The valley’s poor are more often than not farm workers: people to spend most of their days surrounded by the fruits, dairy cows, and other regional staples that produce food that feeds the world.  Ironically, though, the lack of affordable food access means that many of these laborers cannot eat the very products they helped to harvest. An article in the July 25, 2009 edition of the Fresno Bee titled “Groceries more costly for Valley’s poor” (http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1559656.html) depicts this issue very well, telling the story of valley residents who are forced to eat poorly due to financial or transportation issues and a lack of affordable supermarkets in low-income areas of the region.

Food access has more repercussions than simple hunger and nourishment; this issue affects mental and physical health, creating problems such as poor school achievement that perpetuates the very state of poverty that started the issue in the first place.  Furthermore, with television and popular commentary claiming that issues such as obesity or failing grades is result of a purely individualistic choice, it becomes clear the larger issue: without assistance, poor people have little ability to pull themselves out of their economic condition.  In many cases, poverty (much like wealth) is an intergenerational experience, which runs in direct contradiction to our ideal of American meritocracy in which we claim all people to have equal chance at success.  And clearly there is no better example of the flaws in reason presented by this idealist view of society than the case of those who live and work surrounded by food and yet are unable to keep them and their families properly nourished.  Yet, in a society driven by capitalistic motives, how are we to stop these injustices if not through direct government intervention?  While the answer is not clear, one thing is: with most valley  towns relying on the Food Mart at their local gas station for their meals, something must be done.

By Kendra Bridges

On May 14 and 21, members of two south Sacramento communities joined staff from the Coalition On Regional Equity, the UC Davis Center for Regional Change, Legal Services of Northern California, and Sacramento Mutual Housing Association to discuss the state of their communities. The workshops were held in the Avondale / Glen Elder neighborhood at Max Baer Park, and in the Lemon Hill neighborhood at Sacramento Mutual Housing Association’s Lemon Hill Estates.

During the workshops, community members discussed issues related to the health of their communities, including access to health care, transportation, safe and decent housing, and other issues that help build a quality living environment. Lively discussions took place at both events. Participants identified assets in their communities, and things they would like to see changed. They spoke about their personal habits in the neighborhood, how they got to frequent destinations, and what services they used locally. All had something to say about what they would like to see improved in their communities.

The information gathered from the community members of Avondale / Glen Elder and Lemon Hill will be made into maps of community knowledge. These maps will be presented to the communities in future meetings, and will be used to begin a discussion of next steps. Ultimately, the data created in these mapping workshops will be used to support advocacy for change in these neighborhoods.

These workshops are part of a project called SCORECARD, or Sacramento Coalition on Regional Equity Collaborative Assessment of Regional Development, which is a collaborative between the Coalition on Regional Equity and the UC Davis Center for Regional Change. The SCORECARD will serve as a vital resource for advocacy, organizing, and building a critically-informed people’s movement for regional equity and health. It enhances the ability of populations typically marginalized in regional planning efforts (such as immigrants, low-income people, communities of color, youth) to have their visions seen and heard by regional policy makers.

The goal of the SCORECARD is to provide a tool to empower and engage community partners to assess development and advocate for change in the region at multiple scales, from the neighborhood, to the municipality, to the county, to the full region. It will involve a dynamic process that links community involvement with cutting-edge mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) technology.

Much of the data for the SCORECARD will come from secondary data sources to allow for consistency across the region over time. But it will also include data garnered through collaborative public participatory GIS (PPGIS) system that reflects residents own knowledge of their neighborhoods. This PPGIS system will be developed through conducting workshops such as those held in May that are novel in the non-profit, community development, and social empowerment fields. It will capture local data by conducting mapping workshops where community members will have an opportunity to participate in hands-on mapping of information they feel is relevant to their community’s well-being.

The Central Valley Tribal Environmental Justice Project is a collaborative effort between the eight valley Councils of Governments (COGs) to develop a report containing tribal input on transportation, cultural preservation, participation in decision-making and environmental justice as part of the region’s Blueprint process. At the three workshops have been an assortment of tribal members (with over 45 tribes represented) and representatives from local COGs and County Association of Governments (CAGs).  A diverse array of topics have been covered, from cultural resource mapping to government-to-government cooperation, but the underlying topic for this group remains to be fleshed out: how to create more structural tribal involvement in local government.  Now, with the workshops completed and the foundation laid, eight meetings will occur via the internet among workshop participants where a more concrete format for participation and recommendations can hopefully be envisioned.

With these meetings still to occur, the tribal participants have already made several concrete recommendations and requests for the County officials of the region.  Among them are the following:

• Creation of an educational or information-sharing system between tribal and non-tribal people; maps are too risky, but increased and established consultation may be the solution.
• Tribal issues of transportation and resource access/preservation which are exacerbated by their isolation in rural areas must be addressed by planning officials.
• There must be a proactive approach to tribal involvement in government planning and actions.
• Tribes need expert help and new ideas to address the specific issues that affect them, such as health concerns and resource preservation.

On the flip side, the COG and CAG representatives at the workshops made requests to the tribal people, the most important being intertribal communication and collaboration to allow for easier coordination with non-tribal entities; while some of such networks do exist in the Central Valley, the meetings of this collaborative are the first substantial interface for interaction between the tribes and regional government officials.

An example of a more established system is in place in the San Diego area, with tribes organized into a Regional Transportation Authority that places representatives on the board of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).  While San Diego differs greatly from the Central Valley in the fact that their county comprises the region (establishing a regional government through SANDAG) and that most tribes are Federally recognized (unlike in the Valley where, for instance, Kern County has NO federally recognized tribes), the principles of their model are things we should strive for in this region.  Namely, they have given tribal representatives authority in the regional planning process, and have taken proactive steps to ensure their input in decisions which may affect their land, lives or other resources.

It’s time the tribes of the valley get a voice in the governing structure that effects their people, regardless of Federal recognition or any other barriers to more inclusive participation, in an attempt to right the historical wrongs committed against them.  They need protection from people seeking to exploit their sacred plants and artifacts, the ability to preserve their land and resources, and an established means of influencing government decisions that affect their ability to live their lives as they deem culturally appropriate.  While the first step was taken in these meetings, much more is to be done to establish a regional governing structure that allows for more structural participation of tribal representatives.

For more information, visit the project’s website at http://www.catribalej.com

“Californians are angry. Our schools are failing, our infrastructure is crumbling, our prisons overflow and our financing system is bankrupt. We have a legislature that can pass neither budget or reforms.  It is our duty to declare that our government is not only broken, it has become destructive to our future.  It is time for a Constitutional Convention.”

- Reform California website

The current problems in California are hard to miss.  The daily news has been filled with articles on prisoners being released from jail, government employees (from teachers to police officers) being laid off in droves, and other such budget related turmoil.  In response to these events, Jim Wunderman of the Bay Area Council has started the Reform California movement, which has been holding constitutional convention summits all over the state to garner support.  Their objective is to pass two propositions in the November 2010 election: the first to allow for Californians to call a Constitutional Convention, and the second to call one.  The end result would be a new draft of the State Constitution, which could be put up for voter approval in the November 2012 election.

I was able to attend such a “town hall meeting” when the Central Valley Constitutional Convention Summit was held in Fresno on June 26, 2009. Featuring several notable speakers, the idea of a constitutional convention was addressed, as well as theories about how the government was able to get to this point.  Dan Walters hit the point best, I feel, when he described the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers put into place as being hyper-developed in California, achieving a point where too many people have the ability to stop initiatives.  Now, our government is left with no way to make solutions that make sense, creating deep-set problems that result in the hardships currently experienced in our local governments.

While a lot was said of the process and potential end results, the main discussion was centered on two main issues: the selection process for the 400 delegates for the convention, and how the convention could operate in a progressive manner.  The current constitution stipulates that such a convention must involve 400 delegates that are representative of the state population, but does not go beyond that and thus leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  Who will design and enforce accountability?  How will special interests and other political barriers be kept out of convention proceedings?

While the possible solutions to these questions are numerous, the main result I garnered from the group discussion a high level of fear of change, and of the unknown.  People in this state have very little (if any) experience with such movements, and thus many can’t envision the potential results without some guidance.  While I agree that a Constitutional Convention is necessary in our state (constitutions were designed to be living documents, after all), I think that Reform California cannot gain the results they desire without providing a vision of potential outcomes of such an event.  Unlike the propositions passed in most elections which act as Band Aids to the larger issues at hand, a Constitutional Convention has the potential to completely revamp how government is run and how citizens participate in that system… the possibilities are exciting, and I think the fear will be dispelled if only people realize the potential of this movement.

For more information, go to http://repaircalifornia.org

Sacramento Natural Gas Storage Project (SNGS) is proposing the storage of 7.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas 3800 feet underground. Such a natural storage “bank” would be used to help meet Sacramento’s increasing demand for energy during high seasons and in the case of an emergency. While such an emergency storage bank would be a huge resource for the area, the proposed site resides under 700 homes. The California Public Utility Commission just published its Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) noting that, “significant and unmitigable impacts were identified,” including potential hazards such as the release of hazardous materials, impacts to drinking water quality, and possible fires and explosions to name a few. The DEIR concludes that SNGS’s proposal poses real dangers for residents.

Quoted on the SNGS website Jeff Raimundo states that “This project won’t move forward unless we can prove it is safe…we understand that we have to prove that, and we intend to.” The company needs to get signatures from the land-owners of the proposed site and SNGS offers both a signing bonus and annual payments for the use of the land (payment based on 0.20acre land parcels). The SNGS’s most recent newsletter, fall 2008, reported that more than 680 property owners representing more than 450 properties, a majority of eligible properties, had signed approval leases. These numbers represent signatures obtained before the DEIR was released, which leads one to question whether residents have been fully informed of the safety issues at hand. As financial incentive plays a role for both the residents and SNGS, is there a particular basis on which these homes are being targeted for such a potentially dangerous project? Are residents receiving accurate information on safety to base their decision? And furthermore are these residents forced to make personal decisions between financial gain and safety?

Taking power relationships into consideration, it is interesting to see what SNGS has to gain from having signatures in support of their project on a basis other than safety. As multiple stakeholders take into consideration whether or not to allow for this development, safety will be a central issue of concern. Resident signatures can be used to show understanding and support, but the issue of financial gain and possible lack of accurate information in regards to safety may mean that those signatures misrepresent the true opinions of residents. CORE (Coalition on Regional Equity) and AGENA (Avondale/Glen Elder Neighborhood Association) along with other community partnerships are working on making neighbors accurately aware of the potential dangers. Both CORE and AGENDA note that the California Public Utility Commission says that the safest thing for everyone would be not to store gas under our homes at all.

The DEIR clearly addresses potential hazards, but when are the dangers threat enough for us to consider alternatives? When signatures are coming before understanding of potential threats, we really have to question if the honest safety and well-being of our neighbors is top priority. The basis for choosing this site may very well be based simply on the fact that with a factor of financial gain, in a lower-income area, there is a lower likelihood of resistance. But is this regional resource for many worth the sacrifice of a few?

For more information

Sacramento Bee article: http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1777803.html

Sacramento Natural Gas Storage website: http://www.sacnaturalgas.com

Draft Environmental Impact Report: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/dudek/sngs/DraftEIR.htm

By Jim Wilson, New York Times

“From each according to her/his ability, to each according to his/her need.”

- Karl Marx

How did we get so far from Marx’s ideal vision of society? Currently, with over five empty households per homeless family, it seems silly that we would be experiencing a surge in our homeless population. And yet, the “Shantytowns” popping up all over the Central Valley of California are causing quite a stir that is lacking in political action while shamelessly exposing the members of this vulnerable group to media scrutiny.  A new type of homelessness has emerged, broadening previous definitions of homelessness as simply a matter of mental defect, drug addiction or inability to work. The occupants of the makeshift neighborhoods we see all over the news today are not “chronically homeless.” In fact, most of these working class people had built the overabundance of housing to which they no longer have access. With one eviction happening every 13 seconds, the ranks of the homeless are being expanded by working and middle class families who were once financially secure. All homeless people have enough to worry about without the added judgment of a nationwide audience to their pain, and they deserve more than to be shuttled around through a maze of political promises that fail to recognize or respect their experiences.  With today’s economy and housing market, many workers are being forced closer to the brink of homelessness. It’s time to drop the stigma of homelessness, and recognize that viable solutions are needed before things get worse. Those who have noticed Shantytowns in the Valley need to demand more of a response to this crisis than the more visits from media and politicians. There are adequate and respectful solutions out there, and utilizing them may bring us closer to the egalitarian ideal that Marx envisioned so long ago.

Based on a piece by Gifford Hartmann, “The New Joads: Trying to Survive in the Spectacle-Commodity Society,” as well as recent news articles.

SB 375 is the recently approved, state-wide legislation aimed at fighting climate change in California through smart development. Besides creating a state-mandated program that brings together formally disjointed planning activities, SB 375 will set benchmark goals of carbon emission reduction within the different regions of California. Also, by creating Sustainable Community Strategies, each region will be led to incorporate housing needs, transportation alternatives, and regional targets for emission reductions into their already existing planning structures. Uniting invested stakeholders in the planning discussion, as well as creating timetables for the implementation of new ideas, SB 375 hopes to considerably reduce climate change and promote sustainable development throughout California.

But, there is one question left by political commentators: is SB 375 enough? Nowhere in the legislation’s text is there any note of enforcement or penalties for a region’s failure to comply with their Sustainably Community Strategy. The State Senate’s analysis concluded that the lack of requirements to follow the advised strategies sought for in the new planning process was a big factor its implementation, citing that a reliance on regional pressure would probably do little to contradict the natural zoning tendencies of city governments. While certain perks of applying the bill to planning processes (such as extensions on deadlines to submit housing elements from every five to every eight years, and generous exemptions to environmental restrictions), even supporters of the bill say they wonder how accepting local governments will be to this new shift of power to the regional level. Also, many have noted how the lack of additional funding for projects resulting from SB 375 planning, such as for building infrastructure for infill developments, could act as a further disincentive for implementation. With funding still as limited as ever, there is no guarantee that new development proposals focused on SB 375’s goals will win approval over those that are more affordable, yet less sustainable in nature.

The bill’s author, Senator Darrell Steinburg, admitted in an interview that the intent of this bill was to encourage regions to consider climate change in their planning, adding that the lack of punishments for a region’s failure to meet such goals was intentional. Though this optimistic interpretation of the inherent nature of city planning and development is always nice to hear, it is without basis in our state’s history. Too often have developers and those with financial interests won out over smart, sustainable planning. The governor’s fact sheet on SB 375 even cited that the biggest source of carbon emissions is from automobiles and small trucks, directly resulting from the sprawling development that is winning out in most areas of California. This is probably why most newspapers across the nation have cited SB 375 as a revolutionary and encouraging beginning to our fight against climate change.

As for my opinions, I wonder how SB 375 will be united with the state’s Regional Blueprint efforts. It seems as if those planning processes would be a great opportunity to take SB 375 to a new level of understanding and implementation at the regional level. Also, I feel that the more pronounced presence of regional councils of governments (COGs) could be something to consider, for a more formalized planning role at their level could be most beneficial for regional planning on the whole.

Even with the optimistic progress being made to date, proponents and opponents seem to agree on one point: there is still more to be done.  Whether the initiative comes from government actions or by regional movements, though, it is clear that something has to happen before climate change overwhelms us.  SB 375 is a great start to addressing this problem, but it will take state-wide support to bring about success.  It can’t do it alone… it’s time we all jumped on board and started to demand more from city planners throughout our state.

This past Tuesday, I attended a statewide summit on Regional Blueprints in California. Like most of us, when I hear “blueprint,” I think of construction. In particular, I think of a specific, comprehensive plan that is made to ensure that all people working on a project are moving in the same direction. Hence, when I heard that California was attempting to make Regional Blueprints for future development, I was excited about the potential such a plan would have to unite researchers, public officers, and community workers in their quest to improve California. As I learned at the summit held this week, the rest of the nation’s leaders are pretty excited to see what happens as well.

While the information provided by speakers and discussions were incredibly useful, in the end I was still left with some questions unanswered. Specifically, I heard little mention of incorporating existing plans and movements already occurring throughout the state, almost as if those involved assumed that these Blueprints would be a starting point when, in reality, development work in California was started long ago.  I have personal experience with several such efforts in the Central Valley, and thus the lack of focus on incorporating such groups raised major flags for me.  In order for the Blueprint to really revolutionize regional planning, I think more focus needs to be placed on incorporating ALL relevant groups in order to pool resources and avoid the duplication of work. Also, questions of information dissemination, funding, and access to resources were raised repeatedly in discussions, which are all issues that I feel would be easily overcome if Blueprint efforts were to focus on creating collaborative efforts among organizations and groups in the state. Each group has funding, resources, and knowledge that could be combined in effective ways towards achieving Blueprint goals, and I feel it would be unwise for Blueprint organizers to ignore those assets.  The Blueprint is a new and valuable effort, but there’s no need to waste time re-inventing the wheel.

SB 375, the new regional planning bill that passed State legislature a few months ago, was brought up several times as an encouraging ally in the quest to get people on board with their region’s Blueprints. While I wonder if the lack of regulatory measures in this bill will allow for cities and counties to continue planning as usual, one participant pointed out a distinct air of acceptance of regional planning in the state. In his words, “something seems different,” and many feel that the impending climate crisis and a more environmentally-minded state governor could be factors behind that sentiment. But, the Blueprint is intended to be a tool to plan for long term goals and needs, not a binding document, which leaves room to wonder what will actually result from these processes. As Henry Gardner said in his address, regional organizations have “no power to force anybody to do anything,” so it’s time to look beyond regulatory penalties to more diplomatic measures. This may be helped by some suggestions made in our group discussions, mainly around identifying success stories and conducting evaluations of Blueprint planning efforts, information which we can hope will inspire more people to get on board. I suppose only time will tell us how this will play out.

Several participants were concerned (and rightly so) about information sharing, to which I suggest a Blueprint website that could serve as a source to view regional Blueprints, as well as a resource to view involved organizations and information gathered. Providing information is key, as well as educating people about Blueprint goals in a manner that is able to be related to each resident effected. This could also provide a public forum for citizens to leave anonymous feedback, comments, or suggestions for Blueprint planners, which is obviously necessary when one takes into account the demographics of those who attend summits and conferences like the one this week.

Overall, I felt this summit was incredibly valuable for the information and participants it garnered. While I’m left with many questions and concerns about Regional Blueprints, it’s hard to not get excited about its potential to change planning and community action as we know it. On that note, I leave you with a quote from our Governor that particularly resonated with me (as a native of what I see as the much neglected Central Valley of California):

“As goes the San Joaquin Valley, so goes California… as goes California, so goes the nation.”

Submitted by Suanne Klahorst, Writer, John Muir Institute of the Environment

Prospective students are invited to come to UC Davis to “Discover What Matters.” As a writer on campus, I continually have the privilege of sharing these discoveries as well. In May 2007 I wrote a press release for a policy paper on farmworker housing that was funded by the John Muir Institute’s Environmental Infrastructure Policy Papers Grant Program. Unfortunately, the paper’s publication didn’t attract a lot of media attention. Nor did the media pay much attention when the authors collaborated with their peers on a related draft report that became the centerpiece of a national, invitation-only, “Rural Justice Forum” in Los Angeles in October 2008. The forum was co-sponsored by The California Endowment and California Rural Legal Assistance, Marysville.

The following interview from December 2008 represents an untold story of an academic publication that contributed to informed policymaking, in this case at the national level. The paper’s authors are: Don Villarejo, Ph.D., a farm labor policy consultant in Davis and a former farmworker; and Marc Schenker, M.D., M.P.H; chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine at the School of Medicine; also director of two centers, Agricultural Health & Safety Center and Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. I asked my questions as a representative from the funding sponsor. The real news here is that academic publications have threads of influence that can be sometimes be followed to a change in policy, but it takes dedicated collaborations, funding and inspiration to make that happen. I hope your discovery of our academic dedication to policymaking is as inspiring as mine.

John Muir Institute: How did your policy paper contribute to informing policy and practice for farmworker health and housing?

Villarejo: Prior to the Rural Justice Forum, our May 2007 paper had already contributed to national policy discourse. A consortium of farm labor advocates, including California Rural Legal Assistance, cited our 2007 paper in formal comments objecting to changes to the Federal H-2A farm labor guest worker program regulations. The regulations were proposing the removal the long-standing requirement that employers provide housing that met strict Federal standards for non-immigrant guest workers employed in agriculture. Instead, the regulations put forward by the Department of Labor would allow employers to issue a modest monthly housing voucher (about $300) that could be presented to landlords in lieu of rent, and ultimately be reimbursed by the employer. The advocates pointed out that since an already inadequate housing supply for workers would not be likely to increase, this policy would force workers to double up, thereby creating even more crowded conditions and increasing the risk to public health.

Schenker: Too often the discussion of farmworker housing ignores the issue of housing quality and health. Our policy paper attempted to increase attention to the health-related implications of different housing options for farmworkers. This effort is important to researchers attempting to understand the determinants of health in this population, and to public health practitioners and health policy advocates concerned with implementing effective regulations.

John Muir Institute: What new issues or research gaps were identified at the forum?

Villarejo: Conference proceedings could find no peer-reviewed literature that simultaneously measures both household exposures to health risks and the health status of all resident farmworkers and their family members. Thus, reports of associations between risks and illness are difficult to prove. There are only a few documented cases of substandard housing causing disease, one I am aware of is a link between Parkinson’s disease and autism and exposure to pesticide spraying. A troubling aspect of research efforts is that people in substandard housing tend to move more frequently and their housing quality continually changes, making this a very difficult research problem to study. An example of recent changes to the status of their housing situation was identified recently by Juan Vicente Palerm, professor of anthropology, UC Santa Barbara. Recent sub-prime housing foreclosures in low-income agricultural communities in the Central Valley caused a considerable number of farmworker families to lose their homes and move into dwellings shared with other families, creating even more severe overcrowding.

Schenker: There is a substantial research literature on housing quality and health, but essentially none of it focuses on the housing conditions of farmworkers. Studies done in Scandinavia or even urban studies in the U.S. have limited usefulness to understanding the conditions and associated health effects among farmworkers living in rural areas of the U.S. Most importantly, effective public health policies require solid basic research to identify the problems and then to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.

John Muir Institute: Your paper also resulted in an invitation to provide a book chapter for an upcoming book in press. What outcomes have there been as a result of taking California farm labor housing issues to national forums?

Villarejo: The “Rural Justice Forum” will be expanded soon into a National Symposium on Farm Labor Housing and Health. We have several goals. One is to enlarge the body of basic research on adverse health outcomes that are associated with the conditions in which a great many farmworkers now live. All but a handful of published research on housing conditions and health has been based on studies in urban areas, often high-density neighborhoods in major cities. Housing and living conditions are very different in small, isolated rural communities that are surrounded by agricultural fields where fertilizers and agricultural chemicals saturate the environment. On-farm labor camps present another set of risks, as was apparent a couple of years ago when a young child and father died in a manure pit on the dairy farm where the father was employed.

Another goal is to raise the profile of this problem: a great many farm laborers live in horrific conditions. Is that something that those of who are concerned about the environment and our food supply are willing to tolerate? Already, some funding sources have expressed interest in the new draft paper. We intend to initiate a national research symposium on the adverse health conditions faced by many farm laborers in their places of residence. Farm labor advocates told the conference that research on this topic is sorely needed and would be of great value in policy discourse. It appears that “rural” is being lost in policy debates on addressing the national housing debacle.

Schenker: It has been said, “What you count, counts.” That is, if nobody is focusing a light on this problem, then it is not seen and recognized to be a problem. We hope that our policy paper will call attention to this issue, and ultimately result in appropriate research and public health policies to correct an unacceptable situation.

John Muir Institute: What would be most desirable outcomes of these studies and what would the public stand to gain?

Villarejo: The most desirable outcome would be substantially improved housing conditions for farmworkers, a great many of whom simply can’t afford the housing options available to most other workers in America. I always find a very positive response among the wide range of groups that invite me speak to them about this problem, whether it’s immigration policy or sustainable agriculture. Many say they were unaware or had never thought much about these issues.

Second, it is apparent from both the 2007 paper and the new report that we have only very limited knowledge about the health status of farm laborers in the U.S., let alone the factors that contribute to adverse health outcomes. We simply don’t know much about the relative contributions of workplace, environmental, housing and personal behavior risks to health. Clearly, poverty is central.

Schenker: The first desirable outcome would be increased attention to the problem that exists, followed by multipronged approaches to improving housing conditions for farmworkers. We strongly believe that this is an appropriate outcome for public health reasons, and for social justice.

John Muir Institute: How do you measure success in your field?

Villarejo: The best indicator is what workers themselves say about their lives and their health. We have a saying, “if you want to know where the shoe pinches, ask the person who wears it.” I especially enjoy learning from practitioners, such as those who are active in the Migrant Clinicians Network, and from labor leaders and advocates. I was invited to Cornell University 18 months ago to present to a symposium on farm labor health, and to lead a class in Latin American Studies. On the first day of my visit I went to a migrant clinic and talked with some dedicated practitioners. I participated in a meeting of local farmworkers from Guatemala, staff members of a local service agency, and a priest sent from Mexico to tend to their spiritual needs. It was an amazing day and the experience of learning from the local workers fully energized me to speak with commitment and passion on campus the following day.

Schenker: There are many public health measures of health that can be utilized. For starters, however, these measures need to include immigrant rural populations such as farmworkers and not focus on urban, often English-speaking, populations. Outcome measures range from simple assessments of self-perceived health status to actual measures of health outcomes.

John Muir Institute: Is there apathy among the majority of the eating public in regard to farmworker health and safety? How do you cope with this personally as you work to improve the situation?

Villarejo: I wouldn’t say there is apathy, as much as there is simply ignorance. There is a great deal of recent interest in food quality and nutrition, especially among young people. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, in Hyde Park, our basic food groups were sugar, salt, caffeine and grease. That diet is now gone, along with canned fruit in heavy syrup and Crisco. Fresh vegetables are widely available today, which makes it easier to speak with folks about the conditions under which they are produced.

I have been called a “mindless optimist,” which evidently keeps me pushing forward and reaching out beyond the comfortable framework of the community in which I happen to live. I spent five days in rural Nevada in October and November, knocking on doors and talking with folks because I thought the outcome of the Presidential election was so vitally important. While there, I met wonderful people who live in Gardnerville and Minden, who were likewise optimistic about the possibility of change. We won Nevada, because thousands of us chose to volunteer. Experiences like that keep me going forward.

Schenker: This is a very interesting and complex question. At one level, I think that the American people are very compassionate and generous. This can be seen after natural disasters such as hurricane Katrina. On the other hand, people can be blind to needs that exist in their midst, especially those that are on-going and not dramatic disasters. I am also an optimist that people will help those in need when they are aware of the situation, and the associated injustice.

John Muir Institute: Having spent your career in this field, how would you compare farmworker housing now with housing you observed personally or studied in the past?

Villarejo: At seven years old, I lived and worked on a farm for several months. The farmer and his family didn’t have much–no electricity, running water or indoor plumbing. My work was hard, mucking the stalls of the dairy barn, but the family was generous, sharing what little they had with us. I slept in the same room with the farmers’ kids and recall it as a mostly positive experience. Despite the lack of comforts, I felt secure with people who I felt could be trusted.

A more recent experience informed me about how much real progress has been made. As I did outreach in the early 1990s in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California, a farmworker family offered me the opportunity to live with them in a labor camp just south of the City of Mendota. Their generous offer was gratefully accepted. The small house was comfortable, fully equipped with all of the modern conveniences, and the family’s hospitality was a delight. One evening, after a lovely meal, I reflected how blessed I was to have been offered the gift of their friendship and a comfortable place to stay. And I thought about how wonderful it would be if all farmworkers could have a home that was as nice, and I resolved to persist in trying to help make that dream a reality.

Schenker: I have recently advocated for a universal public service in the U.S. Service not to fight wars, but to help communities in need and restore crumbling infrastructure. I believe that the intangible benefits of such a program would be as great as the physical improvements. People would learn about our common needs, our differences, our hopes and dreams. Such an understanding would go an enormous way to improving the socialization of our population, and ultimately to reducing health and other disparities. Such a goal and accomplishment has existed for decades internationally in the Peace Corps, and more recently in this country with programs such as Teach for America. Americans largely live in isolated communities, go to segregated schools, and in general are unaware of the different people and communities that exist. Universal public service would be a powerful means of breaking down those barriers.

Epilogue: The Final Rule for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Aliens was published on December 18, 2008 in the Federal Register. No changes were made to the established regulations that require employers to provide housing for all H-2A workers, and the Department of Labor will continue to be required to inspect and certify housing as safe prior to occupancy.

The Schenker and Villarejo policy paper entitled, Environmental Health Policy and California’s Farm Labor Housing is posted on the John Muir Institute’s Web site. A press release on their paper is also available, with photographs by David Bacon.

Pending publication: “The Challenge of Housing California’s Hired Farm Laborers,” Invited Book Chapter, Rural Housing in the Age of Exurban Expansion, David Marcoullieur, Owen Furuseth and Mark Lapping  (Editors), Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire, United Kingdom, In press, 2008.

From the Wall Street Journal comes this article on bike lanes. The idea is that providing bicycle infrastructure is environmentally harmful, because the same amount of people will still drive, but there will be less space for the cars, causing more idling. This argument from Rob Anderson seems pretty ridiculous to me for a number of reasons.

First of all, Anderson is assuming that adding bike lanes will not increase the number of bikers. However, cities that have invested in bike infrastructure do have more bikers. Take a look at Davis, or Portland. Creating a safer and more comfortable environment for bicycles clearly does encourage more people to ride. Who wouldn’t rather ride in a city with safe bike lanes?

Second, Anderson is arguing that bike lanes are causing air pollution. Clearly, reducing air pollution is one reason to encourage cycling. But, there are other reasons to encourage bicycle riding as well. It’s healthy: in this climate of obesity, we need to get people out of their cars. Along with requiring an environmental impact report, maybe a “health impact report” should be required as well. Also, for those who can’t afford to drive, bikes provide a cheap alternative. How about an “equity impact report” on how bike lanes can help people get around for less money? Or a “safety impact report” documenting the number of injuries and even deaths caused by a lack of bike lanes? Even if bike lanes DID cause air pollution, which I seriously doubt, there are other measures to consider.

Most of all, I think that without thinking ahead and investing in safe and adequate infrastructure for alternative means of transportation, we will never be able to challenge a car-centric culture. The time to change is now. We have to start somewhere, and bike lanes are a pretty easy and productive place to start.

Critical Mass (image from Time magazine)

Full article from the Wall Street Journal here.