey to learn about how environmental justice and gentrification are understood in the San Francisco Bay Area. The survey will focus on your concerns about the community, the East Bay Greenway development project and the potential of gentrification. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. If you decide not to answer a particular question or choose to withdraw from participating at any time, you will not be penalized. All information will be kept strictly confidential. The information from the survey will be used for scholarly purposes only. Please read each question carefully and answer honestly. The survey only takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Clicking the "agree" button indicates:
*You have read the above information *You voluntarily agree to participate *You are at least 18 years old of age
If you do not wish to participate in the survey, please decline by clicking the "disagree" button. Your opinion and participation is greatly appreciated. O Agree O Disagree
Q2.1 What zip code do you live in? O 94541 O 94544 O 94577 O 94578 O 94580 O 94601 O 94603 O 94606 O 94607 O 94612 O 94621 O Other 77
Q2.2 How many blocks do you live from the BART tracks? O 1 or less O 2 -3 O 4 -5 O More than 5 ______
Q2.3 BART Station Map
Richmond
ft Cerrito del Norte J Ci Cerrito Place 1 North Berkeley 1 Downtown «erke*ey 1 Walnut Creek Ashtoy J Lafayette Rocfchdg* MacAithur 19th St/Oakland 12th St/Oakland City Center take Mennt fnatvate CoJneum San Leandro Bay Fa* Dublin/ # 16th St Mission ^ ^ Castro Valley Pleasanton O a k l a n d 1 — . I International West D ublin/ &»***><* *•»*■ A irp o rt (O A K ) ■ Hayward Pleasanton
San franctuo International Airport (Sf O)
Fremont
Q2.4 How often do you ride public transportation located near the BART tracks within the East Bay? O Daily O 4-6 times a week O 2-3 times a week O Once a week O Never
* Q2.5 Which BART stations do you use the most? Select all that apply. □ Bay Fair □ Coliseum □ Fruitvale □ Hayward □ Lake Merritt □ South Hayward □ San Leandro □ Other______
Q2.6 How do you usually get to a BART station? Select all that apply. □ Bicycle □ Bus □ Drive □ Lyft, Ride Share, Taxi, Uber □ Walk □ Other
Q3.1 How concerned are you with the items below? ! Somewhat ! Very Concerned _ Not Concerned Concerned Air Quality □ □ □ Equal Access to Recreational & □ □ □ Public Outdoor Space Gentrification & □ □ □ Displacement Neighborhood □ □ □ Safety Pedestrian & □ □ □ Bicycle Safety Public Health (ex: Diabetes, Asthma, □ □ □ etc.) 79
Q3.2 Would you like to see more recreational and public outdoor space in your neighborhood? O Yes O No 0 Other______
Q3.3 Please rank the issues below by order of importance. 1 = Most Important 5 = Least Important ______Housing Affordability Job Availability ______Outdoor Recreation Space Public Health ______Safety
Q3.4 What qualities do you like about your neighborhood?
Q3.5 What concerns do you have about your neighborhood?
Q4.1 Do you know what the East Bay Greenway is? O Yes O No O Not Sure
Q4.2 How did you hear about the East Bay Greenway? Select all that apply. □ Alameda County Transportation Commission □ BART □ City of Hayward □ City of Oakland □ City of San Leandro □ East Bay Regional Park District □ Urban Ecology □ Other 80
Q4.3 The East Bay Greenway is a proposed pedestrian and bicycle pathway that will run along the BART tracks from Lake Merritt to South Hayward station. The concept of the greenway was initially proposed by Urban Ecology, a Bay Area non-profit that is involved in community outreach, policy, planning and design. The Alameda County Transportation Commission is now the lead agency for the project. Below is a map of the proposed East Bay Greenway.
Q4.4 East Bay Greenway Rendering from Urban Ecology
Q4.5 How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change your neighborhood? □ It will add recreation opportunities and public open space □ It will make the neighborhood safer □ It will make the neighborhood more attractive □ It will increase surrounding property values and rent costs □ It will not change anything □ Other 81
Q4.6 Some agencies involved in developing the East Bay Greenway believe it will help address social and environmental justice concerns along the BART tracks by providing safe recreational space within the community. Do you agree with this statement? O Yes O No O Not Sure
Q4.7 Why?
Q5.1 What is your age? O Under 18 O 18-24 O 25-34 O 35-44 O 45-54 O 55-64 O 65 or older
Q5.2 What gender do you identify with? O Female O Genderqueer O Male O Transgender O Other______
Q5.3 What is your ethnicity? You may select all that apply. □ American Indian or Alaska Native □ Asian □ Black or African American □ Hispanic or Latino □ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander □ White □ Other 82
Q5.4 What is your highest level of education? O Less than high school O High school graduate O Some college O 2 year degree O 4 year degree O Masters/Professional degree O Doctorate
Q5.5 Do you currently own or rent your home? O Own O Rent O Other______
Q5.6 Approximately how much of your income is spent on monthly rent? O 10%-25% O 25%-50% O 50%-75% O More than 75%
Q5.7 How long have you lived at your current residence? O 1 year or less 0 2 -3 years 0 4-5 years O More than 5 years
Q5.8 How did you hear about this survey? □ Alameda County Transportation Commission O City of Hayward □ City of Oakland O City of San Leandro O Community Organization O Facebook O Flyer □ Urban Ecology O Other 83
Q6.1 Please let me know if you would like to participate in a follow-up 30 to 60-minute interview to continue this conversation. O I would like to participate in an interview O I do not want to participate in an interview
Q6.2 Please enter your email below for the researcher to contact you and schedule a follow- up interview. 84
Interview Guides
Staff Interview Guide:
1. How long have you been affiliated with______(city)/the East Bay Green way project?
2. How does your work relate to the proposed East Bay Greenway?
3. How would you characterize the communities along the path of the East Bay Greenway?
4. Do you believe that community residents are engaged (will be engaged) in the planning process? If so, how? If not, why not?
5. What would you say are the primary concerns of residents living along the path of the proposed greenway?
6. What do you believe are the equity issues facing local residents? If any?
7. How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change the neighborhood?
8. Some scholars have studied how improving environmental amenities and environmental quality within an area can spur gentrification as the area becomes more attractive. Do you think gentrification might be one outcome of the greenway? 85
Council Member Interview Guide:
1. How long have you been affiliated with______(city)/the East Bay Greenway project?
2. What do you believe is the primary motivation behind the East Bay Greenway?
3. How would you characterize the communities along the path of the EBGW (specifically in your district)?
4. Do you believe that community residents are/will be engaged in the planning process? If so, how? If not, why not?
5. What would you say are the primary concerns of residents living along the path of the proposed greenway?
6. What do you believe are the equity issues facing local residents? If any?
7. How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change the neighborhood?
8. Some scholars have studied how improving environmental amenities and environmental quality within an area can spur gentrification as the area becomes more attractive. Do you think gentrification might be one outcome of the greenway? 86
Community Interview Guide:
1. Where do you live in relation to the proposed East Bay Greenway?
2. How long have you lived in the area?
3. How would you describe the local community?
4. What do you believe are the primary concerns of residents living in this community?
5. Do you believe local residents face any environmental or social equity issues?
6. Have you heard of the East Bay Greenway?
a. If yes: How did you hear about it? What do you know about it?
7. What do you believe is the primary motivation behind the greenway?
8. Do you believe that community residents will be engaged in the planning process?
9. How do you think the East Bay Greenway will change the neighborhood?
10. Do you have any concerns about the East Bay Greenway?
11. Some scholars have studied how improving environmental amenities and the environmental quality within an area can spur gentrification and displacement as the neighborhood becomes more desirable.
12. Do you think gentrification might be one outcome of the greenway? Participant Quotes Community Context:
So, diversity is high, income are tends to be lower near transit corridors, because that property is not valued as much. I t’s just the way that works, right or wrong, that ’show it is. -Interview Participant
Well, Hayward is a blue-collar community. -Interview Participant
...I think part o f the reasons the area may be more affordable now is because it has some undesirable conditions. Has the kind o f mixed you know residential industrial use, a lot of it’s up against freeways or rail road tracks. You know, it has a kind of, in addition to those land uses, there also a history o f neglect, which you know doesn ’t justify this situation, that’s just kind o f the current state. -Interview Participant
There are, the neighborhoods that this goes through, and I agree with that assumption that this is some o f the most disadvantaged, low-income... -Interview Participant
Most o f the communities along there are lower- middle-income, very ethnically diverse. -Interview Participant
Oh, I think those are low-income and challenged communities between Hayward and South Hayward BART Stations. -Interview Participant
Equity/Environmental Justice:
The Iron Horse Trail on the weekend, there’s just thousands o f people that use it. And it’s unfortunate that you know we have a tremendous amenity over the hill that we don ’thave on this side o f the I t’s talking about social equity you know. The communities over the hill are more affluent than the communities over here on this side o f the So, if we 're going to spend people’s tax money, what’s the better investment you know? Should we be spreading the money equally? We would argue yeah, that’s really important. -Interview Participant Yes, it ’sdefinitely that, I mean it provides a you know a resource to a community that’s definitely underserved you know along the whole corridor in terms o f available green space and you know class I riding trails. So, I think in that it’s more o f an equity thing. I guess you could call it justice. So, in this case, it’s you know providing a resource that you know... the north county has Ohlone Trail and then the east county has the Iron Horse Trail and that I think goes into Contra Costa. So, it’s putting a similar type o f resource in a more you know urban setting and providing those kind o f same health and transportation benefits... -Interview Participant
I don ’tthink we have enough green space. -Interview Participant
...it’s a big focus o f ours to try to invest and do a lot in the urban areas to increase access to open space. -Interview Participant
...there ’sa lack of green space and access to parks especially non motorized access. -Interview Participant
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Because it’s cutting right through the, like I said, the lower- middle-class parts o f town. There often aren’t enough parks... Yeah, and so there is an environmental justice component in that sense because it would add a lot ofpark space, a lot o f open space that usable. -Interview Participant
...[it’s] unfair, inequitable that the white communities had a park and a greenway underneath the BART tracks and the poor communities had nothing...the BART tracks were very derelict underneath the structure in East Oakland, whereas in Contra Costa County, in Albany, they ’re an asset to the community... -Interview Participant
...the geographical distribution o f you know pollution and contamination in — is like correlates with race and class in really you know clear ways. Life expectancy for people in the flat lands is significantly different than that hills. And that matches up to racial differences you know. So, I think it is really apparent. -Interview Participant 89
We lead Alameda County in respiratory, diabetics, and death from cancers actually ...because o f our healthcare lack thereof -Interview Participant
Right now, one o f the big topics in our area is trash, litter, picking up mattresses and garbage and what not. You walk a street through Walnut Creek. Hey, it ’snice to be here, Ifeel good, Ifeel good about myself... Walk through a slummy area, and you feel it. You ’re a part o f it. I f you live there, it becomes part o f your identity. This is who I am. I walk through trash, I am a part o f that. And that in itself is a social inequity that we create. -Interview Participant
Litter is a real problem. People dump cups, pizza boxes, clothes and even mattresses and such, much o f it by the BART tracks. -Questionnaire Participant
I t’s that our institutions have certain blind spots and are more likely to serve some needs rather than others. -Interview Participant
Community Impacts:
...this project is a project that we believe will provide yet another unique transportation mode and specifically it provides access between a lot of neighborhoods on our BART system. -Interview Participant
So, we think in this particular project is going to connect 7 BART stations. So, by allowing people a safe alternate means of transportation that not, that’s separated from vehicle traffic that could be used by bicycle, by walking, and links BART to the greater Bay Area, then I think it just provides opportunity for all those people that have access to it that don currently enjoy, you know, all the transportation options that many o f us enjoy. -Interview Participant
So, I view it as a great opportunity both for recreation, but perhaps more importantly for just you know, transportation, because again, it’s another mode that allows for people to get off the street, not competing with vehicle traffic, and feel safe. -Interview Participant 90
...increasing access to transit increases, potentially increases, access to open space and to any number o f different things. So yeah, I think the greenway has potential thread to sort of tie these pieces together and make for a more accessible and cohesive East Bay. -Interview Participant
Yeah, and so there is an environmental justice component in that sense because it would add a lot ofpark space, a lot o f open space that usable. -Interview Participant
And so, I think a bicycle greenway, protected bicycle lanes, all o f that, offer a sense o f connection. You know, for a community to the street. -Interview Participant
So,working on those concepts, biking and a greenway, is vital, I think. I thin, you know, it becomes an artery in every sense o f the word. Bringing life, you know. Stimulating life, you know. Nurturing life. -Interview Participant
So,to change the culture would not only impact our greenhouse gases, impact our health, our medical expenses, and our quality o f life. -Interview Participant
Gentrification:
Again, I think it depends on how robust. I t ’s a strip o f land. I mean not to belittle the effort in any way, but just, you know, if that becomes the new Santa Monica Pier o f the neighborhood, then absolutely it could...I don’t think it’s one factor. -Interview Participant
I think it might be a component o f it. The bigger issue is what I mentioned earlier, was the cost o f housing. The cost o f housing, mind you, is going to create re-gentrification. -Interview Participant
...I mean what’s gonna determine if the neighborhood changes is how profitable it is to convert that industrial land to residential use, and that’s going to have a greater outcome and a greater dollar value than any greenway is going to have. -Interview Participant 91
Now, clearly, you know, a well-built greenway that is well-maintained is an asset. It adds value to the neighborhood. I f the greenway becomes an unmanageable stretch o f illegal dumping and illicit activity, it no longer adding value, and it’s no longer going to like you know, create that kind of, you know, upward pressure on housing costs. So, I think it, you know, it ’snot like one’s necessarily going to cause the other. -Interview Participant
So, the greenway itself will not absolutely cause gentrification under all circumstances. -Interview Participant
.. .since it is such a long, linear feature that will go through a number of different neighborhoods, it might be a contributing factor in terms of that desirability in some neighborhoods, but I think there are a lot o f other things that would contribute to that. -Interview Participant
So, I think it will raise the sort o f appeal o f the area and that could mean that it becomes harder for lower-income residents to actually live there. Especially if they start redeveloping around. Like if the East Bay Greenway spawns these redevelopments... -Interview Participant
...Ijust, I don ’tknow if the East Bay Greenway alone can be the culprit for causing gentrification in this area. There’s going to need to be other elements involve. It might be the start, it might be one o f the elements in there, but I don 7 think alone you can blame the East Bay Greenway for gentrification. -Interview Participant
It will almost certainly be one o f the effects o f the greenway. I think that anytime that you improve an area, it’s going to lead to a slight increase in gentrification. You know, increased home values and what not, which is a challenge, because you don 7 want to say, “oh well, leave it horrible so that it remains affordable and it doesn 7 gen ” That’s not the right solution. -Interview Participant
It could possibly, yeah ....So, it is a risk I think. But I think it just kind o f depends on the local government on how they ’re going to focus on minimizing that impact. -Interview Participant 92
I ’m not sure if you can really make that correlation. Gentrification is having house values that explode and not allowing youngsters like you or my students be able to buy a house. But, I think that happens anyway. And I ’m not sure if there’s a tie in with being green. -Interview Participant
So, gentrification has already happened. And something like this is going to be just a little percentage o f it because it’s going to be more appealing. So, I ’d rather have gentrification from this than from people trying to make a fast buck... So, I think gentrification was caused by some other folks. Not by being green. -Interview Participant
I mean, I think it’s really hard to draw a straight connection between a park and gentrification...I mean, I think, you know, it is access to open space does increase property values and a number o f different things. So, but I think a lot o f other different factors contribute to gentrification rather than just sort of a direct establishment of a park or something along those lines. -Interview Participant
Gentrification will happen. It will not be because of a bike path. It going to happen because pressures of real estate elsewhere and the locational value in this area. -Interview Participant
Housing Policies:
...it starts to get into what are the tools of, what are the housing tools that would keep those neighborhoods affordable, even if the desirability o f the neighborhood was to increase. -Interview Participant
I t’s a difficult problem...You want to be able to improve things, but at the same time, because it’s going to increase land values, you need to add more low-cost housing while you ’re doing that. -Interview Participant
How do we keep people? We need low-income housing. -Interview Participant 93
...And then unless the city were to create protections or demands o f affordable housing elements, then yo u ’d only see those who could afford it live there and benefit from that amenity. So, it could be unbalanced... -Interview Participant
Public Outreach:
Yeah, we haven ’tbeen involved in any community outreach specific to the East Bay Greenway. And I ’m not aware o f — staff to date doing that work. -Interview Participant
So, I mean, it’s always a challenge reaching out to people and trying to get them to connect. I think we ’re getting a little bit better in terms o f using the different media and outreach, but it always been a challenge. -Interview Participant
So, I think even with the best community engagement strategy getting people to attend to those meetings and get their input may be a challenge. -Interview Participant
The vast majority ofpeople are not interested in anything political. -Interview Participant
...people have learned to not be interested in politics. So, it becomes part o f their culture to ignore political information. -Interview Participant
Responsibility to the Community:
And the other thing is while bikability and walkability is high priorities for policy makers and high priority for people that do these things already, where it fits, especially in today’s political climate, in terms ofpriority is going to be a challenge regardless. -Interview Participant
...the really important question to ask is if local government is going to invest in an underserved neighborhood, is that investment speaking to the existing residents ’ needs? Is that investment solving the problems o f the existing residents? -Interview Participant 94
At the same time, it’s an extremely captivating idea to electorates and policy makers. And that’s why I ’m totally convinced that it will get built, because it’s got all the, like you know, touch points o f you know, incredible press release and ribbon cutting. -Interview Participant
.. .1 think there’s important work to ground it I think in trying to understand how the project speaks to community needs.... -Interview Participant
The key to good change in a community is getting lots o f people providing their input about what that change should look like early in the process. -Interview Participant
Miscellaneous Quotes:
But then you put that trail in a low-income context, displacement’s a concern. -Interview Participant
I think Einstein said, the same mindset cannot solve the problems it created. You have to change your mindset if you want to solve a problem that yo u ’ve created. -Interview Participant
And it ’salso challenging, as you ’re increasing the desirability o f a neighborhood. You know it’s that a good thing and we should be doing it for all sorts o f communities. So, there seems to be a natural tension between the environmental justice, social equity, and gentrification. -Interview Participant
I don ’tthink that the reason to deny people amenities in their community is that it ’sgoing to raise the prices and they ’11 be priced out. ” -Interview Participant