I think this is an interesting topic. I'd like to see maps where measures or proxies for various forms of capital (social, financial, political, etc.) are overlaid along with who is living in proximity to toxic sites, with the idea of identifying which are the key interaction effects.

I remember doing work in the San Joaquín Valley and health officials saying that getting physicians to move to places like Fresno was extremely difficult, as the physicians knew how bad the air was and the implications of that for them and their children. The hazardous nature of toxic geographies may or not be known by residents, which is one issue, but economic realities also may override this, implying a "discount rate" for externalities.

The policy problem I see is that of externalities in our current era of capitalism. Everything MUST be monetized to dollars. Clean air and water, i.e., natural resource capital, is hard to factor in production costs in dollars. Policy could increase regulations to mitigate the effects of toxic producers, which would increase costs (in terms of financial capital) and possibly affect tax revenues.

I find it somewhat hard to relate to the minorities that live close to the toxic facilities. I do not, or am not for poisoning human beings, whether they are from minorities or not. I do feel that these people can only afford to live in the houses there, because they are cheap because of the poor air quality. I do not feel like it is my responsibility as a California citizen to attempt to change these problems. For all of the unfortunate people that cannot afford housing away from these regions, perhaps California is not the place for their residence. I know that Arizona and Texas sell houses for very cheap out in specific regions of their states, and many poorer California residents could easily go and afford a house in another state. The air pollution is disgusting, but I do not live in Los Angeles, nor do I have any desire to live there. I could eventually end up working in the city, but I feel that the pollution will always be there do to the poor layout of the city.
If I were given the power by the public to reform Los Angeles, I would start buying up building space in downtown, and making more high rise buildings and more apartment complexes. I would build more buildings in tighter spaces that are much taller and can hold more people per building. I would advise people that live in the city to only keep one car, and I would build a mass transit system that encircles the downtown region of Los Angeles. I would build a train system like the Blue/Red Line trains that travel to major commuter cities. I would build these high speed trains to Valencia, Westlake/Thousand Oaks/Agoura region, San Bernadino County, Van Nuyes. Having a train that stretches that far would be dead on the weekends, but it would clear up roadways throughout the workweek. The only bad thing about reforming the city is that you need money to do it. The public will NOT pay anymore in taxes, and at this economic recession, the California government cannot afford to build a transit system like that.

I would have handled this problem much differently from the very beginning, before it got this out of hand. I think it is disgusting that people would be able to sell these houses to other people fully knowing the health risks involved. I believe that there should have been a warning page listing the health risks involved with living in the area that potential homeowners would need to sign before they decide to move in or not. If they choose to live there because they feel it is an even trade-off (really affordable housing, despite the potential risks), then that is there choice and they assume the risk. But, selling someone a house in these areas without telling them what they are getting themselves into is incredibly irresponsible. I most definitely believe that it is our responsibility as Californians to let people know all of the risks involved in living in a certain area. What they do with that knowledge from there is up to them.

I think it is a sad statement about the morality of our citizens when we allow all of the toxic waste dumps to be near our poorest citizens. It sends the message that overall, as long as it does not effect us, it doesn't matter if it effects our weakest (the poor who can not move and do not have the resources or knowledge to protest it.)
Now, the air quality problem is our responsibility as Californians, because if we don't act now the problem is only going to get worse. At this point, it is necessary to impose restrictions on the valley and surrounding areas that limit the number of vehicles a household can drive and encouraging carpooling and the use of the city bus and Metrolink. All residents moving into the area, should be notified in writing of the health risks, the same way as in some new homes residents are notified of the health risks caused by the materials used. This should be offered in a variety of languages, and offered to the residents in the language they prefer. While some people living there know and choose to live with the possible consequences, I believe that many residents, especially minorities, do not realize how unhealthy this can potentially be. I agree with Devin's point of building more apartment complexes and high rises and I think that while we can not afford to build right now, when we do, there should be a minimum floor requirement for future buildings in order to begin to maximize space and eliminate the high need for cars.
With the increased education of residents and the reduction of the need for cars, hopefully the pollution would decrease or at least level out.

Like I have mentioned in class before, the toxic facilities that produce these toxic fumes make the area around there much less affordable to live in which means more people can live there. Low income families sometimes have no choice. These facilities for the most part were also there first. If anything the people are getting mad at themselves. These people know the reason why they are moving into that location and understand that there is a toxic facility producing toxic gases. Some families start off by going there thinking they can get out of it and move somewhere else. LA is a city that has varying level of housing areas. Some are a rich and poor. Understandable that where the rich are there are no toxic factories yet they had the option to move away from them. Whos responsibility is it to tell the pepole everything about the location of where they are moving to? Is it the state? previous owner? realtor? what should happen to these people that live near the facilities? should they all get money for being in an area they chose to be in? A policy would not help and it would only increase the debt we are already in. More policies means less money. I want them to be as safe as possible but they knew what they were getting into. The person who is there first should not have to fix things because the people that were there later want it fixed.

I think that we really have to look at where the problem lies. Are these people moving into areas that are toxic because that is the only place that they can afford to live? If so, then they could be endangering their own lives and the lives of any children that they might have. It should be up to the person moving into an area to research it in order to find out about any unfavorable conditions that may exist. I understand that, especially with the economy the way it is, financially making it in California is a struggle. But if people are willing to move to the slums in order to put a roof over their head then they also might want to look into moving out of State.

However, there are times when the State has dumped toxic facilities in the middle of neighborhoods, and that is not ok. If the State is going to place sites that release toxins into the air then they need to also be responsible for the people that it is harming. It should not matter that the site is cheaper to build because of the neighborhood that it is moving into, the lives of the people there should matter more than the monetary value of building any sort of facility that could endanger people. Though these sites are not limited to the terrible areas.

Right up the street from my house some brilliant city planner decided it would be ok to put chlorine making facility, and now, every time the State catches on fire I have to evacuate my home. Not because there is a risk of it going up into flames, but because if the chlorine plant goes up the air quality for the entire area becomes toxic. How can someone willingly allow potentially harmful businesses to be erected in the center of a residential area?

I do not know if there is an easy answer to this problem. People willingly move into these bad areas, but the government shouldn't have placed them there in the first place.