Many likely assumed
that the flawed adjacency was the result of poor planning. After all, whether the planning system is
use-based or form-based, potentially hazardous industrial uses are always
located safely away from the general population.
And perhaps
a strong-minded planner could have made a difference in the Texas
situation. But I suspect that he would have
been more likely to get himself fired for asking hard questions.
Because I
believe that adjacency problems like that in West are the result of a long
evolution and the avoidance of hard questions.
I’ll speculate that when the plant in West was originally established, the
worst case scenario was probably far less severe. Over time, the plant grew and the nature of
the chemical processes changed, creating a situation that should have become
more worrisome.
But people
liked their short commutes. And the town
needed to grow, so began looking enviously at the land around the plant.
Therefore, plant
managers and regulators, who should have known better, convinced themselves
that there was little or no risk. Nor
did the town leaders raise the hard questions.
As a result, a middle school and a rest home were built only a short
distance away. It’s a deeply unfortunate
situation, but one that is likely repeated nationwide.
To me, one
of the most shocking facts, as reported the evening of the fire, was that the
emergency plan on file for the plant stated that the worst case environmental
problem was a ten-minute release of ammonia gas that would not pose a risk to
the population. Given the nature of the
materials on the site, it was nonsense. And
the fireball proved that. But it was
what people needed to believe for the town to grow. And I’m convinced that people believe what
they need to believe.
I’m also
sure that West isn’t the only town with a dangerous plant in inappropriate
proximity to vulnerable populations. It’s
in the nature of how our industries and our communities how grown. And it’s probably tied to our national thinking
about growth. It’s a problem that may
appear insurmountable, but I have a suggestion to offer.
Two months
ago, Charles Marohn of StrongTowns graciously participated in a video
conversation with Petaluma Urban Chat.
Marohn is known for his concern, which I share, that federal and state
funds are too often directed toward new infrastructure projects which local
governments can’t afford to maintain, creating long-term financial problems.
Marohn is
also dubious about the role of stimulus funding during economic downturns, so his
two beliefs dovetail neatly. But I think
stimulus has a legitimate place. At end
of his presentation, I asked him how federal stimulus funding should be
provided if new infrastructure is the wrong concept. He worked around to it slowly, but finally
conceded that infrastructure maintenance was probably the best use of stimulus funds.
I wasn't enamored with the response. It seemed to
me to be little more than kicking the can down the road, relieving local government
of making hard decisions about infrastructure they can’t afford.
The Texas
explosion may point to a different and better solution. Perhaps federal stimulus funding can be
directed toward fixing adjacency problems that grew gradually and with little ill
intent, but have now become untenable.
It would be putting federal dollars toward remedying problems that
resulted from a mindset in which the federal government shares culpability.
Perhaps a
federal agency could continually identify adjacency problems and develop plans
for remedying the problems, but would only release construction funds when a
recession looms.
There are at
least two hurdles with this idea. First,
business owners may be unwilling to identify their plants as worthy of funds
for fear that the self-identification could be used as evidence against them in
lawsuits. Some type of immunity would
need to be provided.
Second,
Congress would need to exercise self-restraint.
Although it would be tempting to fund every adjacency problem as soon as
it was identified, indeed it might feel immoral not to do so, doing so would
only create another perpetual federal spending program and would eliminate any
stimulus function.
(Yes, I
understand the problem with asking Congress to show restraint. We reelect Representatives and Senators who
deliver funds, not restraint. I wish I
had a solution to this one.)
My thinking
on this concept is still unrefined. But
I like the feel of it.
Federal
funding toward brownfield cleanup could similar, using federal funds as a one-time
resource to correct situations that were the result of flawed national
thinking. Luckily, the concept is
already moving ahead in Congress, although it isn’t
yet tied to a stimulus role.
What
happened in West, Texas is a tragedy from which the town may never
recover. But perhaps it can point us
toward a way to prevent the next disaster.
And toward letting our towns function as the safe urban centers that
they need to be.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment