Chapter 8
Centralized Decisionmaking and Fragmented Political Response
In the case of waste management, New York City's centralized decisionmaking process has resulted in a one-size-fits all method of collection even though the composition of the waste stream is radically different from one neighborhood to the next.
DOS's centralized authority has also proven susceptible to political influence that leads to an unequal distribution of the negative impacts of this citywide service. Although zoning is partly responsible, the heart of the waste transfer station problem is environmental injustice: the well-worn path of least resistance.
One hidden part of the original political deal for Fresh Kills has since come to light that demonstrates this reality. DOS was instructed to reject any proposals from companies that would create new waste facilities, including transfer stations, in Staten Island, a largely white, middle-income borough. Instead, white and ethnically diverse working-class neighborhoods in the other boroughs are the only available targets.
The unequal distribution of negative impacts fragments communities' ability to respond by forcing officials and citizen groups in each borough and neighborhood to look out for their own interests. In Manhattan, for example, a borough advisory board has been examining the possibility of combining residential and commercial collection and handling it all through the borough's three municipal marine transfer stations. There are only a few commercial waste transfer stations in Manhattan, so most of the 8,000 daily tons of commercial waste currently gets trucked to transfer stations in Brooklyn. Clearly, if Manhattan succeeded in channeling all its garbage through the marine transfer stations, Brooklyn would benefit. But Brooklynites are so busy holding the line in their own communities that they have little time left to follow what's happening outside their borough.
Political leaders in the Bronx and Queens have also been active on these issues, but in more limited ways. In the Bronx, the problems of the city's waste system have had to compete for attention in a packed field of environmental and economic inequities. In Queens, transfer stations generally cause less public concern. They tend to be smaller in size and more sensibly sited in areas that are truly industrial. The borough also produces less putrescible commercial waste, and only five of its twenty-two transfer stations handle this type of garbage.
Staten Islanders are still nervously waiting for the landfill to actually close and many say they'll only believe it when they see it. Barbara Warren has been a vocal advocate on the waste transfer station problems of the other boroughs. But her concern is rare among Staten Islanders, who more commonly exhibit little sympathy for places like Greenpoint-Williamsburg and are understandably still bitter over the failure of other boroughs to make closing Fresh Kills a priority in the past.
Even within boroughs like Brooklyn, where the Borough President has been a leader in the fight against inequitable concentrations of waste transfer stations, the issue isn't really on the radar screen of more affluent and politically connected neighborhoods. People in, say, Park Slope or Borough Park don't see or smell waste transfer stations every day, so they are not out marching in the streets against them.
Differences in the character and politics of each borough, as well as the differing priorities of neighborhood and environmental advocates in each borough, tend to lead to a fragmented approach and have thus far hindered the emergence of any citywide coordination or vision. The mayor and the centralized department have therefore been able to turn a deaf ear to neighborhood protests and free to ignore the complaints and suggestions of environmental watchdogs. Finally, most individuals and groups that have a broader planning focus, such as the Regional Planning Association, don't appear very interested in the problems of managing New York City's waste.
It would be churlish to simply characterize this fragmentation as political infighting. Different neighborhoods with different populations, local economies, and patterns of land use naturally have different sets of interests and priorities. We must recognize their differences are legitimate.
Chapter 9 -- New Coalition Offers Hope for United Action
back to top
