What’s Fairness Got to Do with It? Environmental Justice and the Siting of Locally Undesirable Land Uses

Policy makers and local land use officials have long struggled to cope with the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome in attempting to site “locally undesirable land uses” (LULUs), such as homeless shelters, drug or alcohol treatment centers, and waste disposal facilities. In general, LULUs are considered beneficial to society at large, and many agree that they should be located somewhere. Those same citizens protest vigorously, however, when such a use is
sited near their homes. This protest is quite rational. The benefits that LULUs produce typically are diffused throughout society, while their costs and risks are concentrated on a relatively small group of neighbors. No one wants to be one of the unlucky folks forced to bear those costs. 

Because local protest can be costly, time-consuming, and politically damaging, siting decision makers often take the path of least resistance-choosing sites in neighborhoods that are least likely to protest effectively. Not surprisingly, many of the neighborhoods selected are populated disproportionately by the poor and by people of color. Indeed, many representatives of low-income and predominantly African American, Latino, or other minority neighborhoods charge that industry and governmental siting officials have adopted a PIBBY-“put it in blacks’ backyards”-strategy for siting LULUs.