This issue of Cityscape explores the controversies that arise when housing and community development policy meets environmental protection. In recent years, serious tensions have emerged between the housing and community development programs that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers and the environmental regulations administered primarily by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I became acutely aware of these tensions in the fall of 1993, when I was invited to a conference on Housing and the Environment sponsored by the New York Housing Conference. Nonprofit community groups and low-income housing advocates, as well as for-profit builders and property owners, argued that many environmental regulations were endangering the economic viability of both the existing housing stock and the rehabilitation and new construction of low- and moderate-income housing. I was struck by the angry frustration being voiced by people who historically had supported environmental protection and I was disturbed by the implication that the goals of housing and community revitalization are inconsistent with protection of the environment.
In an effort to foster a more constructive dialog, I decided to sponsor a series of symposia on the impact of environmental mandates on housing and urban development. The four symposia, held between December 1994 and October 1995, were intended to inform the urban and environmental policy communities about conflicts between their respective mandates and to explore ways in which those conflicts might be resolved. The articles in this volume are based on the discussion papers prepared for each of the symposia. They are accompanied by summaries of the four day long sessions and a provocative introductory synthesis by staff of HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research. The sessions were hosted by nongovernmental organizations active in urban development and environmental protection, and I am grateful to them for helping to make the symposia possible.
Each symposium focussed on a different area of overlap between HUD's urban agenda and the environment. The first session addressed the impact of environmental mandates on inner-city revitalization, and Elizabeth Collaton and Charles Bartsch's paper on urban brownfields sparked a discussion about the challenges and opportunities of cleaning up contaminated industrial sites and returning them to productive use. In the second session, papers by Frank P. Braconi and Brock Evans prompted a heated debate about the impact of environmental regulations on the cost of housing maintenance, rehabilitation, and new construction. Session three explored the impact of environmental protection on urban growth and growth management, with an excellent paper on strategies for preserving wetlands and species habitat by Lindell Marsh, Douglas Porter, and David Salvesen. And the final session featured a paper by Nick Farr and Cushing Dolbeare on lead-based paint mandates and their implications for the preservation of affordable housing.
Today, both HUD and EPA are embarked on a course of significant reinvention and reform in their respective programs. This process, though sometimes painful, creates opportunities for urban and environmental advocates to rediscover common objectives and pursue joint initiatives. I am heartened by the fact that EPA, which has implemented major reforms in regulations governing brownfields cleanup, recently hosted a day-long meeting during which senior representatives from HUD and other Federal agencies with urban development responsibilities made a commitment to a long-term agenda of collaboration and support. Only by working together in this way can we hope to realize HUD's mandated goal of "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family."
Michael A. Stegman
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Development and Research
