BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
1
Urban Agriculture Neg
Market Kritik 1NC............................................................................................................................ 3
MARKET KRITIK 1NC CONTINUED ................................................................................................... 4
MARKET KRITIK 1NC ........................................................................................................................ 5
Market Kritik 1NC............................................................................................................................ 6
MARKET KRITIK 1NC ........................................................................................................................ 7
MARKET KRITIK CONTINUED ........................................................................................................... 8
Community Development/Markets Link ........................................................................................ 9
Localization Link ............................................................................................................................ 10
Localization Link ............................................................................................................................ 11
Localization Impact ....................................................................................................................... 12
Localization Impact ....................................................................................................................... 13
LOCALIZATION IMPACT CONTINUED ............................................................................................ 14
LOCALIZATION IMPACT ................................................................................................................. 15
Market Approach Turns Case ....................................................................................................... 17
Alternative Causes Change ........................................................................................................... 18
Alternative Solves the Case........................................................................................................... 19
Kritik Comes First .......................................................................................................................... 20
AT: We Help Local Economy ......................................................................................................... 21
A2: Brownfields Aren’t CDC/CED .................................................................................................. 22
GENTRIFICATION TURN ................................................................................................................. 23
GENTRIFICATION TURN ................................................................................................................. 24
LEAD TURN .................................................................................................................................... 25
PUBLIC HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT TURN ........................................................................................ 26
PUBLIC HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT TURN ........................................................................................ 27
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
2
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: poverty advantage .................................................................................................................. 28
A2: WARMING ADVANTAGE ......................................................................................................... 29
A2 WARMING ADVANTAGE .......................................................................................................... 30
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE ............................................................................................................. 31
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE ............................................................................................................. 32
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE ............................................................................................................. 33
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE ............................................................................................................. 34
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE .............................................................................................................. 35
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE .............................................................................................................. 36
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE CONTINUED ......................................................................................... 37
NO SOLVENCY ............................................................................................................................... 38
NO SOLVENCY ............................................................................................................................... 39
Political Links ................................................................................................................................. 40
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
3
Urban Agriculture Neg
Market Kritik 1NC
Community development projects maintain a firm commitment to
working within bounds of a market oriented approach and rely upon
the belief that structural inequalities could be addressed if only
market forces were put to good use- their goals are diametrically
opposed to community empowerment.
Stoecker 96 (Randy, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo, “The Community Development
Corporation Model of Urban Redevelompent: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative,” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/cdc.html)
Now, as Kelly (1977:18) says, this model is "socialistic- sounding" but "The Socialistic aspect is more apparent than real." For the third part of
the CDC model is an acceptance of supply-side economic models and "free"-market philosophy. The [community development
corporation] model originally attempted to correct three market failures: 1) The inability of potential investors
to see opportunities in the neighborhood; 2) profit maximization that prevented socially conscious investing; 3)
social/legal restrictions on investment such as zoning laws . However, as government finances disappeared,
CDCs had to give up even this moderate "directed capitalism" and "accommodate themselves to, rather
than redirect, the course of the free market." (Marquez, 1993:289). The goal is not to transform society but to
"extend the benefits of the American economic mainstream...to [those] that are left out ." (Peirce and Steinbach,
1990:33)(my emphasis). Supply-side approaches of attracting capital are emphasized over demand-side approaches and political action (Kane
poor neighborhoods are seen as "weak markets" (Vidal, 1992)
requiring reinvestment rather than as oppressed communities requiring mobilization, leading CDCs to work
within the existing economic rules (Madison, 1995). Individual analysts may promote ideas such as social ownership of housing
and Sand, 1988:162; Lenz, 1988; Taub, 1990). At best,
(Stone, 1993:192-193) but it is the rare CDC that pursues such an anti-capitalist route.
These attempts to address the structural inequalities of contemporary
society through market-incentive based approaches perpetuate the
pervasive neoliberal ideology and further entrench the status quo’s
systems of domination by presenting a façade of progressive
community renewal.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
A second limitation of market-based [community economic development] is that it does not address the
crucial political dimension of poverty. The market-based model has conceptualized poverty alleviation as
primarily a matter of structuring the appropriate economic incentives to spur capital inflow and business
expansion in distressed neighborhoods. Within this framework, the notion of building political power among the
poor to challenge institutional arrangements is viewed as inimical to the goal of packaging low-income
communities as attractive business environments. However, rather than fostering community renewal, the
BmOrE CaMp
4
BUDL 2009
Urban Agriculture Neg
depoliticization of CED work has instead circumscribed antipoverty efforts and hindered progressive movement
building.
MARKET KRITIK 1NC CONTINUED
Low-income communities are not simply constituted by impersonal market forces; rather, they are the product
of a combination of intersecting political decisions and private actions . In fact, as David Troutt has shown,
" ghettoes" are legal and political constructions, created and delimited by a history of residential segregation,
federally sponsored mortgage redlining, racially disparate zoning practices, urban renewal policies, and spatially
concentrated public housing.275 Neighborhood formation has also been shaped by political and legal decisions
regarding the geographic scope of desegregation orders, the requirements for municipal secession, and the
financing of public school education.276 Given that low-income communities have evolved as a product of these processes,
a market-based CED approach that emphasizes economic expansion and ignores the complementary need for
political mobilization is insufficient to redress poverty.277 Without community-based efforts to demand greater access to
public resources—in the form of education, job training, child care, and other services—low-income communities continue to
lack the infrastructure necessary to build economic growth.278 By privileging market-based housing and business
development strategies, CDCs have distanced themselves from the type of political engagement necessary to
redress the problems of concentrated poverty, joblessness, and income stratification. Peter Dreier, for instance, has
commented: "CDCs are o f te n re luc ta nt to e n ga ge dire c tl y in po litic a l a c tio n — whe t he r it me a ns mobilizing community residents around
elections, protesting public policy, or advocating for different policies." 279 Michael Owens has similarly concluded that consistent political participation is
uncommon among CDCs.280 Some a na lys t s ha ve c ha rge d tha t C D C po litic a l i na c tio n ha s c o mpro mis e d t he inte grity of C ED wo rk,
tra ns fo rming C DCs into j us t "a no ther de velo pe r following a supply-side free market approach to redevelopment rather than f i g h t i n g f o r
market-oriented
strategies have undermined the struggle for economic justice by diverting scarce resources away from
t h e s o c i a l c h a n g e n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t s u s t a i n a b l e co mmunitie S. " 2 8 Others have a rgue d tha t
grassroots political mobilization and providing a justification for the withdrawal of government programs
from distressed communities. 282 It is true that ma ny CDCs have made the s trate gic decisio n to a dopt marke t -base d approaches not
out of a conscious rejection of political action, but rather out of f i na nc i a l ne c e s s i t y. F o r i ns ta nc e , ma n y C D C s i n t he 1 97 0s f o c us e d o n affordable
housing development because of the availability of federal funding streams. 283 Access to funding through the LIHTC program over the past decade has further
cemented CDCs to the market model. While these financial imperatives do not preclude the coexistence of market-based development and po li tic a l
a c tivis m wi thi n C D C s — inde e d, ma ny C D C s ha ve s uc c e s sf ully integrated the two 284—the structural constraints imposed by funding sources on
CDC activities have led to a drift away from political confrontation and have reinforced the dominance of market-based strategies.The failure to confront the politics
of poverty has limited the effectiveness of CED efforts. It has also enervated progressive political energies by focusing resources on creating efficient market actors
CED has become aligned with the neoliberal tenets of privatization and
economic growth, it has reinforced the perceived immutability of existing market arrangeme nts.285 Although not
rather than building political power. To the extent that
responsible for the rise of what Pierre Bourdieu has termed the "tyranny of the market," 286
the current approach to CED
nevertheless has supported the market order by placing the weight of progressive advocacy behind a
program of business expansion. Offering a market-friendly, depoliticized, version of social change practice, CED
has been readily assimilated into the discourse of free market orthodoxy. This orthodoxy, in turn, has been
translated into a programmatic agenda inimical to social welfare policies and labor protections that interfere
with market efficiency. Therefore , despite its sensitivity to community needs, the market orientation of CED
advocacy has prevented it from mobilizing the type of grassroots political resources necessary to advance a
redistributive, worker-centered agenda.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
5
Urban Agriculture Neg
MARKET KRITIK 1NC
Perpetuating the status’s quo’s market-based approaches to
community redevelopment not only fails to alleviate the structural
inequalities that they try to prevent but worsens the problems faced
by disempowered communities by undermining grassroots
revitalization attempts.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
The argument in favor of market-based CED has been premised on the assumption that local economic growth,
by itself, diminishes poverty.250 However, the literature analyzing the efficacy of market-based CED efforts
suggests that this simple equation does not accurately capture the relationship of market strategies to
poverty alleviation. For instance, studies of local market-based CED initiatives have generated a picture of
community deterioration that is resistant to market intervention. 251 Randy Stoecker, in his review of the literature on CDC
performance, notes that "[n]umerous analysts, including CDC advocates, cannot find evidence that CDCs have enough
impact to reverse neighborhood decline . . . or that the development they produce would not have happened
anyway."252 Citing a study by Avis Vidal,253Stoecker asserts that only twenty to thirty percent of CDC-sponsored housing and
business development programs have "substantially impacted" their neighborhoods. 254 He notes that other researchers
have demonstrated the high failure rate of CDCs and their inability to effectively promote neighborhood
economic self-sufficiency.255 Stoecker further suggests that CDCs not only fail to ameliorate poverty, but may
actually worsen conditions in poor communities by "disorganizing" existing social and political structures and
facilitating gentrification.256Other studies have specifically evaluated the impact of commercial development projects on
low-income neighborhoods. Focusing particularly on local redevelopment policies, these studies have looked at whether public
subsidies for business development in distressed neighborhoods—in the form of tax increment financing, tax -exempt bonds,
below-market loans, tax abatements and credits, grants, and other mechanisms257—have translated into economic benefits for poor
residents. Robert Pollin and Stephanie Luce, in a review of the literature, conclude that
redevelopment "policies have failed
to reduce urban poverty and reverse the decline of urban communities, even when, as is the case in some
cities, these policies have promoted the growth of downtown businesses." 258 In particular, Pollin
and Luce find that public subsidies do not contribute to overall job creation on a regional level and tend to
benefit the businesses that receive subsidies over members of low-income communities.259
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
6
Urban Agriculture Neg
Market Kritik 1NC
The neoliberal reliance upon market forces perpetuates the structural
inequalities of the status quo and justifies the extermination of
‘discardable’ populations- we must learn to step outside of this
framework and open up space for more holistic approaches.
Santos 03 (Boaventura de Sousa, University of Coimbra Sociology Professor, “Collective Suicide?,”
http://eserver.org/bs/63/santos.html)
Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to
the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic
of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment , hunger and death in the Third
World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been
fully applied. If there is terrorism, this is not due to the violence of the conditions that generate it; it is
due, rather, to the fact that total violence has not been employed to physically eradicate all terrorists
and potential terrorists.This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge,
and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce
infinitely the status quo. Inherent to it is the notion of the end of history. During the last hundred
years, the West has experienced three versions of this logic, and, therefore, seen three versions of
the end of history: Stalinism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the plan; Nazism, with its logic
of racial superiority; and neoliberalism, with its logic of insuperable efficiency of the market. The first two
periods involved the destruction of democracy. The last one trivializes democracy, disarming it in the
face of social actors sufficiently powerful to be able to privatize the state and international institutions in
their favor. I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism.
One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion,
worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly
democratic rulers.At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a
looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the
broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide
becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization,
neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of
"discardable populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers
and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands
of innocent civilians.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
7
Urban Agriculture Neg
MARKET KRITIK 1NC
The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s market based approach to
community development in order to open up a space for community
activism. Only this approach which allows people to speak openly
and for themselves can turn inner-city neighborhoods around.
Lee 97 (Charles, United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, et al., March 6, 1997,
"Environmental Justice, Urban Revitalization, And Brownfields: The Search For Authentic Signs Of Hope,"
online: http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/pdf/nejac_bf.pdf)
When the environmental justice movement posited the notion that "people must speak for themselves"
about an environment defined as "the place where we live, where we work, and where we play," it
established a framework for functionally bridging the key components of emerging environmental policy ,
including ecosystem management and community-based environmental protection, equal protection,
pollution prevention, cumulative risk, partnership building, programmatic integration, and
accountability to the public. 30 This fact needs to be elevated as a major tenet of emerging
environmental policy. Environmental justice is predicated upon the fact that the health of the members of
a community, both individually and collectively, is a product of physical, social, cultural, and spiritual factors.
It provides a key to understanding an integrative environmental policy which treats our common ecosystem
as the basis for all life (human and non-human) and activity (economic and otherwise). A systematic
public discourse over issues of race and the environment began around the siting of hazardous waste
and other noxious facilities. Initially, issues of race and the environment were understood only within
the narrow context of the siting issue. To a large extent, those who are out of touch with
communities continue to focus only on this issue. However, the issues associated with environmental
justice have grown exponentially as more and more communities demand that their day-to-day
issues--be they residential, occupational, or otherwise--be made part of the discourse over
environmental policy. Moreover, there exists the need to examine ways of integrating place-based
approaches to environmental protection with sector-based approaches. This has enormous implications
for industrial policy. In fact, the brownfields issue is a critical nexus for understanding the need for such
integration. More likely than not, any industrial sector which has entered its second generation and beyond
will have large numbers of brownfields sites. They are the inescapable byproducts of current patterns of
industrial/urban development. Far thinking economic and environmental analysts realize that one must
take into account the benefits and costs of the entire "life-cycle" of an individual plant or facility or
industrial sector. Failure to do so inevitably results in passing costs from one generation to another.
Thus, brownfields represent the costs which were externalized during the 1950s and must be paid for today.
The urban sprawl/brownfields issues makes it evident that the natural and human ecosystems may
be fast approaching the limits of their capacity to maintain such development patterns. There are
grave perils to a failure in not turning this way of doing business on its head so that such
considerations are addressed at the front end. Environmental justice represents a new vision borne out
of a community-driven process whose essential core is a transformative public discourse over what are truly
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
8
Urban Agriculture Neg
healthy, sustainable, and vital communities. It flows out of 500 years of struggle for survival by people of
color in a multiracial and multicultural society where they were excluded from the full benefits of citizenship
MARKET KRITIK CONTINUED
or equal rights by one group. It was not coincidental that civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. traveled
to Memphis, Tennessee in 1968 to address "an economic and environmental justice dispute for sanitation
workers striking for better wages, improved working conditions, and equity with other municipal workers."
31 Over the past decade, environmental justice has given birth to a new definition of the
environment as "the place where we live, where we work, and where we play." It sees the ecosystem
which forms the basis for life and well being as being composed of four interrelated environments,
i.e., natural, built, social, and cultural/spiritual. Environmental justice is predicated upon a thoughtful
critique of the shortcomings of current environmental policy. It has made tremendous contributions
to understanding the profound value of public participation and accountability in formulating public
policy and environmental decision making. It has reshaped the discourse around public health and
environment risks to include the path-breaking issue of multiple, cumulative, and synergistic risk. It
has pressed for a new paradigm for conducting community-driven science and holistic place-based, and
systems-wide environmental protection. Environmental justice will be the seed-bed for the development of
a set of new frameworks and tools truly capable of producing physically and psychologically healthy,
economically and ecologically sustainable, and culturally and spiritually vital communities. Environmental
justice is uniquely equipped to provide the visions, frameworks, and tools to address one of the most
critical issues of our times.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
9
Urban Agriculture Neg
Community Development/Markets Link
Community development projects remain committed to working
through the free-market instead of promoting radical community
empowerment.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
The current [community economic development] paradigm is defined by an adherence to market principles
and a belief in the efficacy of market-based antipoverty remedies. 194 It rests on the premise that the market
does not function properly in low-income communities and that creative efforts to build market capacity are
necessary to stimulate flagging local economies. The main programmatic goal , advanced primarily by CDCs, 195
has been to restructure market incentives to leverage private investment for the development of
community-based businesses, affordable housing, and financial institutions.196
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
10
Urban Agriculture Neg
Localization Link
Community economic development projects focus upon attempts to
revitalize specific communities instead of taking a holistic approach.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
Market-based CED is also rooted in the ideal of localism. The postmodern emphasis on the microcosm of
local community action has given credence to the idea—quite prevalent in the CED literature—
that the struggle against injustice must be waged at the local level. Against this backdrop, CED proponents
have generally accepted the local community as the appropriate locus of targeted economic revitalization
activities, while portraying CED as a strategy uniquely capable of redressing local poverty.Different
justifications have been offered in support of localized CED efforts. Some have arg ued that
the local focus is a strategic necessity—an effort to maximize the impact of advocacy
undertaken with limited financial resources. 220 Others have suggested that there is a stronger
imperative for localism, one rooted in a model of "bottom-up" social change that relies on the
active participation of community residents to produce meaningful, long-term results.221 In either
case, there has been a powerful tendency to treat the local neighborhood as a discrete economic unit in
need of rebuilding.222 Commentators have generally presumed the fixity of local neighborhood
boundaries, suggesting that the primary objective of CED should be the creation of new investment, jobs,
and development projects within defined geographic spheres .223 CED has therefore evolved as a "placebased" strategy that attempts to enlist the support of community residents to effect changes in their
immediate surroundings.224
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
11
Urban Agriculture Neg
Localization Link
Market-based community development projects draw upon arbitrary
geographic distinctions between communities and present a system
of localized efforts which demobilizes attempts to address the
problem’s larger systemic impacts.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
CED's focus on localism does
nothing to seriously challenge the structural determinants of poverty and diminishes the importance of
large-scale, coordinated social change strategies. Its failure to sufficiently address the broader spatial and institutional
A fu rth er lim ita tion of m arket - ba s ed CE D is its em ph a s is on loca l economic reform.
dimensions of poverty has constrained CED a d v o c a c y , d i s a s s o c i a t i n g i t f r o m a n a g e n d a o f s y s t e m i c e c o n o m i c
transformation.Concern about the narrow scope of market-based CED has prompted a th eoretica l a n d p ra ctice -b a sed
critiq u e of local reform efforts . On th e theoretical level, there has been a challenge to the postmodern underpinnings of
loca lism. In pa rticu la r, s chola rs h a ve q ues tioned w h eth er pos tmod ern micropolitics, which privileges local empowerment
over broad-based structural change, can provide a viable foundation for a progressive response to the increasing
concentration of political and economic decision-making power.287 Carl Boggs, for instance, has critiqued the Left's retreat
from the realm of movement politics and the proliferation of disconnected local organizing efforts in the face of the increasing
entrenchment of corporate powe r. 28 8 Another critic of localism has been legal scholar Joel Handler, who has suggested that
micropolitical efforts cannot seriously challenge the hegemony of liberal capitalism.289Commentators analyzing the
practical impact of CED at the grassroots level have voiced skepticism about the efficacy of local market-based programs in light
of the increasingly interconnected nature of urban economies.290 John Foster-Bey has argued that "community development
strategies which aspire to reduce poverty and revitalize cities by focusing merely upon individual
neighborhoods are insufficient to address the regional roots of the problem ."291 S p e c i fi c a l l y , h e h a s
c o n t e n d e d t h a t the urban metropolis, shaped by suburbanization, the dispersal of employment
opportunities, and poverty concentration,292 is not amenable to place-based economic revitalization
approaches and, instead, requires the implementation of "community-based connection strategies." 2 9 3
Similarly, Stoecker h as critiqu ed the local orientation of CDCs, which, he asserts, inhibits access to
outside capital and professional expertise, while minimizing the need for comprehensive strategies to
redress poverty. 294 Kristina Smock has also charged that local interventions cannot adequately respond to
urban problems generated by broader economic and political forces, especially since local community groups
rarely have access to the governmental and corporate decision makers who set the political agenda. 295
Those critical of CED localism have focused particular attention on the federal Empowerment Zone
Program, which has become the symbol of the type of place-based urban reform strategy that ignores the
role of economic restructuring and racial discrimination in creating the boundaries of low -income
neighborhoods.296The limitations of localism identified in these analyses underscore the need for
a revised conception of CED practice that links "inner-city residents to a larger scope of
economic and social opportunity."297 Rather than concentrating exclusively on neighborhood
development as a poverty reduction strategy, practitioners must begin to look beyond community
boundaries to a more comprehensive antipoverty approach that acknowledges the significance of regional
and transnational networks in the process of economic reform.298
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
12
Urban Agriculture Neg
Localization Impact
By entrenching the framework of geographically targeted marketbased CED programs, the Affirmative both reinscribes the neoliberal
logic which created the racial segregation and inequality in the first
place and disarms cross-boundary attempts to address the problem.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
By employing a geographically targeted approach that seeks to create economically self-sufficient
neighborhoods, market-based CED programs largely accept the existing spatial framework of urban
geographies, often imposing official designations—such as Empowerment Zones, redevelopment
project areas, CDC service areas— on enclaves of economic distress. This reinscription of community
boundaries is central to the logic of the market approach: It is necessary to define economically
disadvantaged urban space in order to effectively structure tax incentives, favorable loan packages, and
other financial benefits that would induce increased commercial and real estate
investment. Thus, the CED model works within the existing spatial distribution of poverty and does not
address the nexus between poverty concentration and residential segregation—leaving unchallenged the
racial cleavages that dissect urban geographies.The persistence of racial segregation in urban areas is
well established.299 As Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton have shown, residential segregation is a
key determinant of poverty concentration, confining people of color to urban areas where their spatial
isolation contributes to high levels of neighborhood poverty and makes them uniquely vulnerable to
economic downturns. 300 Race marks the boundaries of urban poverty: Communities with high
poverty concentrations are disproportionately comprised of people of color. 301 A
segregation analysis, therefore, reveals the limitations of viewing low-income neighborhoods
merely as economically disadvantaged geographic units. It is the spatial intersection of race and
poverty that shapes the contours of distressed urban environments.302Focu sing on relative
econ omic d isad van tage, market-based CED minimizes the racial dimensions of poverty. 3 0 3 By accepting
existing neighborhood configurations, the market approach tends to reinforce racialized community borders
and maintain existing patterns of racial segregation.304 This place-based focus impedes efforts to forge a
cross-racial coalition to advance a political agenda sensitive to the needs of low-income workers. As CED
advocates target resources to specific underdeveloped neighborhoods , they neglect to foster intercommunity collaboration around issues of common concern to poor city residents. Instead, they work with
outside elites to leverage financial capital to increase neighborhood wealth without challenging the
institutional discrimination and governmental policies that perpetuate racial and economic stratification.
"This myopic approach effectively ensures that those who are poor or disadvantaged remain isolated from
the problems of others who are similarly situated, thereby inhibiting, if not preventing, collective
organizing." 305 In order to respond adequately to the racialized nature of poverty, particularly in light
of the increasing diversity of American cities, a new CED agenda is required—one that promotes interracial solidarity and coordinates diverse groups into an effort to rebuild the economic justice
movement.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
13
Urban Agriculture Neg
Localization Impact
Attempts to revitalize urban communities with community
development projects can’t create significant change because their
scope is too small
Fosoter-Bey 97 (John, Staff at the Northwest Area Foundation in St. Paul, Minnesota, “Bridging
Communities: Making the Link Between Regional Economies and Local Community Development,” 8
Stanford Law & Policy Review, Summer)
Given these changes and challenges, is community development a realistic approach to reducing urban poverty? The community
development movement shares many of the advantages and limitations of similar programs in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
during the 1 9 5 0s an d ea rly 1 960s . New th eories w ith in th e developing world emphasized the importance of systemic access
domestic community development initiatives treat
neighborhoods as autonomous social and economic units and attempt to develop the neighborhood
economy. Two conceptual underpinnings provide the animus for this theory.The first compares low-income neighborhoods to
and opportun ity for imp ov eris hed group s. However,
impoverished neocolonial nations exploited by a capitalist system. Residents rent or purchase goods and servicesfrom local property and
business owners who reside outside the neighborhood. As a result, community wealth and income benefits the outside capitalist,
rather than being reinvested into the neighborhood. 87 In order to improve economic welfare, a neighborhood should
become self-sufficient in the production of consumer goods and services, and increase levels of employment, property, and business
ownership among local residents."The second concept credits the economic distress of low-income neighborhoods to market
failures that provide inaccurate information to investors about the profitability of investing in particular areas. There are t h r e e
s o u r c e s o f t h i s f a i l u r e : 1 ) i n v e s t o r s m i s s opportunities because they lack knowledge of local conditions; 2) investors
are unwilling to accept returns that are profitable but lower than they might receive with alternative projects; and 3) investors are
prevented from investing by legal or social constraints such as zoning restrictions. The job of community development, then, is to remove
the market risk and create vehicles that encourage private investment.Both the neocolonial exploitation model and
the directed capital model posit the existence of a powerful "local economic multiplier" that produces jobs
and wealth for neighborhood residents if outside investment or internal spending power and wealth "leaks"
are captured.A controversial article by Nicholas Lemann90 argues that community development theory is the only approach generally
accepted as a potential solution to growing urban poverty by the political parties, by the public, private, and philanthropic sectors,
and by low-income community residents.
Questions remain, however, about whether it is appropriate to treat
neighborhoods as autonomous economic units . Do either the neocolonial model or the directed capital model make realistic
sense? Is the neighborhood economic multiplier91 that underlies both models powerful enough to produce significant changes in
low-income residents' income and wealth? The remainder of this section will examine a crucial question: Does community
development achieve its goals?Lemann concludes his article with the assertion that community development has not been an
poor urban
communities were historically mere zones of transition, and thus are not analogous to the typical small town
implicitly used as a model for theories about multiplier effects . Lemann further asserts that the latest
effective solution to urban poverty due to conceptual and historical flaws in its basic premise. He contends that
incarnation of community development, the Empowerment Zone, is no more likely to succeed than
former incarnations, because it is likewise founded upon an illusory hope that impoverished communities
can be rebuilt from within their borders. Simply put, Lemann asserts that neither the neocolonial
exploitation model nor the directed capital model accurately describe the complexities of the actual
situation.Given the impressive growth in the number of CDCs across the nation and the widespread support
for the community development movement, Lemann's analysis is considered provocative at best. He is not entirely alone,
however, in his critique of community development. In a recent article in ShelterForce magazine, Randy Stoecker provided an equally
Community development initiatives, in his view, have
neither created a viable change movement, nor altered inequitable resource allocation practices. Instead,
damaging assessment from a perspective on the political left.
BmOrE CaMp
14
BUDL 2009
Urban Agriculture Neg
LOCALIZATION IMPACT CONTINUED
they have attempted to revitalize poor neighborhoods by distributing inadequate resources among limited
projects. This scarcity has resulted in intra-neighborhood conflict and "victim blaming" by outside observers
whenever projects fail, as they inevitably do, to achieve their broader redevelopment objectives92 Criticism of
neighborhood development, however, was voiced as early as 1969 by John Kain and Joseph Persky93 They suggested that the neocolonial
model did not fit the situation in most urban areas, contending that "[t]his oversimplified and misleading view ignores the
strong linkages that tie the ghetto to the remainder of the metropolis and to the nation."' More recently,
Daniel Gottlieb questioned the efficacy of the neocolonial model, stating: "The city neighborhood is simply
too small a geographic unit to be self-sufficient. The most pernicious legacy of the old theory is the continuing emphasis ... on
neighborhood-based job developmentt"95 Similarly, in assessing the effectiveness of Mexican-American efforts towards directed capitalism,
Benjamin Marquez indicated that
it is difficult to identify any new economic activity triggered by CDC activities96In
addition, mere location of businesses within the ghetto does not guarantee that low-income residents will
benefit. In fact, empirical research regarding the impact of CDC projects found that the people in lowincome neighborhoods gain little from such projects. Instead, the primary beneficiaries of CDC projects have
been government bureaucrats, CDC staff, businesses, auditing firms and consulting groups'' Unfortunately,
then, while spatial mismatch is a real barrier for low-income job seekers, proximity alone does not produce
significant employment or lower poverty rates. Major difficulties, like skill and wage inadequacy or
persistent racial discrimination, may not be addressed by neighborhood-based business and employment
location programs. In addition, small business development strategies are a costly solution, particularly in light of evidence
indicatingthat the employment created provides few economically meaningful opportunities."Even the success of a CDC does not
ensure its efficacy in combating poverty. It is possible to imagine a neighborhood development strategy
which improved economic opportunities for merely a few residents, enabling them to depart the
neighborhood, and leaving only the most destitute. In this scenario, despite the success of the project, the
neighborhood is likely to be worse off than it was before redevelopment efforts began' " M o s t C D C s l a c k
n e c e s s a r y f i s c a l a n d organizational resources. In addition, social and market forces often overwhelm the modest
successes CDCs enjoy, as these forces are vast and powerful, and not easily managed by neighborhood
revitalization strategies. 10°
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
15
Urban Agriculture Neg
LOCALIZATION IMPACT
CDC ‘empowerment’ efforts crowd out authentic grassroots
organizing efforts and undermines real change.
Stoecker 96 (Randy, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo, “The Community Development
Corporation Model of Urban Redevelompent: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative,” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/cdc.html)
Market processes are unpredictable, unstable, unaccountable, disorganizing things. They allow for the
destruction of communities through both speculative investment and disinvestment. When CDCs behave as
market-oriented organizations, they become part of the same disorganizing forces. CDCs often compete amongst
themselves for funds (Rubin, 1993b), and are pressured to support the capital side of the capital- community contradiction and put
organizational profit ahead of community benefit (Twelvetrees, 1989:86, 161; Berndt, 1977:125). Berndt, in 1977 (p.126) charged that
CDCs were joining local Chambers of Commerce and that the national-level CDC-support organization -- the National Congress for
Community Economic Development -- joined the National Association of Manufacturers (though NCCED states they have no current
relationship with NAM). Both the Chamber of Commerce and NAM have consistently opposed legislation protecting the poor. CDCs, then,
are enmeshed in the very networks that caused the problems to begin with, and thus limited to development possibilities dictated by the
market rather than directed by the people. When the CDC fails, it contributes to neighborhood decline. When the CDC succeeds, it
may also lead to neighborhood decline by disorganizing the community. Community development, when it
emphasizes the physical over the social and remains limited to the possibilities dictated by capital, may
actually increase turnover, displacement, and otherwise disorganize a communit y (Taub, 1990). Local
economic development, which produces jobs without impacting other neighborhood problems, encourages
those who have the jobs to leave (Lemann, 1994; Marquez, 1993). The market pressures CDCs to produce rental housing, and
they often acquiesce, producing 80 percent of their housing as rentals (Goetz and Sidney, 1994). This can disrupt community in two ways.
First, renters move more often than homeowners (Capek and Gilderbloom, 1992). Second, homeowners adopt a community control or
"ideology of property" position while renters adopt an affordability position, often leading to a struggle for control of neighborhood
organizations, including CDCs (Goetz and Sidney, 1993). In Cedar-Riverside this control-affordability contradiction took a bizarre twist.
When the community organizing group joined in a development partnership to take over the ailing high-rise housing in its midst, it opposed
an expansion of the number of Section 8 apartments in the complex, believing the complex was physically unsuitable for families. But this
brought the organization, noted for its work in planning affordable housing in the neighborhood, head to head with fair housing advocates
(Stoecker, 1994). Can CDCs develop community? Analysts and CDC members in the 1980s emphasized that CDCs did "projects" (Mayer,
1983; Twelvetrees, 1989), but he continuing influence of the comprehensive emphasis has led to talk about CDCs promoting community
organizing (White, 1993; Peirce and Steinbach, 1990; Rubin, 1996; Gittell et al., 1995). It is unclear, however, whether CDC advocates
understand what community organizing is, would want to do it if they knew, or could do it if they wanted to. The CDC model, as Traynor
(1992) aptly stated "has confused the building of power with the building of structures." The classic community organizing model does not
Community organizers understand
organizing as developing relationships so people can press their demands collectively and gain power
through that process (Alinsky, 1969; 1971; Delgado, 1994). Advocacy is an expert speaking for a constituency, rather
than helping them speak for themselves (Beckwith, n.d.). Whether CDC supporters actually mean advocacy in this sense is
appear to fit the CDC definition that uses "advocacy" synonymously with "organizing."
unclear (see Rubin, 1993), but the confusion over the usage is telling. Goetz (1993:127) finds that
CDCs try to make up for their
lack of attention to community organizing by supporting other "organizing efforts," but describes those
efforts as joining coalitions of other organizations and advocating around housing issues . Vidal (1992:163)
found that 80 percent of CDCs said their brokering and advocacy work was as important as development.
Rubin (1996) cites research saying one-half to one-third of CDCs do organizing. But again that does not
appear to mean bringing neighborhood residents together to press for their needs collectively. Some
analysts question whether CDCs do any substantial organizing, seeing them as consciously apolitical (Keating et
al, 1990). The tensions created by community organizing in three Toledo CDCs led to the firing of one organizer and the resignations of
others. Giloth (1985:39) sums up the problem by citing that "There is housing advocacy and development--but little squatting." In other
BmOrE CaMp
16
BUDL 2009
Urban Agriculture Neg
words, working within the rules, CDCs accept what trickles down, rather than helping people mobilize to reclaim
what's been taken away. As a result of the confusion over terms, not only is organizing neglected, but the CDC tries to be the
neighborhood voice (Vidal, 1992:162). This is dangerous, as we have already seen that CDCs are not adequate representatives of
neighborhood interests.
The CDC may even compete for public attention with organizing groups, dividing the
community between CDC supporters and organizing group supporters (Stoecker, 1994; 1995a). The CDC may also
delegitimize the organizing group by making it appear more militant, as CDCs are less threatening to power holders than community action
organizations (Taub, 1990).
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
17
Urban Agriculture Neg
Market Approach Turns Case
Relying upon a market based approach re-entrenches the harms that
the Aff intended to solve in the first place.
Stoecker 96 (Randy, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo, “The Community Development
Corporation Model of Urban Redevelompent: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative,” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/cdc.html)
Understanding the problems with the CDC model requires understanding the relationship between capital
and community. New Urban Sociology theorists and others argue that the relationship between capital and community is at least
potentially contradictory (Stoecker, 1994; Feagin and Parker, 1990; Logan and Molotch, 1987; Mollenkopf, 1981; Capek and Gilderbloom,
Community's tendency is to preserve neighborhood space as a
"use value" for the service of community members, while capital's tendency is to convert neighborhood
space into "exchange values" that can be speculated on for a profit. This sets up an antagonistic
1992; Swanstrom, 1993; Bluestone and Harrison, 1982).
relationship. Capital's conversion of neighborhood space into exchange values drives up rents, destroys
green space, eliminates neighborhood-based commerce, and disrupts neighboring patterns. Capital is less
willing to invest in neighborhood redevelopment that maintains neighborhood spaces as use values because
that would prevent speculation and limit profit accumulation. Either through destructive investment, or
disinvestment, community suffers.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
18
Urban Agriculture Neg
Alternative Causes Change
As the shortcomings of market-based solutions are revealed,
grassroots movements are able to garner support for their larger
inclusive measures of social change and justice.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
The emergent consensus in favor of market-based CED, while profoundly influencing the direction of antipoverty
galvanized an indigenous critique of social change practice . At the grassroots level,
dissatisfaction with the current orientation of CED work has begun to percolate, as the market consensus has
shown signs of fissure. Many community activists have recoiled from CED's lack of political engagement and
have started to register their dissent from the chorus of market-based CED boosterism, which has promoted the
advocacy, has also
value of market integration without questioning the fairness of existing institutional arrangements. Progressive scholars have
initiated a critical exchange over the efficacy of place-based CED strategies focusing on market expansion. Part II elaborates
on this critical perspective in order to demonstrate the limitations of the current market approach and to highlight the need for
an alternative CED grounded in grassroots politics and tethered to a larger movement for economic justice
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
19
Urban Agriculture Neg
Alternative Solves the Case
Effective social mobilization is key to stopping development projects
from being overrun by neoliberal interests- the alt is a prerequisite for
case solvency.
Stoecker 96 (Randy, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo, “The Community Development
Corporation Model of Urban Redevelompent: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative,” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/cdc.html)
Oppressed communities may benefit more by putting organizing before development. In Boston, the Dudley
Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) focused on organizing as the means to development, while partnering to do actual physical
redevelopment (Medoff and Sklar, 1994). In Minneapolis, the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood residents placed neighborhood organizing and
planning in the hands of the Project Area Committee, limiting their CDC to only implementing plans produced through the organizing
process (Stoecker, 1994). In San Antonio, Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS) resisted pressure to become a CDC (in the
words of their lead organizer, Ernesto Cortes (1995) "for the obvious reasons") after they achieved control of much of San Antonio's CDBG
budget (Reitzes and Reitzes, 1987; Warren, 1995, Rogers, 1990; Sekul, 1983). CRA challenges, using a community organizing model, have
produced enormous resources for community-based development--$7.5 billion by one estimate (Puls, 1991), including a $400 million
settlement in Boston, $373 million in Chicago, (Squires, 1992), and $1 billion in Detroit (Everett, 1992). Bradford and Cincotta (1992:269)
conclude "All of the other facets of reinvestment hinge upon the driving force of strong community organization." It is also clear that
successful organizing must lead to development, but only "when organizing is seen as the guiding force that
creates the development opportunities." (Medoff and Sklar, 1994:261). When communities are not
organized first, development is less likely to succeed (Medoff and Sklar, 1994:276). Organizing by itself
may even be "as successful as CDCs in making development happen ." (Twelvetrees, 1989:132). A large
literature also shows that participation in neighborhood organizations also increases confidence, efficacy,
power, identification with the community, interaction, mutual aid, leadership development, and problem
solving capacity (see Checkoway, 1985). Organizing to prevent capital flight or speculation can be
more effective than trying to mop up afterward (Giloth, 1985). " Even squatting campaigns have led
to successful redevelopment (Schuman, 1990). Gone are the days when the villains were clear and
visible, however. Communities are less threatened today by the rogue speculative investor than by
disinvestment attacking from the shadows. Capitalist disinvestment has so disrupted community networks
that special forms of organizing that first build neighborhood relationships may be necessary before the
community can engage in more public struggle (Stall and Stoecker, 1994). Defending against, and
recovering from, the forces that cause decay also requires education and planning as much as strategy and
tactics. Hamilton (1992:87-100), following Dean and Dowling (1987), describes a process that begins
with some threat arousing the community, and then invokes a learning process as organizers help
community members explore the causes and ramifications of the threat. The community then
conducts research and begins a planning/organizing process that leads to social action. After
evaluating their efforts, they expand on their initial organizing to spin-off development activity.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
20
Urban Agriculture Neg
Kritik Comes First
We must begin with a community empowerment approach to be able
to reach the stage where urban centers are ready for development.
Stoecker 96 (Randy, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo, “The Community Development
Corporation Model of Urban Redevelompent: A Political Economy Critique and an Alternative,” http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers96/cdc.html)
So the CDC model potentially increases internal community conflict, displacement, and disempowerment
both when it fails and when it succeeds. While CDCs try to work where government left- off, they still
depend on government; while they try to be community controlled, they still need to respond to
outside schedules and funds; and while they are effective because they are small, the problems are
big (Twelvetrees, 1989:190-1). But what is to be done? Many groups got into development because
they believed they weren't getting enough out of community organizing. But they found that doing
development affected fewer people and made organizing more difficult (Bratt, 1989:235). The
problem is that CDCs are really not, nor can they be, about empowerment. If we shift from a community
development model to a community empowerment model we can find a place for the CDC in community
redevelopment that does not so readily contradict community empowerment.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
21
Urban Agriculture Neg
AT: We Help Local Economy
Market-based approaches do not provide the necessary infrastructure
needed before the local economy can be revitalized.
Cummings 01 (Scott L., Professor of Law UCLA “Community Economic Development as Progressive
Politics: Toward a Grassroots Movement for Economic Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 3,
399-493)
Analyses of small business development programs and market-oriented affordable housing
projects have also cast doubt on their poverty alleviation potential. Although the well-known SelfEmployment Learning Project study conducted by the Aspen Institute found positive
economic gains for low-income business owners involved in seven different microenterprise
programs,263 Louise Howells has noted that small business development projects suffer from several
limitations that inhibit their effectiveness in moving welfare-dependent individuals out of poverty.264 In
particular, Howells asserts that microenterprise development, which rests on the assumption that "the
market economy can provide subsistence for everyone who chooses to participate,"265 is typically not a
successful antipoverty strategy for poor persons without access to the types of personal resources—
education, job skills, and strong social networks—that foster business success.266 Moreover, Howells finds
that microenterprise development is hampered by high failure rates and inadequate financial and
technical assistance, which undermine its efficacy as an antipoverty strategy.267 She concludes that if
"the rationale for microenterprise programs is to increase family income and security, program
dollars may be better spent assisting individuals to find a reliable job with benefits."268
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
22
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: Brownfields Aren’t CDC/CED
Brownfield cleanup is done by CDC groups.
The EPA 7 (Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields 2007 Grant Fact Sheet ,
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/07arc/r01_ma_southberkshirecdc.htm)
CLEANUP GRANT $200,000 for hazardous substances
EPA has selected the Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire for a brownfields cleanup
grant. Hazardous substances grant funds will be used to clean up the eight-acre New England Log
Home site located at 100 Bridge Street in the Town of Great Barrington. Contamination includes
dioxins, heavy metals, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The site was first used as a textile mill
in 1894 and manufactured log home components from 1971-1993. COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONThe
Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire was selected to receive a brownfields
cleanup grant. Located along the Housatonic River in southern Berkshire County, the Town of Great
Barrington (population 7,527) has an immediate need for affordable housing. A demand for second
homes in the area has made housing unaffordable for many year-round residents who live and work
in the community. The average sales price of a house in southern Berkshire County has more than
doubled in six years to $481,330 in 2006. Median household and family incomes in Great Barrington
and Berkshire County are lower than in the rest of Massachusetts. MassDevelopment, the state
economic development agency, has designated the cleanup site as one of five priority brownfield
sites in the state. Once cleanup is complete, the site will be redeveloped with affordable housing
units. Brownfields redevelopment will create new jobs and increase public access to the Housatonic
River, an important natural and recreational asset for the Town of Great Barrington.
Brownfield redevelopment projects are the responsibility of
community economic development groups.
The EDA No Date Given (The Economic Development Administration, US Department of
Commerce, http://www.eda.gov/Research/Brownfields.xml)
In the last six years, EDA has invested approximately $225 million in over 200 brownfields
redevelopment projects. The average investment during this period was roughly $1.1 million. In fiscal
year 2006 alone, EDA invested over $40 million in 27 brownfield-related efforts (average investment,
$1.5 million). Since fiscal year 2001, EDA investments in brownfields projects have helped community
economic development activities in over 40 states and 150 communities . Investment recipients estimate
that these brownfields projects will generate almost $6 billion in private investment and will create
or retain over 100,000 jobs. Approximately 29 percent of the investments were made in rural
communities.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
23
Urban Agriculture Neg
GENTRIFICATION TURN
The plan is a ruse for corporations to acquire government funds. Help
to disadvantaged communities does not occur.
Green and Stokes 07 ( Kenneth,Lance President and CEO, is the Principal of ECI Environmental Consultants &
Engineers, LLC. and ECI consultant “Twenty-Five Years of ‘Change’ and Things Remain The Same” 2007
“Disadvantaged” Communities have not and do not use brownfield tools and resources as a spark to redevelop
blighted areas or create opportunities or give hope for the benefit of their “disadvantaged” residents. Although
communities with large segments of disadvantaged residents may use the disadvantaged residents in the brownfield as a tool to leverage
resources and assistance to spur revitalization, brownfield redevelopment is not about disadvantaged individuals. Brownfield redevelopment is
not disadvantaged-people-development. Disadvantaged individuals only serve initially as a tool in a community’s
acquisition of brownfield redevelopment funds. The term brownfield revitalization/redevelopment is defined by
EPA as, ‘the reuse, refurbishment, or expansion of real property which may be complicated by the presence or
potential presence of hazardous substances’. There is nothing in that definition that addresses disadvantaged
people. Across the U.S, developers grab up abandoned urban mills, factories, landfills, gas stations and quarries
and, using government money, replace those eye soars with condominiums, town houses, and single family
homes. These areas are in prime locations close to jobs, entertainment, mass transportation, etc and because of these amenities, consumers
are willing to pay top dollar to live on land once barely, if not at all, fit for habitation. Disadvantaged residents, who once occupied
the brownfield prior to revitalization/redevelopment, are seldom the individuals who occupy it after the
revitalization/redevelopment. After the tool is used successfully, there is little use for it, so it is cast away.
The impact is the gentrification of the communities. Affluent control
of the sites would drive out disadvantaged people
Green and Stokes 07 ( Kenneth,Lance President and CEO, is the Principal of ECI Environmental Consultants &
Engineers, LLC. and ECI consultant “Twenty-Five Years of ‘Change’ and Things Remain The Same” 2007
The term ‘stakeholder’ is typically interpreted as an entity that has a legitimate interest in a project or activity.
Entities that may be identified as stakeholders might include: municipalities, counties, state agencies,
land/property developers, investors, bankers and financiers, environmental firms, and the disadvantaged
individuals who actually reside in the brownfield neighborhood. All of these inclusions have a legitimate interest
in the revitalization of the brownfield, and therefore all are included, except, unfortunately for one: the
disadvantaged individuals who actually reside in the brownfield neighborhood, Do the disadvantaged individuals
have a legitimate interest? Of course, unfortunately, the disadvantaged individuals are the disenfranchised
individuals as well. Perhaps the appropriate term for this environmental injustice is ‘brownfield gentrification’,
defined as the taking of properties in run-down urban neighborhoods by affluent people, thus increasing
property values but displacing less affluent residents and owners of small businesses. Two faulty studies on
gentrification stand out as horrific: one is a paper published out of the University of Chicago that attempts to
discredit environmental justice by claiming there is no environmental racism and the other is a paper published by staff at
Georgia State University and published for the National Center for Environmental Economics(EPA) The University of Chicago paper promotes
the notion that there is no environmental racism and the Georgia State University paper overtly claims that environmental gentrification may
be a good thing. The horrific character of these two papers is in the fact that so called ‘intellectuals’ and people
with academic credentials attempt to use statistics and mathematical models to add credence to their racist
perspectives. This brings to mind an attempt by an epidemiologist, engaged by The World Bank, to attempt to convince the Ministers of
Environment and Health in Turkmenistan that a “little fecal matter in Turkmenistan’s drinking water, might be a good thing to aid the people of
Turkmenistan to develop immunities to bacteria”. Needless to say, the Ministers did not concur and that specific trip turned out to be a failure.
The two referenced papers here, as in the situation in Turkmenistan, underscore that fact that fecal matter is not a good thing for anyone.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
24
Urban Agriculture Neg
GENTRIFICATION TURN
Hurricane Katrina proves out gentrification argument. Political
intervention often time results in the relocation of those in poverty
Green and Stokes 07 ( Kenneth,Lance President and CEO, is the Principal of ECI Environmental Consultants &
Engineers, LLC. and ECI consultant “Twenty-Five Years of ‘Change’ and Things Remain The Same” 2007
Just as a side note, the term “disadvantaged” seems to always be defined in terms of ethnicity. The term originally
referred to black Americans; racism solidified that. After the Vietnamese war, Asians got included in the term. With
the significant increase of Hispanics and Latinos, the term has been redefined to ‘people of color’. Somewhere
along the line, the designation of ‘poor whites’ got included and the definition evolved again to ‘people of color
and poor whites’. It seems the definition ‘poor people of color and poor whites’ or simply ‘poor people’ would
logically suffice. Nevertheless, it is the lack of education, lack of financial resources, and lack of sound mental
capacity that defines an individual as disadvantaged and marked by poverty, injustice and without investment.
Lack of education and resources, along with political intervention result in disadvantaged people being
disenfranchised and being located in or near contaminated areas in the first place. These same factors are
responsible for the majority of disadvantaged people being pushed out of an area, once
revitalization/redevelopment is accomplished.
Eliminating the disadvantaged/disenfranchised is a common activity even out side the realm of brownfields.
Consider, for example, the Katrina flood damage in Louisiana in 2005. Monies for the reconstruction of property
and structures are being provided to rebuild the devastation. The devastation was portrayed with many views of
structures under water on national television, but more, it was the sad and tragic faces of disadvantaged men,
women, and children, the elderly, and of dead bodies of African Americans laying unattended on sidewalks for
days…the horrendous fate put upon the ‘refugees’, as the media referred to them…people seeking shelter in a
foreign country. A great deal of reaction was vocalized on the use of the term ‘refugees’…implying foreigners in a
foreign land. What happened to those victims of the flood? They were evacuated… bussed out.. flown
out…dispersed to far away locations. Will these victims/evacuees be contacted and offered an opportunity to
return to start building? Are they even wanted back? Current discussions appear to be along the lines of rebuilding
a different New Orleans…one without the disadvantaged/disenfranchised/refugee. In October 2005, the
Washington Post reported that whites from the more affluent areas that were flooded were in the process of
returning in far greater numbers than people returning to the predominately black ghettos. The impact of this
trend could result in a permanent shift of the political landscape which could result in further disempowerment
of low income and non-white residents. To the disadvantaged/disenfranchised/’refugee’…the United States
obviously is a foreign land, or so it appears.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
25
Urban Agriculture Neg
LEAD TURN
Urban and suburban soil has high lead content
Murphy ’09 New York Times “For Urban Gardeners, Lead is a Concern”
Harmful even at very low doses, lead is surprisingly prevalent and persistent in urban and suburban soil. Dust
from lead-tainted soil is toxic to inhale, and food grown in it is hazardous to eat. Health officials, soil scientists and
environmental engineers worry that the increasing popularity of gardening, particularly the urban kind, will put more
people at risk for lead poisoning if they don’t protect themselves. Thanks in part to the influence of the local-food
movement and to economic considerations, more households in the United States plan, like the Obamas, to grow their own fruits,
vegetables, herbs and berries this year — seven million more households, according to the National Gardening Association, a 19 percent
increase over last year. While the increased physical activity and
access to fresh produce promised by this trend are
certainly healthy developments, widespread lead contamination means that many people are going to have to
do more than wear gloves and sunscreen to garden safely. The presence of lead in soil doesn’t mean gardening is out of the
question, but it may require a change in plot design and choice of crops, and soil amendments. “You won’t know if you’re at risk unless you
test your soil,” said Murray McBride, a professor of soil chemistry at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., which because of concerns about
lead in community gardens began a free soil-testing program last month in cooperation with the New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation. Since 2003, hazardous amounts of lead have been documented in
backyard and community gardens
in New York as well as in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New
Orleans, Philadelphia and Washington. Lead-laden soil has been found not only in inner city neighborhoods but
also suburban areas.
-Lead poisoning destroys livestock
Jerome Nietfeld and Brad DeBey in 2006 Lead poisoning: A cause of sudden death in calves,
http://www.dairyherd.com/heifer.asp?ts=hfa&pgID=295&ed_id=5086
The information presented in this Case Study is from Jerome Nietfeld, DVM, PhD, and Brad DeBey, DVM, PhD,
Kansas State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, and appeared in the Kansas Veterinary Quarterly,
Summer 2005.Lead poisioning is one of the most important causes of toxicity in cattle. Although lead poisioning
occurs throughout the year, the number of cases increases in the spring and summer. Two primary reasons are:
The acute toxic dose of lead is much lower for calves than for adult cattle.Calves are curious and can explore
places that adult cattle cannot. If their environment contains an old battery or something else with lead, calves
will find it and eat it. Approximately 20g (0.07 oz.) of lead is an acute lethal dose for a neonatal calf.
-Lead poisoning kills children
Scott Sharabura 11/11/02 “LEAD KILLS CHILDREN: You Always Suspected LEAD Was Bad For You – Now We Have
Proof”, http://media.www.chibus.com/media/storage/paper408/news/2002/11/11/Humor/Lead-Kills.Children322606.shtml
According to United Parents Against LEAD, there are three million LEAD-poisoned children in the United States
alone. LEAD causes all kinds of health problems, including headaches, nausea, vomiting, developmental
problems, and (in severe cases) death. "Today, childhood LEAD poisoning has reached epidemic proportions,"
says the UPAL Web site. "There are no safe levels of LEAD in children!"
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
26
Urban Agriculture Neg
PUBLIC HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT TURN
-Urban Farms pose threat to public health
Mougeot ’00 “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, and Potential and Risks”
http://www.idrc.ca/in_focus_cities/ev-2571-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
UA threatens public health?Such concerns refer to contamination risks of producers, handlers, consumers
and people in the vicinity of production areas caused by crop and husbandry inputs, products and byproducts (nuisances, safety hazards). These concerns are legitimate and must be addressed; they arise from
practices carried out at wrong places or in the wrong way; they have to do with the quantity and use of agricultural inputs
(including feed), choice of production for site characteristics, density of use of site and vicinity (number of animals per unit area), handling
of products and by-products. Particular attention must be given to human health risks and nuisance posed by urban livestock. Flynn (1999)
states that the relationship between UA and the rural-urban transition of zoonoses remains largely under-researched. There is evidence
from major cities in Nigeria, India, Brazil and Saudi Arabia on human brucellosis infection and echinococcus infection transmitted by
domestic livestock. The risk of such diseases spreading is real, as a result of inappropriate zero-grazing and animal-waste disposal in
slaughterhouses or densely-populated areas, where space-confined husbandry of swine, goats and sheep is growing (Ayanwale et al. 1982,
Pillai et al. 1996, Larrieu et al. 1988, Cooper 1991). Health aspects of human excreta re-use have been extensively reviewed by the former
International Reference Centre for Waste Disposal (1985); a comparative study of 1989 WHO (World Health Organisation) guidelines for
wastewater/excreta re-use confirmed their appropriateness (Blumenthal et al. 1991/92). Problems seem to reside with implementation
and acceptance. Chinese cities have a long tradition of collecting human wastes and applying “night-soil” to periurban crops, although Ling
(1994) argues that treatment processes have yet to be standardised to reduce potential health risks posed by the use of human waste as
crop fertiliser or fish feed.
-Urban
Farms hurt the environment and cause health issues
Mougeot ’00 “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, and Potential and Risks”
http://www.idrc.ca/in_focus_cities/ev-2571-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Little could be found in the academic literature which would condemn UA at large and advocate its ban under any form. The debateis likely to heat up as UA practice and policy grow in scale
and in complexity in the next decades, thus affecting interests in very different and tangible ways. Where irregular UA practice has been overtly opposed, this has been more so initially than
UA as a use of
public open space remains an issue, and more so than as a use of private residential space; animal husbandry on
public or private land is more contentious than plant cultivation; and with the latter, more so the growing of food
than of non-food products (ornamentals). Opposition to UA in developing countries has tended to come from urbanplanning, public
recently, with reactions shifting from repression to tolerance, selective support and issue management (Cosgrove 1994 on Montreal; Mbiba 1995 on Harare).
health and environmental sectors in local government, more often than from those covering employment, community services and agriculture.
Urban planning: the more frequent argument is that agriculture should be confined to rural areas, as it can interfere with more productive
use/rent of land by other economic activities. Yet, there is little evidence so far that UA at large, or most RA for that matter, has stood in the
way of urban development; its land-extensive forms are interim and interstitial use of urban land which, as other land-extensive uses (singlestorey housing, ground-level parking, warehouses, airports, etc.), migrate to less central locations during city expansion. . UA does serve as a
buffer between otherwise incompatible urban land uses. Different UA systems do combine with a range of non-agricultural land uses; for
instance, the Centre for Urban and Rural Studies of the Universidad Catolica Madre y Maestra in Santiago de los Caballeros , Dominican
Republic, (del Rosario, 1999) found that in 1997 food crops and livestock were being produced in a third of all 2 734 city blocks ( 38 % of the
blocks classified as poor, 24 % of low-income, 44 % of mid-income, 48 % of high-income residential, 6 % of commercial, 15 % of industrial and
23 % of institutional). The land rent argument must be put in perspective. On one hand, urban planning is responsible for creating and
protecting several land uses which are quite legitimate on grounds other than their mere land rent; on the other, not only is the rent of many
urban land uses well below that which is deliverable by specific UA activities, but the rent of several such uses can actually be increased through
their combination with UA. UA in public areas has shown to increase the land value of residences in derelict districts, UA has been effectively
combined with right-of way management or recreational uses in urban parks, and reduces operational costs of wastewater treatment when
coupled with this to recover treated effluents for commercial crops and aquiculture. Public health: such concerns refer to
contamination risks of producers, handlers, consumers and people in vicinity of production areas caused by crop
and husbandry inputs, products and by-products (nuisances, safety hazards). These concerns are legitimate and
must be addressed; they arise from practices carried out at wrong places or in the wrong way; they have to do with the quantity and use of agricultural inputs (including feed),
(10)
choice of production for site characteristics, density of use of site and in vicinity (number of animals per unit area), handling of products and by-products.
Environmental
BmOrE CaMp
27
BUDL 2009
Urban Agriculture Neg
health: issues include visual untidiness, soil erosion, destruction of vegetation, siltation, depletion of water
bodies and pollution of resources (soil, air, water) (see below).
PUBLIC HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT TURN
The impact is extinction: 2 ways
A.) Soil erosion
James E. Horne and Maura McDermott, PhD and President Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture,
and Communications Director at the Kerr Center, the next green revolution, 2001,
http://www.kerrcenter.com/HTML/green_excerpt1.html
Topsoil is crucial to agriculture. This first step-- conserving and creating healthy soil-- is the foundation of a sustainable
agriculture. It is closely linked to the next two steps-- conserve water and protect its quality, and manage organic wastes so they don’t
pollute. How well agriculture manages soil, water, and organic wastes will determine its future health.
Conserving healthy soil by guarding it against erosion or other forces that would degrade it is the most
basic step. This step has as its corollary actively building soil health, because soil used for agricultural purposes today is not as
healthy as it could be. It is both less diverse and less active biologically. Without healthy topsoil, the world cannot begin to
feed its billions. While American popular culture discourse in recent years has speculated on the fate of life on earth in case of alien
invasion, asteroid bombardment or rampaging killer viruses, the slow loss of quality soil is more of a threat to life on
the planet than any of the above.
B.) Freshwater Depletion
Maude Marlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and IFG Committee on the
Globalization of Water, 2001 “BLUE GOLD: The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the
World's Water Supply,” http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BlueGold.pdf.
Perhaps the
most devastating analysis of the global water crisis comes from hydrological engineer Michal
Kravèík and his team of scientists at the Slovakia non-governmental organization (NGO) People and Water. Kravèík, who has a
distinguished career with the Slovak Academy of Sciences, has studied the effect of urbanization, industrial agriculture, deforestation,
dam construction, and infrastructure and paving on water systems in Slovakia and surrounding countries and has come up with an
alarming finding. Destroying water's natural habitat not only creates a supply crisis for people and animals, it also dramatically
diminishes the amount of available fresh water on the planet. Kravèík describes the hydrologic cycle of a drop of water. It must first
evaporate from a plant, earth surface, swamp, river, lake or the sea, then fall back down to earth as precipitation. If the drop of water
falls back onto a forest, lake, blade of grass, meadow or field, it cooperates with nature to return to the hydrologic cycle. "Right of
domicile of a drop is one of the basic rights, a more serious right than human rights," says Kravèík. However, if the earth's surface is
paved over, denuded of forests and meadows, and drained of natural springs and creeks, the drop will not form part of river basins
and continental watersheds, where it is needed by people and animals, but head out to sea, where it will be stored. It is like rain falling
onto a huge roof, or umbrella; everything underneath stays dry and the water runs off to the perimeter. The consequent reduction in
continental water basins results in reduced water evaporation from the earth's surface, and becomes a net loss, while the seas begin
to rise. In Slovakia, the scientists found, for every 1 percent of roofing, paving, car parks and highways constructed, water supplies
decrease in volume by more than 100 billion meters per year. Kravèík issues a dire warning about the growing number of what he calls
the earth's "hot stains"—places already drained of water. The "drying out" of the earth will cause massive global warming, with the
attendant extremes in weather: drought, decreased protection from the atmosphere, increased solar radiation, decreased
biodiversity, melting of the polar icecaps, submersion of vast territories, massive continental desertification and, eventually, "global
collapse."
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
28
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: poverty advantage
Poverty is Inevitable, Government only makes it worse
Mike Myeong, Oct 14, 2008, http://myeong.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/why-poverty-is-inevitable-mike-myeong/
Adam Smith, one of the most influential economists of England has a philosophy which says the more the
Government tries to intervene with social problems of the people, worse the situations are. In other words, the
problems of the people are just a natural cause like a hurricane, or an earthquake. This philosophy applies to the situation being dealt with in
this essay. Poverty stricken people in a village in Africa who live in tribes are not aware of current events around the world. They don’t have
T’Vs,internet connection, and newspapers to inform them. The majority of them are illiterate as well. These people are oblivious to the world
and are not aware that the rest of the world categorized their living as poverty-stricken. Within their social perimeters, their lifestyle is perfectly
normal. A handful of philanthropists who think it’s their duty to go and “help” these people by giving them money and shelter will contaminate
the poverty level with the modern social norms. One by one, these people will view themselves in a negative way. Others who watch their
neighbors get extraordinary help will get jealous, begging for help as well. A once peaceful village is now pillaged with jealously, “true” poverty,
and a degraded life. Ignorance is bliss indeed in such case. This situation is the equivalent to that of us giving a caveman T.V, video games,
permanent houses, and light bulbs. They will go crazy and the balance of the world will be shifted. People who simply say things something like,
“ oh we should donate in Africa and help them create a small business so that they can become like us” are ignorant. Like said, these people
don’t know how to effectively create businesses not to mention the negative chain effect stated above. If we were to alleviate poverty in these
areas, we would have to successfully provide ALL with such help and luxuries. And this, by conventional means is impossible.\A more practical
approach to this argument is to take into account the government system the majority of poverty stricken people exist in. Yes, the vast majority
of the poverty line population inhabit in third-world countries. Alleviating poverty is not as simple as simply shipping billions of dollars annually
to these countries. What most people don’t realize is the state of the government. More or less internal turmoil and conflicts are present in
these countries where governments are constantly crashing with rebels and riots. Unfortunately there is no effective direct way to hand the
money to these people at their doorsteps. A vast sum of donated money goes to the government. Now, is there a policy that somehow
guarantees the proper delivery of the money? Absolutely not. The money is prone to other spending andfundings such as weapons, better pay
for higher officials, or to fund an arms program. The money then instead of helping poverty, will actually worsen it by increasing conflict.In
developed countries such as the US, poverty is still prevalent. However, we have a prominent system of welfare
that takes care of it. Even if it does not there is not much we can do. Everybody cannot be a lawyer, a doctor, a
salary man. Every single person cannot be middle class or above. Our society needs cleaners, garbage men,
laborers; essentially who make up most of the poverty line in developed countries. Hence, sending a couple
hundred dollars a year to a specific family won’t do anything. There has to be a balance of the variety of
functions required to run the world as it is run today: The only way to come over this barrier to completely
change the system of our world.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
29
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: WARMING ADVANTAGE
Climate models have not been accurate
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role of the Sun in Climate
Change, and has worked at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to evaluate how accurate climate models
have been. Hoyt wrote, "Starting in 1997, we created a scorecard to see how climate model predictions were
matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of the predictions being wrong in magnitude and
often in sign." (LINK) A March 1, 2007 blog post in the National Review explained how the scoring system works.
"[Hoyt] gives each prediction a ‘yes-no-undetermined score.' So if the major models' prediction is confirmed, the
score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final
score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined," the blog noted. Hoyt has
extensively researched the sun-climate connection and has published nearly 100 scientific papers in such areas
as the greenhouse effect, aerosols, cloud cover, radiative transfer, and sunspot structure. (LINK) To see Hoyt's
climate model scorecard, go here:
Current computer models cannot predict climate. Cycling is normal.
The evidence against warming is inconclusive
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in
the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate, says "the
science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we
have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter,
drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations
and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide
real opportunities. (For example, the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly
increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and
northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of the signatories of a December 13, 2007
open letter critical of the UN IPCC process. “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives,
acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer
projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998,” the letter Maunder signed
stated. “That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with
the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling,” the letter added
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
30
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2 WARMING ADVANTAGE
CO2 preserves biodiversity
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change says CO2 is the only way to pull endangered species
back from extinction. Increased levels would strengthen existing ecological balances and improve biodiversity. CO2
enrichment increases species richness; exudation of organic matter stimulates dormant micro-organisms,
increased numbers of fungal species boost ecosystem diversity 60%. CO2 doesn’t favor some species over others –
it helps species strength across the board
Warming doesn’t hurt the environment. CO2 benefits biodiversity
Arthur Robinson, et al., Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, “Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” January 1998, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm, accessed 11/26/01
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be
expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide
levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased. We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the
current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000
years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the
habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29). Figure 22: Summary data from 279 published experiments in which plants of all types
were grown under paired stressed (open circles) and unstressed (closed circles) conditions (66). There were 208, 50, and 21 sets at 300, 600,
and an average of about 1350 ppm CO2, respectively. The plant mixture in the 279 studies was slightly biased toward plant types that respond
less to CO2 fertilization than does the actual global mixture and therefore underestimates the expected global response. CO2 enrichment
also allows plants to grow in drier regions, further increasing the expected global response. Human use of coal, oil,
and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in
the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier
regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from
poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain
and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be
responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the
atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment
of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that
with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
31
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE
CONCEPTS OF ‘OBESITY’ ARE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED; TO CALL
OBESITY AN ‘EPIDEMIC’ IGNORES THE ARBITRARY NATURE OF ITS
SCIENCE.
Guthman and Dupuis 2k6 [“embodying neoliberalism: economy, culture, and the politics”, “environmental and
planning: society and space”, vol. 24, p. 427-448]
The third main approach to obesity is somewhat different in that it is concerned less
with identifying the cause of obesity than with problematizing the war on obesity. For
example, several studies address the social construction of norms regarding weight
and body size (see, for example, Cogan, 1999; Hamin, 1999; Saukko, 1999), along
with the social construction of the obesity epidemic itself (Campos, 2004). One
central point is that measurements of obesity change with new scientific ideas and
techniques, making historical comparisons of fatness difficult. For example, in June
1998, the National Institutes of Health released new guidelines on the measurement
of obesity, using the now familiar body mass index (BMI)öa needlessly abstruse
measure of height-to-weight ratio used to identify the `overweight' and `obese'. By
reducing the recommended cut-off point from over 27 BMI to 25 BMI, several million
Americans became overweight in one fell swoop (Kuczmarski and Flegal, 2000). Such
changes would certainly call into question the rhetoric of epidemic. And, as Campos
(2004) discusses at length, as a ratio the BMI fails to capture many other variables that
could affect what is considered to be the optimal weight for different peopleöif,
indeed, optimality could be divorced from the cultural context that simply equates
thinness to health. The social-constructionist literature raises the additional issue that
the norms of thinness vary among historical periods, and, of course, in different
cultural contexts. The suggestion here is that what constitutes the ideal body has less
to do with health and more to do with ideas of perfection, goodness, femininity, and
so forth (DuPuis, 2001; McKinley, 1999; Saukko, 1999; Sobal, 1999).
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
32
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE
The process of segmenting a population at-risk is used to intervene
and ensure a disciplining effect over the preservation of life.
Guthman and Dupuis 2k6
[“embodying neoliberalism: economy, culture, and the politics”, “environmental and planning: society and space”,
vol. 24]
Contemporary notions of public health which inform much of the obesity debate,
in particular the arguments which ascribe the epidemic of obesity to the `toxic
environment' are similarly the terrain of biopolitics. Public health relies heavily on
epidemiological statistics to infer cause. The statistics point to an abnormal `at-risk'
population. Yet, public health interventions are not directed primarily to the 20% or so
Embodying neoliberalism 443of people considered at risk; indeed, the purpose of such interventions is to
change societal norms of behavior, to intervene at the level of the population (Rose, 1985).
The very idea of dividing populations into subgroups, some of whom are seen to retard
the general welfare of the population, is in some sense, then, to prevent, contain, or
eliminate the abnormal (Dean, 1999, page 100).
Here we see the biopolitical effects of constructing an epidemic of obesity. The
interventions are really about warning, even about disciplining, the `normal' by using
the at-risk as examples. So, in the case of obesity, we get the shocking statistics about
inexorable roads toward fatness if current eating patterns continue.We are shown how
these statistics correlate with race, class, and gender. We are hounded with intense
calculations of the nutritional constituents of all our favorite processed foods. Basically,
we are told that obesity cannot be cured only prevented, in light of diet failure (Germov
and Williams, 1999; Sobal, 1999). The war on obesity including the epidemic talk,
that isöis directed toward the relatively thin and in that way is most centrally about
disciplining the center.
In short, neoliberal governmentality produces contradictory impulses such that the
neoliberal subject is emotionally compelled to participate in society as both out-ofcontrol consumer and self-controlled subject. The perfect subject ^ citizen is able
to achieve both eating and thinness, even if having it both ways entails eating nonfoods
of questionable health impact (Splenda) or throwing up the food one does eat (the
literal bulimic). Those who can achieve thinness amidst this plenty are imbued with
the rationality and self-discipline that those who are fat must logically lack; they then
become the deserving in a political economy all too geared toward legitimizing such
distinctions.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
33
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE
DISCOURSE OF OBESITY JUSTIFIES HOMOPHOBIA AND RACISM. IT MEDICALIZES FATNESS AND TREATS THE OBESE
AS A DISEASE
julie Guthman 2007, fat ontologies? Toward a political ecology of obesity, presented to berk.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/EnvirPol/ColloqPapers/Guthman2007.pdf.
So, at the risk of stating the obvious, I want to move forward by suggesting that obesity as a
“problem” is plagued by a set of ontological and epistemological conundrums regarding its
conceptual objects, classifications, measurements, and causal relations, broadly similar in kind to those that
came to cast doubt on neo-Malthusian claims of land degradation. As a starting point,
note that the term obesity itself is one that medicalizes fatness, suggesting it is a condition
amenable to treatment. To speak of an epidemic, especially, connotes that obesity is a disease
rather than, possibly, a symptom of one (Oliver, 2006; Sobal, 1995). Like other terms used to
suggest affliction, obesity categorizes and pathologizes human difference, in some ways akin to
“homosexual” (medicalizing difference) and yet in other ways akin to “Negro” (racializing
difference), but in all ways a category that others. (Note to reader: these are strong, yet
undeveloped claims; I hope they will lead to greater discussion.)
Nor is the classificatory basis of this othering unproblematic. Current discussions of obesity
are based on both clinical observations and self-reported health surveys that determine an
individual’s Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI is a ratio of weight to height that in its denominator
squares a metric measurement of height. Not only does this give relatively low values of BMI to
those of tall stature, BMI cannot differentiate lean from fatty body mass and thus, it does not
even successfully measure the excess of adipose tissue that is supposed to constitute obesity.
Accounts of who is obese by these standards – from Brad Pitt to Arnold Shwarzenegger – are
now legendary (Campos, 2004). More significant to claims of an epidemic, “overweight” and
“obese” are determined by arbitrary cut off points in BMI (those with 25+ BMI deemed
overweight; those with 30+ deemed obese). These then are categorical variables in the truest
sense (obese or not obese). Because population distributions of body size fit a bell curve, a small
upward shift in average BMI shift an enormous number of people into the next category (Gard
and Wright, 2005). And, in June of 1998, when the National Institutes of Health released new
guidelines on the recommended cut-off of overweight from over 27 BMI to 25, several million
Americans became overweight overnight (Kuczmarski and Flegal, 2000). In general, discussions
of an epidemic provide very little specificity as to dimensions of the growth in girth, with the
distinction often blurred between increased prevalence or increased incidence, in the latter of
morbid obesity (Campos et al., 2006; Gaesser, 2002; Ross, 2005). Nevertheless, such
problematizations of the “epidemic” itself have done little to stifle the drumbeat of an inexorable
and horrible public health catastrophe unless something is done about it.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
34
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: OBESITY ADVANTAGE
WE SHOULD REJECT THE GAZE OF ATTEMPT TO CONTROL BODIES. THIS FORM OF KNOWLEDGE IS THE HALLMARK
OF WHITENESS
julie Guthman 2007, fat ontologies? Toward a political ecology of obesity, presented to berk. P 17-18
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/EnvirPol/ColloqPapers/Guthman2007.pdf.
Following Toni Morrison who says that that her project is to ‘“avert the critical gaze from
the racial object to the racial subject; from the described and imagined to the describers and
imaginers’ (Morrison, 1992 cited in McKinney 2005: 3), I want to argue for a similar move in
regard to obesity discourse and its interventions. I have witnessed a similar knowledge and
entitlement sensibility in regards to alternative food practice and its increasing attachment to
obesity rhetoric. For example, borrowing moves from chefs, movement advocates, and
increasingly popular food writers like Pollan, the mantra among my students is more resounding
every year: ‘if people only knew where their food came from . . .’ – just the sort of sentiment that
“luxus consumption” attempts to foster. Even Rachel Slocum, a geographer who has otherwise
been critical of the whiteness in alternative food practice (Slocum, 2006) hopes for possibilities
“to bring this good food to others” (Slocum, Forthcoming). First of all, the supposition that people eat junk food
for lack of knowledge of its qualities and effects does not hold water. Anecdotal evidence abounds that eaters
are well versed in what’s bad for them, and increasingly research articles are demonstrating that even children eat
certain foods in spite of what they know (my research informant in the Berkeley public schools
would corroborate this). As Lebesco writes, “the fact that my knowledge that a product is bad for
me changes neither my attitude of love for it nor my long-term behavior of consuming it shows
the obvious inability of [rational choice] theory to account for the complexity of human behavior
(p. 31-32). In the same vein, Paul Robbins uses the American lawn to investigate how
environmental behaviors do not link up with knowledge. Robbins (forthcoming 2007) refutes the
taken-for-granted claim that knowledge induces environmental behaviors.6Yet, that problematic is not the only
reason I am troubled by the earnestness of my students who seek out internships (a requirement of the major)
where they can teach others how to eat. 6Instead, he argues, the pesticide-needy lawn hails its subject – an idea to
which I hope to return in discussion. Their desire to convert as well as their universalist notions of good food (“if
they only tasted it”) is something they have acquired from the foodie world of Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, and
their Santa Cruz variations. Among other things, the universalism is a hallmark of whiteness and
its presumption of normativity and that which goes without saying (Frankenberg, 1993;
Kobayashi and Peake, 2000). Yet to the extent that they see themselves as endowed with a
heightened subjectivity that sets them apart from those who, apparently, are simply objects of
their environment, suggests a need to turn the mirror inward and investigate more deeply the
production of super-subjectivity in environmentalist narratives and their body-oriented
counterparts.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
35
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE
TURN - By faulting external factors such as the government for the
harms of the 1AC—they are standing complicit in an endless cycle of
poverty and racism. racism and poverty comes from the people and
not from the government
Robinson 2001
(Reginald Leamon, Professor of Law, Howard Law School. B.A., 1981, magna cum laude, Howard University; M.A.,
1983, University of Chicago; “Poverty, the Underclass, and the Role of Race Consciousness: A New Age Critique of
Black Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid”, 2001, accessed 09-02-2005, Gautam, page Lexis)
Liberal poverty studies fault "external," objective forces (i.e., social structure). n42 They premise that social
structure robs citizens of equal opportunities, n43 and without equal opportunities, many citizens cannot attain
access to material goods. n44 By social structure, I mean the manner in which social systems distribute resources like wealth, income, and
property. n45 Some early poverty studies looked at individual behavior and choices. n46 Some studies focused on "learned helplessness." n47
Others have framed their analysis on the "culture of poverty" theory. n48 Unfortunately, the work by sociologists or other scholars who look
critically at "learned helplessness" or "culture of poverty" has [*1386] been framed as conservative by liberal thinkers. As Melvin Oliver and
Thomas Shapiro and as Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton do, liberal thinkers perhaps focus less on individuals and more on social structural
context. It is not that these liberal thinkers lack a familiarity with these so-called conservative approaches. n49 Rather, they find them less
analytically tasty for the project that they undertake: faulting social structure (e.g., white structural racism). n50 By ignoring the degree to which
race consciousness works intimately and interdependently with social structures, studies by sociologists like Melvin Oliver, Thomas Shapiro,
Douglas Massey, and Nancy Denton miss the ultimate point. By focusing only on social structures as explanatory variables
(e.g., white structural racism) for the persistent of poverty, we become fixated on raw data. n51 We spend lots of
time and money describing a world that could never exist without us. We may even look to political economy
and the internationalization of domestic economies to explain structural shifts that deposit the respected poor
permanently into the underclass. Unfortunately, these data, descriptions, and theories rarely if ever uncover
profoundly new factors that might better explain why poverty persists. Any explanation, data, or description
that ignores human agency and race consciousness must fail. Such meta-models hover over the problem, and at
base the problem emanates from the manner in which we dream our possibilities. By focusing on social
structures, we implicitly forgive the manner in which institutional forces (e.g., parents) convince citizens to
accept limitation or to transcend astounding heights. By conjoining social structure and psychological factors in the co-creation
and maintenance of poverty, we recognize that we can alter our reality, principally because reality pulses and [*1387] shifts constantly. n52
Reality lives like virgin, unmolded clay, and in the hands of the skilled artist, reality flows from the minds of its handler. Poverty thus becomes
an aspect of social reality and flows from social structures because the structures have achieved one or more of their explicit or implicit
probable goals. n53 By assuming that social structures like the relatively autonomy of state can operate without us, we fatally and falsely assume
that external, objective forces constructed poverty and then selected blacks, minorities, and women as necessary victims. By examining the
interrelationship between social structure and human agency, sociologists can begin to ask different questions, viz., who co-creates poverty?In
addressing who co-creates poverty, I posit a troubling, uncompromising premise. This premise grows out of an empowering philosophy. We cocreate our own personal worlds and manifold social realities. n54 Based on this philosophy, every human being is a very powerful reality creator,
n55
and this premise cognizes no victimizer or victimized. n56 As such, whites do not victimize [*1388] blacks. Likewise, blacks do not victimize
whites. Blacks, whites, and others embrace a "race-focused consciousness," and thus they lend their mental energies to poverty and residential
segregation. n57 Once blacks, whites, and others have been steeped in the dominant social narrative, they work collectively, mostly
unconsciously, to co-create poverty and residential segregation. In fact, the persistence of poverty and residential segregation
depends on blacks, whites, and others thinking, talking, and acting in very narrow, limited, and disempowered
ways.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
36
Urban Agriculture Neg
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE
TURN - Their rhetoric of blaming social structures fails and makes
poverty and racism worse than they can claim to solve for
Robinson 2001 (Reginald Leamon, Professor of Law, Howard Law School. B.A., 1981, magna cum laude, Howard University; M.A., 1983,
University of Chicago; “Poverty, the Underclass, and the Role of Race Consciousness: A New Age Critique of Black Wealth/White Wealth and
American Apartheid”, 2001, accessed 09-02-2005, Gautam, page Lexis)
In Black Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid, both authors ignored who co-created poverty. Likewise, by glossing over the human
source to poverty, liberals ignore the concomitant question: who is the poor? n65 Rather, they, like [*1390] other scholars n66 looked to
"external," objective reality, viz., the state. By emphasizing the state's role as if Structure existed independently
from the manner in which we collectively think, n67 these scholars have missed the larger point. n68 Nevertheless, the
state has played, and continues to play, a vital but non-exclusive role in the persistence of poverty. By state, I mean social structure, which in
part means the manner in which social systems distribute resources like wealth, income, and property.In Black Wealth/White Wealth, Melvin
Oliver and Thomas Shapiro defined poverty by looking to racialized material inequality, and for these scholars, racialized material inequality
originated in "external," objective reality. They began by defining wealth and income. Wealth meant an individual's and family's access to life
chances. Wealth constituted "a stock of assets owned at a particular time. Wealth is what people own." Wealth
indicates a family's "command over financial resources that [the family] has accumulated over its lifetime along
with those resources that have been inherited across generations." n69 Wealth embraced two concepts: net worth and net
financial assets. Net worth represented a complete inventory of all assets less debts. Net financial assets meant the "flow of money over time."
Income referred to a person's wages, retirement, and social welfare. Wealth and income conjoined to [*1391] create opportunities to "secure
the 'good life' in whatever form is needed--education, business, training, justice, health, comfort, and so on." n70 At base, Oliver and Shapiro
defined wealth and income in this manner not only because they focused on racialized material inequality or poverty, but also because they
placed wealth accumulation in its historic context. n71 In brief, Black Wealth/White Wealth examined that manner in which America's social
systems predicated wealth accumulation on racialized material inequality (or black poverty). n72In Black Wealth/White Wealth, state policies
and white supremacy operated as "external," objective reality, and in order to show why racialized material
inequality (i.e., racialized poverty) originated out of a larger, dominant social narrative, one that still bears out
present-day effects, Oliver and Shapiro analyzed wealth accumulation in the three contexts: racialization of state policy, economic detour,
and sedimentations of racial inequality. n73 By looking at racialized material inequality in this context, they posited that
wealth inequality flowed not only from sedimentation, but also from failed black entrepreneurship. This
sedimentation and failure were birthed by state-sanctioned policies that favored white over black. In this way,
these three contexts underwrote wealth inequality as officially sanctioned racialized state policies. Regardless of
black-white inequality, these policies concentrated vast wealth in very small numbers. Ultimately, Oliver and Shapiro
asserted forcefully that we must appreciate how wealth inequality created two worlds, n74 and without specific policies that will help blacks,
that create asset accumulation opportunities, and that secure racial equality, we may face heightened conflict and social violence. n75In
American Apartheid, Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton also focused on "external," objective reality when they studied poverty (i.e., the
black [*1392] underclass). Like Oliver and Shapiro, they looked to social structure--white racism and prejudice. Consider the Kerner
Commission's conclusion, which Massey and Denton cited favorably: "white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions
created it, white institutions maintained it, and white society condones it." n76 In this way, black underclass life originated not necessarily from a
culture of poverty, n77 but more than likely from structural mechanisms like residential segregation (e.g., "social isolation"). n78 Put more
emphatically, Massey and Denton assert that "residential segregation is the institutional apparatus that supports other racially discriminatory
processes and binds them together into a coherent and uniquely effective system of racial subordination." n79 At base, without residential
segregation, we would not have black ghettos. As a social system, residential segregation forms an American organizing principle that creates
the urban underclass. n80In Black Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid, neither author treated poverty and the black underclass as
jurisprudential or theoretical questions. They did not ask broad questions: "What is poverty?" or "Who creates poverty?" Rather, they
addressed: "Why racialized material inequality?", and "Why the rise and continuance of the black underclass?" n81 Unfortunately, Black
Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid overlooked human agency. n82 They implicitly rejected any notion that race
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
37
Urban Agriculture Neg
consciousness fueled racialized wealth inequality and residential segregation. As a result, we must peer into the
confined spaces between the data on which sociological treatments of poverty have relied to find different
A2: RACISM ADVANTAGE CONTINUED
answers, while avoiding the narrow arguments that focus on morality, family structure, genetics, and social
welfare policies. n83 By relegating dominant social structures and race consciousness to either conservatives or to non-traditional
approaches, Black Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid more than suggest that "external," objective reality like white supremacy or
white prejudice served as a better way to explain the persistence of racialized wealth inequality and the black underclass. In so doing, Black
Wealth/White Wealth and American Apartheid constructed poverty so that [*1393] we continually avoid
asking different, difficult questions, n84 inquiries that would invite all of us to acknowledge that poverty exists
because we believe in wealth and poverty and because we believe a maldistribution of wealth so long as we
garner our personal chance to get rich.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
38
Urban Agriculture Neg
NO SOLVENCY
MANY FACTORS DENY PARTICIPATION IN URBAN FARMS
Susan L. Andreatta “When a good project goes awry: community re-connecting with an urban
farm” Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development,
Spring 2006 v35 i1 p75(29)
As the season got hotter and wetter, then drier, the farm changed. Only one of the AfricanAmerican participants semi-maintained her plot. Her initial dedication for her first time
planting was extraordinary, but she stopped coming and never harvested. The ESL class
and some of the Montagnard refugee families also stopped attending. By August only three
Montagnard families harvested from their plots as well as the elders who farmed five plots
together. However, the elders were less regular about coming out and their church van was
not always available to bring them to the farm. Watering became an issue for them;
sometimes they watered and sometimes we watered. In the end the farm and crops
suffered.
NO SOLVENCY – WEATHER AND FINANCIAL GROWTH
INCONSISTENCIES BLOCK PARTICIPATION
Susan L. Andreatta “When a good project goes awry: community re-connecting with an urban
farm” Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development,
Spring 2006 v35 i1 p75(29)
It was deja vu. During the initial weeks of the market when it was cool (May and June),
residents and business employees wandered over to the market exploring the new curiosity.
By early August the public stopped coming. Farmers and vendors repositioned themselves on
the stone pathway to bring the market to the public. They placed their tables along the edge of
the park much closer to the sidewalk used by pedestrians who were observed leaving their
offices on their lunch break or going for a stroll. All attempts at drawing the public in were in
vain. Established farmers who were once earning $800 or more at this mid- week market in
the spring and early summer dropped down to $70 a week. On the last day the Montagnard
elders were at market (in early August) with a beautiful table of fresh produce to sell, they sold
one purse to a Viet Nam veteran and $25 in produce. The remaining food went home with them.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
39
Urban Agriculture Neg
NO SOLVENCY
NO SOLVENCY - EMPIRICAL STUDIES SHOW THAT RODENTS,
INSECTS, HEAT, AND THIEVES DESTROY PARTICIPATION
Susan L. Andreatta “When a good project goes awry: community re-connecting with an urban
farm” Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development,
Spring 2006 v35 i1 p75(29)
Given the dramatic increase in the number of participants and land put under cultivation in year
two, production was up substantially from the previous year. However, even with the increase
in yields, the loss of fresh produce was also high. A considerable amount of the harvest was
lost to rodents. Hundreds of almost ripened fruits were found to have holes burrowed in
them. By early July a number of plants were observed to be suffering. The unusually wet and
hot season created an environment for fungi that attacked a number of plants. Three blights were
confirmed by two local extension agents. Throughout the field insects attacked the
cucumbers and other plants. These environmental challenges, in addition to the human
ones, could have added to the decline in farm maintenance. However, all the above losses are
an expected part of farming. Nevertheless a new problem presented itself during the second year
that was not apparent in the first year's growing season. The crops that did well despite the
insects, fungi or other natural phenomena faced another intruder. The expansion of the area
under cultivation (from 17 to 50 plots) drew attention to itself. As a result, nonparticipants,
specifically the very residents we had invited to participate at the monthly community
meetings, stole the ripe produce on a regular basis. Trespassers were caught with their
plastic bags filled with fresh produce by the PGL staff and Montagnards. When we organized
harvest days to prepare for market we would often come to a field stripped clean of its near
ripe and ripened produce, leaving participants with nothing for home consumption or to
sell at the market. A food need was obviously being met, but not in the spirit or the vision of
civic agriculture. The participants who had worked many hours on their farms were not pleased
with this new challenge. This negative experience influenced others to discontinue
participation on the farm. Most of the Montagnard families who were frequently stolen from
stopped tending to their plots. It was later learned that the Montagnards were not interested in
farming in this location the following year (2005). According to their minister, they did not feel
"respected." Hence, a good project went awry.
BmOrE CaMp
BUDL 2009
40
Urban Agriculture Neg
Political Links
A. Urban Farms Expensive
Urban Agriculture Committee ’03 CFSC “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States:
Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe” http://www.foodsecurity.org/PrimerCFSCUAC.pdf
Agriculture enterprises have start-up costs that can be an obstacle to people with limited income. Costs
include: labor, site management, water, tools and equipment, rent and insurance, processing, packaging, and
marketing materials.
B. GOP doesn’t like spending money on social services
Chicago Tribune ’09 “Republicans Slam Obama for Spending”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/04/republicans_slam_obama_for_spe.html
This capped a week, featuring the deadline for federal income tax returns, in which critics rallied to protest
taxes and government programs in general. In Washington, Republican leaders opposing the president's
economic stimulus spending and budget plans are attempting to focus public attention on a party
commitment to responsibility in government - a stage that Obama also claimed today with his
announcement of a new chief performance officer for the federal government.