Blogging Social Difference in LA: Week 10

For my week 10 blog post I would like to comment on UCLAngelino's ideas of Santa Monica. 
The original post can be found here:

http://uclangelino.blogspot.com/2012/12/blogging-social-justice-in-los-angeles.html

I think its interesting how you pointed out that the city is not only a place of tourism, but also contains a large population of homeless - and a program to assist them. It's almost ironic how it was discussed in "Greening the Ghetto" that those that live in lower income neighborhoods must suffer environmental inequality and degradation. However, in this case, the homeless are able to remain in one of the most desired and popular areas, while receiving assistance (unlike the ghetto neighborhoods). It is true that the homeless do not have homes as those in the ghetto do, but they are present in one of the most eco-friendly areas and are able to stay there. Santa Monica strives to improve the sustainability of their city - they have the SMURF water cleaning facility, as well as special construction methods and roads to prevent waste of water and energy (even the solar powered ferris wheel at the pier!). It is surprising to think that those that can afford to live in the area are kind enough to assist the homeless, rather than pushing them away with strict law enforcement, limited physical access, or something similar to the carceral archipelago we discussed in class. In this case, the homeless are not suffering environmental inequality as the ghetto does. Its interesting how cities would rather reach out to those without homes (who often do not try to find a job), than those that are struggling to work and live where they can. 

On the topic of environmental inequality, I would also like to refer to this article:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/ucla-researchers-want-la-candidates-to-address-environmental-issues.html

This article discusses the Los Angeles concern regarding environmental issues, but one quote in particular that stood out was:

"Of particular concern are so-called “toxic hot spots:” low-income communities such as Boyle Heights, Watts and Wilmington burdened with a disproportionate share of pollution from hazardous facilities and transportation corridors. Those neighborhoods suffer higher rates of asthma, lung disease and premature death.

Better land use planning, increased enforcement and targeted economic development could enhance the quality of life for all Angelenos, UCLA law professor Cara Horowitz said."

In the mega city of Los Angeles, new environmental programs may be established, and the low income communities are said to be kept in mind. However, Horowitz did not discuss how this change will come about - with better land use planning, where will the current hazardous facilities move to? Or where will future ones be placed? If they must be placed in any area of Los Angeles, where else can they be? The residents of Malibu, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, and all of the upper class areas would never let it move into their neighborhoods, and would easily fight the transition with money. Even the middle class areas would be dead against the change as well - everyone wants the best for themselves and will do so if they can afford it. They may care about the welfare of others, to some extent such as reaching out to the homeless, but they would never sacrifice their own hard-earned living conditions for the betterment of a low-income neighborhood and greening the ghetto. I feel as if everyone knows that environmental degradation and inequality is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but many empty words and promises are spoken - as there is no good solution for this at the time.

Another article that interested me was about an issue in Malibu:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/whale-carcass-malibu-1.html

This article discusses the rotting carcass of a whale, and the smell that came with it. Because the Los Angeles County would not dispose of the body, Malibu residents belonging to the local home owners association paid a private company to remove it from the area. If the community did not have the money to do so, such as a low-income area, the whale would have remained and continued to rot until it was completely deteriorated. If Malibu residents will not tolerate a temporary smell in their neighborhood, they would never accept a transition of toxic hot spots and hazardous facilities toward their area and homes.