Nuclear Waste and Native America: The MRS Siting Exercise

Drs. Gowda & Easterling provide cross-cultural perspectives on issues of risk perception, equity and policy as they affect nuclear waste storage on Native American sites

The Victims of NIMBY

Not In My Back Yard, or NIMBY, in its various forms, has three principal types of targets. The first is waste disposal facilities, primarily landfills and incinerators. The second is low-income housing. The third is social service facilities, group homes and shelters for individuals such as the mentally ill, AIDS patients, and the homeless. This Article addresses the issue of the victims of NIMBY, with special reference to the effects of project opposition on racial minorities. Because the effect of facility opposition varies widely with the type of project involved, Part II arrays the types of relevant projects and shows the ways that opposition manifests itself. Part III then briefly discusses the legal techniques used by those who oppose facilities, and the counter measures used by facility proponents. Part IV examines the available evidence on who suffers as a result of the opponents\u27 techniques. Part V looks at who benefits from opposition to siting new facilities. Part VI is devoted to some of the secondary and imponderable effects of facility opposition. Finally, Part VII draws conclusions from the preceding discussion, and shows how the costs and benefits of NIMBY are very different from those envisioned by those who either condemn or applaud facility opposition

PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH STRICT SCRUTINY: AN ARGUMENT FOR THE SPECIFICALLY AND UNIQUELY ATTRIBUTABLE STANDARD

This article analyzes three levels of scrutiny states have applied to regulatory takings cases. These include \u27judicial deterrence , rational nexus , and specifically and uniquely attributable . The author argues that the first two standards are inefficient and concludes in favor of the specifically and uniquely attributable standard

Environmental Justice as Civil Rights

Environmental justice litigation using the Equal Protection Clause and civil rights statutes has largely failed. This article explains that failure as a result of a general shift by federal courts to limit the scope of civil rights law rather than an improper characterization of environmental justice as a civil rights issue. This explanation is important to both encourage and caution environmental justice advocates and scholars as they approach claims under Title VIII. I suggest that Title VIII\u27s ability to bridge property and dignity may still present a powerful and much-needed tool for bringing equality to environmental law, but that, based on recent treatment of civil rights in the courts, those concepts should be bridged outside of the civil rights context first. Thus, I recommend that environmental justice scholars and advocates shift their focus from litigating civil rights claims to building the conceptual and doctrinal connection between environmental quality, property, and personal dignity through the administrative process, tort suits, and other means before making the leap to Title VIII