Except in times of crisis, most people seldom thinkabout infrastructure and how roads, schools, parks,bridges, and sewer systems are part of acomprehensive system that supports communities andregions. The devastation that followed HurricaneKatrina thrust the word "infrastructure" into theconsciousness of the nation and left many wonderingabout its meaning in the Gulf Coast and curiousabout its significance in their own communities.

Events in the Gulf Coast were, of course, triggered bynature, but the death and destruction that followedalso had roots in policy and budget decisions aboutinfrastructure—levees, mass transit, and otherfactors—made years, even decades earlier. Whydidn't the levees hold? Why was there no publictransportation to move people out of harm's way?In the wake of the catastrophe, such questions havebeen debated on talk shows, websites, and innewspaper opinion pieces, and have spawnednumerous studies. The heightened attention makes itall too clear just how infrastructure issues, despitetheir critical importance, are often regarded like a

computer program running in the background that istaken for granted until something happens—watermains break, bridges collapse, or levees don't hold—and suddenly infrastructure is a very real concern.

In the wake of disasters, their passing ought toreinforce the need for ongoing scrutiny ofinfrastructure. Long-term patterns of under- andmisguided investment can lead to major facilitiesshortages, serious economic impediments, inequitableoutcomes, and unacceptable levels of risk evenwithout a catastrophic event. In California,infrastructure has become a front-page, high profileissue for all these reasons and after decades ofrelative neglect, the electorate was faced this yearwith a wide range of choices to fund new capitalprojects.

The immediate crisis in the post-Katrina Gulf Coastregion and the ongoing challenges in fast-growing,increasingly diverse California provide contrastinglenses for viewing how equity relates to infrastructure in the United States.

Safety, Growth, and Equity:Infrastructure Policies That PromoteOpportunity and Inclusion

Introduction

Rebuilding the Gulf Coast. As plans proceed for massive reconstruction throughout the Gulf Coast, fair andinclusive policies should be put in place so that the unprecedented federal infusion of more than $100 billion will beallocated equitably. Policymakers can take this unique opportunity to locate affordable housing throughout the cityand the region, rather than reestablishing concentrated poverty in below-sea-level neighborhoods or near Superfundsites. Infrastructure and land-use policies can create conditions for more sustainable development through greatercoastal restoration, to lessen future storm damage, and incentives for alternatives to sprawl. The massive spending onpublic works and other construction could provide broad and inclusive access to jobs. Displaced residents should bepart of the reconstruction planning and decision-making and given first priority for jobs with livable wages andbenefits. See the PolicyLink website for the "Ten Points to Guide Rebuilding in the Gulf Coast Region" and news ofthe ongoing efforts to ensure equity in state legislation, regional planning, and neighborhood recovery athttp://www.policylink.org/EquitableRenewal.html.

by Victor Rubin

Infrastructure is the skeletal support of communitiesand regions, and it requires effective, transparentgovernment policies to guide its planning, spending,building, and maintenance. Growing populations,resource-intensive development patterns, newtechnology requirements of a rapidly changingeconomy, and several decades of underinvestmenthave combined to create a large backlog ofinfrastructure projects all over the country—in urban,suburban, and rural areas. Over the next twodecades, the need for substantial infrastructureinvestments is expected to increase. Building ormaintaining schools and colleges, water systems,highways, roads, mass transit, telecommunicationssystems, and parks require infusions of financialsupport that compete with other services for limitedfederal and local funds. Decisions must be madeabout when and where to allocate these dollars.

Like so many other aspects of life in America,decisions about infrastructure are fraught withpersistent disparities of race and class. Answering thequestions, who benefits, who pays, and who decidesprovide scrutiny to infrastructure decision-making. Ina democratic society, it is unfair to make planswithout considering the impact on all of a region'sresidents. Decisions about what needs will beaddressed and how they will be paid for should not

result in low-income people and people of colorbearing the brunt—as witnessed most starkly inLouisiana—of a failure to apply equity principles toinfrastructure planning. Why were most of the victimsof the infrastructure failure in Louisiana poor andblack? What can be done differently in the future toavoid similar post-Katrina tragedies in the wake of theinevitable next storm? Beyond the particularities ofthe Gulf Coast region lie such questions as: How canAmerica's cities, towns, and communities standstrong and whole? How can infrastructure decisionsand spending be equitable so that low-incomecommunities and communities of color are assuredthe same protections and services as everyone else?

This policy brief examines such questions and posesanswers that support equitable infrastructure policiesand practices based on a two-year review conductedby PolicyLink of infrastructure challenges in the stateof California. Issues confronting California canprofoundly influence responses to infrastructurequestions in other parts of the country. The keythemes and principles of equitable infrastructureinvestments described in this document are alsoinformed by a PolicyLink review of research andadvocacy efforts from around the country. In thecoming months, PolicyLink will release several papersthat will provide greater detail and deeper analysis of

PolicyLink 2

Rebuilding California. The Golden State is facing an infrastructure crisis that results from sustained high rates ofgrowth, diminished capital spending, challenges to building and financing in innovative ways, and growingrecognition that the next epochal disaster is waiting to happen. The Katrina disaster and a large levee break in theSacramento River Delta last year led to a heightened awareness of the destruction that would occur from a majorcollapse of California's inadequately maintained levee system. Traffic congestion has reached heights that raisepublic receptiveness to financing new roads, bridges, and transit. School facilities in overcrowded, low-incomeneighborhoods and fast-growing suburban tracts need massive amounts of modernization and new construction.Californians sometimes hearken back to a presumed "golden age" in the 1960s and 1970s when this kind ofinfrastructure was built at a rapid pace and comprised a much larger share of the state budget. The November 2006statewide ballot included five infrastructure bond issues, and was a critical test of public support for transportation,levees, other water storage, parks and open space, school facilities, and affordable housing. All of the bond issueswere approved, as were some county transportation sales taxes and a strong proportion of other local bonds andtaxes. What are the equity concerns raised by this upcoming burst of new investment? How can the spending beallocated in a way that gives low-income communities a fair share and promotes sustainable development? Thecampaigns were not principally focused on these questions, so the period of implementation will be even morecritical for equity advocates.

Facing Infrastructure Problems

ideas presented here. The essential principles of thisand future PolicyLink infrastructure reports are:

Principle 1: Infrastructure decisions have widespreadimpact on housing, development, investmentpatterns, and quality of life and the outcomes ofthose decisions must be fair and beneficial to all.

Principle 2: Infrastructure plans should not have tocompete with health, education, and human serviceneeds but should be recognized as equally criticalgovernmental and societal responsibilities thatproduce equitable results.

Principle 3: Budget priorities within infrastructureareas (for example, repairing levees versus restoringwetlands to insure storm protection; more busesversus new rail systems to improve transportationoptions; building hospitals versus community clinics toaddress community health needs) should bethoroughly assessed using an equity lens.

Principle 4: Services and opportunities created byinfrastructure decisions should be available and

accessible to everyone in all types of communities.

Principle 5: Employment and economic benefitsassociated with building and maintaininginfrastructure should be shared throughout theregion.

Principle 6: The means for collecting revenues tosupport infrastructure improvements should bedetermined and applied in ways that are fair and donot disproportionately burden those with lowerincomes.

Principle 7: Infrastructure decision-making should betransparent and include mechanisms for everyone tocontribute to the planning and policymaking process.

3 PolicyLink

Infrastructure is vital for sustaining and reinforcingcommunity. The networks, roads, sewer systems,pipelines, facilities, and properties that comprisepublic infrastructure define neighborhoods, cities, andregions: where housing is located, the kind ofhousing that can be built, transportation to jobs, thequality of schools, and the maintenance of basicpublic health and safety. Infrastructure issues can beas fundamental to human health as the safety of thewater supply, as necessary to the economy as theexpansion of an airport, or as seemingly esoteric asthe constantly shifting regulatory environment fornewly-invented telecommunications technologies.Sometimes the construction of new infrastructure, orthe failure of an existing one, brings intense publicscrutiny. Most often, however, critical and expensiveinfrastructure decisions are made in settings removedfrom public questioning and media scrutiny, and thuslack the informed debate and attention that supportsequitable decision-making. Advocates need to beaware of the impact of infrastructure on a variety ofissues and be prepared to bring them before thepublic. Advocacy efforts should focus on economicefficiency, social justice, and political support ascriteria for equitable infrastructure decisions andspending.

• Economic efficiency. Major urban public worksprojects such as airports, highways, and powerplants—are not specific to one neighborhood orcity and require the cooperation of adjacentcommunities in planning, implementation, andaddressing the environmental and economicimpacts of project development. Further, regionaleconomic efficiency and growth depends on theprovision of adequate infrastructure, not only forfirms to move goods or operate offices andfactories, but for improved education, affordablehousing, effective transportation systems, and othermeans to provide a capable workforce and promotepublic health and safety.

• Social justice. All residents are entitled to basicstandards of public services and facilities. Efforts to

eliminate racial and economic disparities shouldalso address inequities in infrastructure plans andspending.

• Political support. Equity can be important insecuring voter approval of development projects orpublic financing. Focusing on equity concerns,particularly as they relate to infrastructure design,location, and funding through bond or taxinitiatives, can influence the outcome of policies orprojects.

Budget discussions and the need to raise revenues arepart of infrastructure planning. Because muchinfrastructure spending is for large projects—retrofitting bridges, expanding water systems,maintaining roads, or building schools—the amountof money that must be raised is huge and will oftenbe spent over many years, even across severalgenerations.1 Needed revenue is often raised throughthe issuance of bonds.

Many agencies charged with responsibility forinfrastructure planning are adopting a "worksmarter" concept that includes creative approaches torevenue collection, construction planning, anddemand management. These agencies often draw onpractices from other countries, regions, or the privatesector to determine "work smarter" ideas that mightapply in their jurisdictions. Choices about whichconcepts to adopt are not solely technical decisions,though they may be promoted as such. Instead, theymay reflect the biases of the decision makers, andgive rise to significant controversies. Implementingsmart practices and securing more funds alone cannotguarantee equity. Instead, there needs to beacknowledgement that equity has been missing fromthe conversation and recognition that its absenceleads to the kinds of disparities that hurricanes andflooding made apparent in the Gulf Coast.

PolicyLink 4

Adding Equity to the Infrastructure Conversation

Viewing infrastructure through an equity lens is anopportunity to examine, who benefits, who pays, andwho decides. When natural disasters (like floods,hurricanes, and storms), events (such as water mainbreaks, bridge collapses, or tunnel erosion), or plansfor the future (for example, new school constructionto accommodate overcrowding or plan for increasedpopulations) occur, the time is ripe for guaranteeingthat everyone participates and shares in the outcomesof planning and decision-making. Seven basicprinciples can result in greater infrastructure equity.

Principle 1: Infrastructure decisions have widespreadimpact on housing, development, investmentpatterns, and quality of life and the outcomes ofthose decisions must be fair and beneficial to all.Infrastructure can support or inhibit a particularpattern of development, such as sprawl and lowdensity, or smart growth and urban infill.Development patterns have long-term consequencesthat result in particular housing types andaffordability, economic and racial inclusiveness, andaccess to economic opportunity. Homes, businesses,and communities cannot be developed and sustainedwithout water, roads, and utilities, and ongoinginfrastructure planning is necessary for continuedgrowth. In California, for example, infrastructuresupports the state's predominant form ofdevelopment—single-family, low-density suburbancommunities.

Such development, which requires bringing waterfrom distant sources and securing public financing forhighways, has been a principal political agenda of thedevelopment industry. Yet, while infrastructurespending was a necessity, for decades it has been apassive development factor rather than a proactivetool used strategically by government to definecommunity building terms. In the last two decades,debates have raged about water (could or should itbe provided to sprawling developments) and roads(could or should highways receive support at theexpense of public transportation), giving rise to hotly-contested arguments about the politics of land useand development.

Advocates and many policymakers are increasinglyseeking ways to apply infrastructure investments tobroader land use, housing reform, and equity. Manycommunities have begun to directly address theequity components of infrastructure decisions byattaching development and investment criteria to theconsideration of new infrastructure proposals. Suchcriteria can serve to encourage more equitableinvestments in communities and promote healthier,more socially and economically integratedcommunities.

A number of offices within the California stategovernment have instituted ways of predicatinginvestments, grants, and loans to local governmentsor businesses on smart growth and urbanreinvestment principles. The state's allocation offederal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, for example,includes strong incentives for building near transit andotherwise promoting infill development; several otherCalifornia lending authorities managed by theTreasurer have aggressively pursued similar priorities.2AB 857, passed in 2003 right before thegubernatorial recall, called for applying principles thatpromote urban reinvestment, provide incentives forinfill development, and encourage the reuse andrehabilitation of existing infrastructure as a conditionof state infrastructure financing to cities. The processstarted by AB 857 was halted with the change inadministration. However, elements of AB 857 wereevident in Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's earlystatements about growth and development, and inrecommendations of such influential groups as theUrban Land Institute, though both tended to speakmore of "incentives" and less of "mandates" thanthe previous administration.

The value of integrated neighborhood infrastructureplanning is frequently one of the arguments made byenvironmentalists, regional planning agencies, and asizable segment of the development industry insupport of more financial and regulatory support ofinfill development. Their priorities reflect a greaterrecognition, supported by a growing number ofstudies and successful marketing of new properties,that infrastructure for urban infill housing and

Principles of Infrastructure Equity

5 PolicyLink

commercial development can be more efficient andless expensive than building on greenfield suburbansites.3 Equity advocates can have common causewith proponents of infill and urban reinvestment, butonly if the new developments create sufficientaffordable housing, minimize displacement, andotherwise meet the needs of existing residents as wellas new arrivals. Equity criteria are increasinglydescribed in campaigns for community benefitsagreements with developers of major new urbanhousing, commercial, and mixed use projects inmetropolitan areas around the state.4

Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, debates have ragedabout how to rebuild the Gulf Coast region andaddress such pre-existing conditions as the location ofhousing in flood zones and areas of concentratedpoverty. As the debates continue, the equityimplications of infrastructure decisions must becarefully considered. "New urbanism," for example,would counter sprawl with communities that aremixed-income, mixed-use, and walkable. The conceptreceived a surprisingly positive first impression fromeven very conservative leaders along the Mississippicoast, who saw in the ideas some ways to maintaintraditional architecture and street forms whileimproving the previously predominant highway stripmall forms. But new urbanism ideas have beenchallenged as nostalgic throwbacks that frequentlyfail to consider and engage racial and ethnic diversityas plans are discussed.

Questions about how and where affordable housingwill be built will be shaped not only by designguidelines and land-use decisions but alsotransportation, utility investment choices, andenvironmental issues related to levees and coastalrestoration. But already, prominent experts aremaking the case for mixed-income as well as mixed-use development, and for avoiding the re-concentration of poverty. However, this approach isfraught with challenges as African-American residentsof historic neighborhoods, such as the Lower NinthWard fear being unable to return and the subsequentloss of their communities and their place in the life ofthe city where many have lived for generations.

Principle 2: Infrastructure plans should not have tocompete with health, education, and human serviceneeds but should be recognized as equally critical

governmental and societal responsibilities thatproduce equitable results. The most basic expressionof a government's priorities is the distribution of itsoverall budget across broad issue areas. Even thoughthis distribution usually changes only incrementallyfrom year to year, over time the patterns of allocationreflect the prevailing influences, if not always thepopular will. Sometimes infrastructure decisions areframed as contrasting visions of the state's primaryrole. Is the need greater, for example, for prisons orfor schools? On some occasions, attempts to prioritizeinfrastructure spending are based on arguing that theproportion of the current budget that goes toinfrastructure today is very small compared to 40years ago. And at other times, infrastructureconversations pit current allocation needs for humanservices and education against fiscal responsibility forfuture needs.

The comparison of funding for prisons versus schoolshas long had great ideological salience. Someactivists have simplified and framed the argument as"Books not Bars," and the priorities are oftendramatized with comparisons of the costs-per-personof incarceration versus those of high school or collegeeducations per individual. Sometimes thesecomparisons between two infrastructure categoriesare focused on the capital costs: the dollars spentbuilding prisons compared to building campuses andschools, even if those construction priorities weredriven by law enforcement policies such as the "ThreeStrikes" laws or drug sentencing practices thatswelled prison populations in recent decades. Withmany schools, community colleges, and stateuniversity campuses experiencing seriousovercrowding and growing student bodies fromcommunities of color, the "prisons versus schools"contrast can have great particular resonance.

Allocation choices are also made about thepercentage of budget spent on infrastructure incomparison with other state governmentresponsibilities. California has witnessed attemptsmade to position the debate as a contrast between aprevious Golden Age—when huge commitments to aburgeoning middle class could be fulfilled—and afuture when the needs of a rapidly changingpopulation will have to be addressed with servicesand capital expenditures but with no consensus abouthow the necessary fiscal capacity will be achieved.

PolicyLink 6

The decline in spending on infrastructure as aproportion of the overall state budget has fueledprevious infrastructure bond campaigns. Proponentsof the recent Prop 53 (see text box, above) tried touse nostalgia to gain support in 2002 by referencingthe 1950s and 1960s as a time when publicfacilities—schools, universities, water systems, andhighways—were built rapidly and continuously withbroad public support. Infrastructure spending in thatperiod amounted to as much as 15 percent of thestate budget, compared to three percent currently.5This year, as the governor initially suggested thatnearly $200 billion would be needed for infrastructureexpansion and upgrades, early reactions fromdefenders of health and human services andeducation, and some advocates for social and racialjustice, questioned infrastructure spending if it wereto result in reductions in the state funding of servicesthey support. Until state revenues improved in 2006,there was an ongoing tug-of-war over whether fundsallocated for transportation would be used solely forthat, for example. It is not clear yet whether, when,and in what form such a basic trade-off—infrastructure versus human services—will benecessary, but the equity-related choices within therealm of infrastructure spending have yet to beaddressed, therefore it is not surprising that suchbasic concerns are fueling the debate.

Responses to broad allocation choices amongcategories of government spending represent thepublic's attitudes about what they are willing tospend in taxes, fees, and bond financing forinfrastructure. In practice, tradeoffs betweencompeting budget allocations are rarely madeexplicitly and directly, but they reflect the priorities ofgovernment and the electorate, which are not always

the same. Issues related to race are very prominent inthese broader political dynamics. Because of thestate's large immigrant population, current Californiavoters are not as demographically diverse as thestate's population as a whole, thus underscoring thenecessity of building a shared sense of communityand common vision for the future to ensure thateveryone benefits from the state's resources.

State and local governments throughout the GulfCoast are facing decisions that are accompanied byhuge tradeoffs on spending among severalcategories: restoration of wetlands for stormprotection, construction of adequate levees, othermajor capital projects for transportation andeconomic development, housing assistance, andhuman services. Even a year after the storms andfloods, circumstances in the region remain unsettled ifnot chaotic, as questions continue to arise about theultimate extent of the federal contribution torebuilding and the need to ensure that principles ofequity guide decisions on how to proceed.

Principle 3: Budget priorities within infrastructureareas (for example, repairing levees versus restoringwetlands to insure storm protection; more busesversus new rail systems to improve transportationoptions; building hospitals versus community clinicsto address community health needs) should bethoroughly assessed using an equity lens.Determining how to spend limited dollars is achallenge facing municipalities throughout thecountry and should be guided by an intention toserve low-income communities and communities ofcolor so that resources are shared equitably acrossconstituencies.

7 PolicyLink

Seeking Funds for Infrastructure on the Ballot. Proposition 53 in the 2002 California election would haveallocated a minimum percentage of state funds to a permanent infrastructure fund, but it was defeatedoverwhelmingly at the polls. Some voters turned away from the initiative due to the lack of transparency in the wayit would operate. Further, no effort was made to create a new alliance of unlikely supporters. Instead, the usualstakeholders aligned with infrastructure projects, predominantly local governments and the construction industry,pushed the initiative forward. With no new tax or bond proposed, the public was uncertain about which otherprograms could experience funding cuts as a result of this proposition. In November 2006, infrastructure advocatestook a different approach, pushing for more than $40 billion in new bonds through five separate measures. Thesecampaigns drew strong support from the customary supporters, but the participation of equity advocates dependedon the particular situations. School equity proponents strongly supported the educational facilities bond, which hadprovisions they had helped to craft, but some transit and environmental groups opposed the transportation bondbecause they perceived it as too dominated by highway development. All of the bond measures were approved.

Transportation planners, for example, have a widevariety of options to choose from in addressing thetransportation needs of local residents. Willpreference be given to highways or local roads,automobile transportation or mass transit, or heavyrail or buses? How are the lines between capital andoperating costs for transit systems drawn? Whobenefits from those priorities, and who loses? Socialand political priorities are reflected in choices ofsupport for one mode of mass transit over another(see text box, above) or between highways andtransit, local streets and freeways, or between a "fix itfirst" approach and an emphasis on newconstruction.

School facilities are accompanied by similar questionsrelated to modernization of existing facilities versusnew construction, such as: Where will school facilitiesmonies be spent, in suburbs or inner cities? How willthese decisions be made? In debating fundallocations for transportation, schools, or countlessother infrastructure needs, equity principles canensure that the answer to who decides, who pays,and who benefits, is everyone.

Principle 4: Services and opportunities created byinfrastructure decisions should be available andaccessible to everyone in all types of communities.Infrastructure policy decisions influence how

neighborhoods and cities gain and lose investmentsand opportunities, and have resulted in inequitabletreatment of urban and rural low income-communities of color. Such inequities emerge fromdifferences in property, wealth, income, or race. Forexample, states that require school districts to fundthe construction of facilities based on local propertytaxes contribute to the continuation of a system thatcreates newer, or more modernized facilities inwealthy communities, and substandard facilities inlow-income communities. Ohio has attacked thisdisparity by developing an Equity List, which it uses toallocate a greater share of state construction funds tothe lowest-wealth districts.

In California, contrasts in infrastructure spending arenumerous, deeply embedded in the identity of citiesand neighborhoods, and raise such questions as:Where does the funding go for capital projects? Whatconditions or criteria are attached to allocations thatshape the distribution of projects across communities?How do geography and population characteristicsinfluence the decision-making process? Thedominant pattern of infrastructure financing anddevelopment has significantly influenced land-usedecisions and future growth patterns and therebyfueled sprawl at the expense of existing communities.As this process has become more widely understood,advocates of more compact development and of

PolicyLink 8

Litigation Achieves Equity for Public Transit Riders. In1994, the NAACP, representing a coalition of the Bus RidersUnion, a project of the Labor/Community Strategy Center;the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates; and the SouthernChristian Leadership Conference, brought suit against theLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority forviolation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The legal strategysought to highlight the disparity between funding for heavyrail transit and bus transit, which is used primarily bycommunities of color and low-income residents. The lawsuitresulted in a settlement establishing the Federal Civil RightsConsent Decree, effective 1996-2006. The decree obligatesthe Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to reduceovercrowding, maintain equitable fares, and create a five-year plan for county-wide new service to break down transitsegregation. The MTA has appealed virtually every order the

courts have made to remedy the problems of overcrowding and service disparities, and the courts have consistentlyreaffirmed the requirements and legitimacy of the consent decree. In 2004, the MTA was ordered to add at least145 new buses, and 381 buses for fleet modernization to reduce overcrowding. The MTA appealed this order. TheBus Riders Union, with over 3,000 dues-paying members and 50,000 self-identified members, continues to press forfull implementation of the consent decree, including a demand for purchase of a clean fuel bus fleet of 4,000 and afreeze on rail spending. (See www.busridersunion.org.)

urban reinvestment have begun to fashion new toolsto redirect infrastructure priorities.

The devastation of the greater New Orleans regionbrings a new dimension to the conversation aboutgeographic disparities in infrastructure amongcommunities of different races and incomes. Prior toKatrina, New Orleans was one of the poorest centralcities in one of the nation's most highly segregatedregions. Rebuilding offers an opportunity to create amore equitable distribution of parks, school facilities,transportation investments, and other communityinfrastructure, and to use capital projects to shapeneighborhoods that avoid the concentration andisolation of the area's lowest income residents.

Principle 5: Employment and economic benefitsassociated with building and maintaininginfrastructure should be shared throughout theregion. Capital projects are one of the mostimportant ways in which government spendingcreates jobs and stimulates economic growth.Distributing these opportunities is a basic function ofpolitics and government, and decisions in this realmreflect government's stance toward overcoming pastand ongoing racial, gender, and communitydisparities.

Infrastructure is an extremely important driver of localand regional economies, and awarding contracts forconstruction and maintenance are important

expressions of political power. Given the obviousconnection between more capital spending and thewelfare of their sector, it is not surprising whenconstruction firms and building trades unionsadvocate for infrastructure projects. However, largeinvestments that will need to be made in the comingyears provide an excellent opportunity to create abroad equity agenda that ensures access to jobs andcontracts.

For example, a broad-based coalition of labor unions,school districts, faith-based groups, andenvironmental advocates joined together in 2004 toreach a $500 million Community Benefits Agreementwith Los Angeles World Airports, the governmentagency that operates the Los Angeles InternationalAirport (LAX). LAX, the world's fifth busiest airport,and second largest industrial smog source in the LAarea, borders Lennox, a predominately low-incomeLatino immigrant neighborhood. The communitybenefits agreement (CBA), a legally bindingdocument, ensures neighborhood protection fromnoise pollution through sound proofing of homes andschools in Inglewood and Lennox; pollutionreductions through regulation of diesel emissionsfrom construction equipment, in addition to studiesof air toxic emissions, diesel truck traffic, and upperrespiratory and hearing problems; job training and aFirst Source hiring program for impacted residents;increased opportunities for local small businesses toparticipate in the modernization; and guaranteed

9 PolicyLink

Equity Requires New Formulas for School Construction Funding in California. In California, 90 percent ofstudents in overcrowded schools are children of color, two-thirds of them Latino. The majority of these students arealso low-income and their schools are in urban communities.These schools should have been eligible to receive a portion ofthe $4.1 billion the state set aside to mitigate overcrowding,but they were ineligible due to a requirement to projectenrollment growth exceeding capacity over five years. Becauseof temporary measures taken by many schools, such as portableclassrooms for students on playgrounds, busing students toother neighborhoods, and creating multitrack year roundcalendars, the projection formula identified these overcrowdedschools as having sufficient capacity. Suburban areas, however,did very well under this formula, as they had little history ofovercrowding and thus fewer temporary capacity measures inplace. Further, the formula allowed the proliferation of new,sprawling housing developments to supplement district enrollment projections. Although some urban communitieswere also experiencing growth, the allocation formula had no mechanism to capture the data.

community access to the implementation process forall these measures. In addition, community benefitagreements can help to ensure that local communityresidents share in the benefits of majordevelopments.7

Employment and economic benefit criteria enablefederal, state, and/or local agencies to attachemployment and/or labor conditions to plannedinfrastructure projects and thus promote moreequitable communities or address past inequities.Such conditions include the payment of local livingwages for workers, the promotion of affirmativeaction programs, and set-aside programs fordisadvantaged and minority-owned firms, amongothers.8

Principle 6: The means for collecting revenues tosupport infrastructure improvements should bedetermined and applied in ways that are fair and donot disproportionately burden those with lowerincomes. The costs associated with infrastructuredevelopment necessitate critical payment decisionsthat can extend across generations, to current users,multiple jurisdictions, and by direct versus indirectbeneficiaries. A primary concern in deliveringinfrastructure projects in a fair and equitable manneris the degree to which they conform to a standard ofrevenue equity among a community's residents or thepopulation of the state as a whole.

Considerations of fiscal options are complex and canbe heavily constrained, often by past voter initiatives.Rarely do new revenue sources emerge on theproverbial blank sheet of paper, ready to make themost of equity, efficiency, or the amount of revenue.It is critical to ask tough questions about the impacton different income levels of proposed taxes, fees,bond issues, tolls, and rates that will generate fundsfor infrastructure operations and expansion. Thesequestions should include: Do the taxes or feesassociated with an infrastructure project represent aprogressive, neutral, or regressive form of revenuecollection? Are large groups of individualsshouldering the financial burden in delivering specificservices that benefit only a small minority? Asinnovations in pricing are considered to managedemand and improve conservation, are the impactsacross the distribution of income being taken intoconsideration?

PolicyLink 10

Disaster Cleanup Jobs and Contracts for LocalBusinesses and Workers. Rebuilding efforts in theGulf Coast have raised questions about who isgetting work and the conditions under which theyare operating and living. A large number of Hispanicimmigrants have taken on much of the dirtiest andmost dangerous construction-related work andappear to have few rights and fewer options withregard to their housing. There have been frequentreports of local firms being left out of FEMA-fundedrecovery and construction projects dominated bynational companies, and great anxiety about theawarding of subsequent contracts. The long-termprocess will present the opportunity to reverse thesefeatures of the emergency period and provide localfirms and local workers with a fair shot at obtainingwork. The massive amount of infrastructure repairand construction should also generate local jobtraining and support services and financing for thedevelopment of local small businesses.6

Voter Approval for Transit Improvements. In2004, San Francisco Bay Area voters approved a $1bridge toll increase that will raise $125 millionannually for transportation improvements. Theincreased revenue will be used to encourage the useof public transit and promote smart growth bystreamlining and integrating public transit systemsand enhancing alternative transportation programslike City CarShare. Projects expected to receive fundsfrom this increased revenue include an expandedexpress bus system, seismic retrofit of the BART tube,night BART service, Bus Rapid Transit service in theEast Bay area, and a new Safe Routes to Transitprogram. The toll increase provides a steady fundingsource that avoids the use of a regressive sales tax orstate general funds.

Current fiscal concerns in the Gulf Coast statesunderstandably revolve mainly around determiningthe federal government's share, and until that issettled most state and local decisions regardingtaxation and spending on infrastructure are on hold.The long-term strategy for borrowing and spendingfor capital improvements will hopefully not rely onlyon the more regressive taxes and user fees but willexplore uncommon strategies that address the abilityto pay and distribute costs equitably across theresidential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

Principle 7: Infrastructure decision-making should betransparent and include mechanisms for everyone tocontribute to the planning and policymaking process.Infrastructure decisions have traditionally been aclosed arena where the voices of low-incomecommunities have not been heard. Publicparticipation in infrastructure decisions can greatlyaffect the prospects for an equitable outcome, andadvocates are finding new ways to scrutinize andshape plans and policies. For example, bondallocation formulas can be highly technical, theprovince only of those most deeply embedded in thestate or school district bureaucracies. California's twomost recent School Construction Bonds, Propositions47 and 55, started out that way, but a small numberof equity-focused researchers and advocates havecome to understand and disseminate key informationabout the system and its consequences. Only upon in-depth analysis of raw data about applicants andrecipients of the funding was it apparent that low-income urban districts were not receiving funds thathad been set aside for them.

In transportation, most notably, such obscurity is nolonger the norm, as many transit advocates andenvironmental justice activists in California havebecome alert, expert, and effective participants innumerous planning, regulatory, and legislative venues

once attended mainly by industry insiders. The rangeof issues and arenas that lack a consistent "equityvoice" is still large, however, and includes not onlycity and county governments but regional agenciesand state departments and commissions. Communityadvocates could make greater use of theopportunities represented by regional authorities toconsider the overall needs of the region over thenarrow and often shortsighted objections of onemunicipality when it comes to affordable housing.They could build on the current efforts to representlow-income consumers and communities in regulatorysettings where prices and distribution of utilities fromwater to broadband technology are being guided.

In the Gulf Coast, the challenge of engaging residentsdisplaced by disaster in the policy decisions that willaffect their communities is an enormous one. InLouisiana, the variety of ad hoc arrangements, suchas meetings of New Orleans local groups and evengovernmental bodies in Baton Rouge or Houston,give witness to people's persistence and commitment.The ensuing months have seen an unprecedented useof telecommunications and internet infrastructure forthe establishment of a network across the hurricanediaspora. Such a network will address not onlyresidents' immediate personal needs but planning andpolicy decisions about the rebuilding of New Orleans.Most of the grassroots effort is understandably goinginto neighborhood-level planning and recoveryefforts, but there will also be a strong need forcommunity involvement in upcoming regional andstate infrastructure decisions.9

11 PolicyLink

Equity Principles Guide Urban Park Development. The Cornfield in Los Angeles, a 32-acre open space, wasslated for warehouse development before an historic alliance of over 35 community, civil rights, environmentaljustice, religious, business, and civic organizations came together to block the deal. The Center for Law in the PublicInterest (CLIPI) helped spearhead the effort to convince the state to purchase the site for a public park. Centered in apredominately Latino community where 30 percent of the residents live below the poverty line, a fully integratedpark and recreation site at the Cornfield will improve the quality of life for residents locally and across the region.CLIPI has continued to work with the city and county of Los Angeles to guide the conceptual design of the Cornfieldto ensure that development brings about open space for exercise, recreation, and tourism, in addition to creating jobopportunities, economic revitalization, and an increase in local property values.

Infrastructure policy is a relatively new and complexfield for many equity advocates. New resources onthe PolicyLink website, available in the late fall of2006, will provide opportunities to learn about suchspecific advocacy and equity planning practices fromaround the country for parks, schools, transportation,and water.10 Tools for assessing infrastructure-relatedefforts are organized into five interrelated categories.

• Standards, measurement, and assessment: Basic,minimum standards are the basis for evaluatinginfrastructure adequacy and should informpolicymaking.

• Target resources to high-need areas: Effectivegovernance dictates that funds should be directedto areas with deteriorating and inadequateinfrastructure due to age, overuse, and governmentneglect.

• Increase funding overall: The massive scale and costof infrastructure projects will require large increasesin public funds, usually through the issuance ofgovernment bonds and/or passage of user fees.

• Efficient use of resources, including joint use andcreative reuse: Development projects should take

advantage of pre-existing infrastructure in urbanareas, and wherever possible allow for multiple usesin order to avoid the costly duplication ofinfrastructure and inefficient use of land.

• Community participation in policy andprogramming, including local activism, coalitions,and litigation: Public participation in infrastructuredecisions helps achieve equitable policies, and canoccur through grassroots organizing, participationin government committee meetings, and whennecessary, public advocate litigation.

Each month for four months, beginning November2006, the PolicyLink website (www.policylink.org) willintroduce a new section on promising practices inadvancing infrastructure equity, including chapters onschool facilities, transportation, parks and open space,and water. Also available on the website early in2007 will be a full framing paper on infrastructureequity, providing more detailed analysis of the issuesexplored in this policy brief as they are playing out inCalifornia.

PolicyLink 12

Promising Practices

Infrastructure is the foundation of neighborhoods,communities, and regions and provides the supportsnecessary to insure that everyone—including residentsof low-income communities and communities ofcolor—has the opportunity to participate and prosper.The central equity questions—who decides, whobenefits, and who pays?—should be applied toinfrastructure as they are to health care, education,and other aspects of government. The specific kindsof questions to be considered include:

• How fairly are tax burdens shared?

• Which communities are well or poorly served bynew services and facilities?

• Which population groups get connected toeconomic opportunity and which are isolated?

• How open and responsive are decision-makingprocesses?

Equity concerns need to be addressed not only toachieve greater fairness and opportunity, but to createthe conditions necessary to sustain economic growth.Organized efforts to bring equity into infrastructureplanning, decision-making, and spending can buildpolitical consensus for new funding. This consensuscan result in increased opportunity for everyone in theregion and a more productive workforce, bettercirculation of goods and information, and moresustainable development practices.

The decisions about rebuilding infrastructure in theGulf Coast and the allocations of new bond funds inCalifornia, will be critical opportunities to addressequity directly. In a time of constrained resources,only a commitment to equity will ensure that theneeds of everyone in the region are addressed.

13 PolicyLink

Summary

Notes

14PolicyLink

1Housing is sometimes considered to beinfrastructure, especially in recent arguments thatrecognize "workforce housing" as an essentialelement of regional economic development and onethat needs public financial support. If it is not seen asinfrastructure, housing is a central part of thecommunity that is defined, guided, and served byinfrastructure. Both perspectives acknowledge thatthe amount, location, cost, and design of housing areshaped by public infrastructure investments. TheNovember 2006 California state infrastructure"package" of five bond measures, each voted onseparately, included one for affordable housing, sothe basic link was made in that instance. Theconnection of affordable housing to the overall pushfor infrastructure improvement appeared to be a keyto its success at the polls.2Memo from Philip Angelides, Treasurer, State ofCalifornia, "The Double Bottom Line: Investing inCalifornia's Emerging Markets: Investment Initiatives:Ideas to Action," September 9, 2004. See also,California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission,Tools to Revitalize California Communities,(Sacramento, CA: California Debt and InvestmentAdvisory Commission, 2004). 3See Robert Puentes, et al., Investing in a BetterFuture: A Review of the Fiscal and CompetitiveAdvantages of Smarter Growth DevelopmentPatterns, (Washington DC: Brookings Institution,2004). See also, Arthur C. Nelson, Toward a NewMetropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America,(Washington DC: Brookings Institution, 2004). Seealso, Smart Growth America, National Association ofRealtors, Homebuyers Favor Shorter Commutes,Walkable Neighborhoods, News Release, October 20,2004. See also, Funders' Network for Smart Growthand Livable Communities, Energy and Smart Growth:It's about How and Where We Build, TranslationPaper No. 15, (Coral Gables, FL: Funders' Network forSmart Growth and Livable Communities, 2004). Seealso, Smart Growth Leadership Institute, SmartGrowth is Smart Business: Boosting the Bottom Lineand Community Prosperity, retrieved fromhttp://www.sgli.org/SGisSBfinal.pdf, 2004.4The recently approved 3,100 unit mixed-usewaterfront development in Oakland, California known

as "Oak-to-Ninth" represents this kind of agreement,with 465 units of housing affordable to low wagefamilies to be included on the site and agreements fortraining and hiring of local residents for constructionand permanent jobs.5For a compelling account of the changes over timeand how they are perceived, see Peter Schrag,Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America'sFuture, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,2004). 6David Bacon, "Eye of the Storm: Looking forCommon Ground." Color Lines, vol. 9, no. 1, Spring2006. Laurel E. Fletcher et al., Rebuilding AfterKatrina: A Population-Based Study of Labor andHuman Rights in New Orleans. (Berkeley, CA:International Human Rights Clinic and Human RightsCenter, University of California, Berkeley; and PaysonCenter for International Development and TechnologyTransfer, Tulane University, 2006). 7For more information, see Julian Gross, Greg LeRoyand Madeline Janice-Aparicio, "Community BenefitsAgreements, Making Development ProjectsAccountable," Good Jobs First and the CaliforniaPublic Subsidies Project, 2002, retrieved fromhttp://www.goodjobsfirst.org/cbarelease.htm; Also,Anna Purinton, "The Policy Shift to Good Jobs,"Good Jobs First, 2003,http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/jobquality.pdf.8Race-based preferences in government programshave largely been disallowed in California throughProposition 109.9www.LouisianaRebuilds.info, a web portal created bya public/private partnership of local and nationalorganizations, is the first comprehensive means fordisplaced Louisiana residents to information aboutrebuilding and important issues such as schools,voting, and housing. A toll-free telephone call center(1-877-LA-Rebuilds (1-877-527-3284)) and printedmaterials will bring the portal content to families andindividuals without Internet access or for those whochoose not to use it.10For comparable information about promisingpractices in the production of affordable housing,please refer to the Equitable Development Toolkit,http://www.policylink.org/EDTK/.

This policy brief is based on research conducted byPolicyLink staff members Victor Rubin, RaymondColmenar and Richard Raya, with contributions fromJanet Dewart Bell, Arnold Chandler, Milly HawkDaniel, Angela Hollowell-Fuentes, Kristi Kimball,Johntell Washington, and Leslie Yang. We would liketo thank Manuel Pastor and Deborah Reed for theirhelpful comments on early versions. The James IrvineFoundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation providedsupport for this project.

Acknowledgements

15 PolicyLink

PolicyLink Headquarters:101 BroadwayOakland, CA 94607Tel: 510/663-2333Fax: 510/663-9684

Communications Office:1350 Broadway, Suite 1901New York, NY 10018Tel: 212/629-9570Fax: 212/629-7328

www.policylink.org

PolicyLink is a national research and actioninstitute that works collaboratively to developand implement local, state, and federal policiesto achieve economic and social equity.

All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2006.

Design: Leslie Yang

COVER PHOTOS COURTESY OF (clockwise from top left): ©iStockphoto.com (Mike Webber Photography), ©iStockphoto.com (HankShiffman), ©iStockphoto.com (Tony Trembley), ©iStockphoto.com (iMage).

PHOTOS COURTESY OF: p. 3: ©iStockphoto.com (slobo); p. 8: ©iStockphoto.com (Andres Balcazar); p. 9: Rachel Poulain; p. 10:©iStockphoto.com (publicimage); p. 12: ©iStockphoto.com (Hank Shiffman).