Seattle, Washington just became one of the largest school districts in the country to switch its school start times past 8:30 AM in an attempt to allow students to sleep in later. The Seattle school board voted to switch times based on a large collection of research that indicates that providing young people with the opportunity for more sleep can improve learning and overall health.

The vote, which was six-to-one, will change the start time for all of Seattle’s high schools to 8:45 AM during the next school year (2016-2017.) Many, but not all, middle and elementary schools will follow suit. Others will start at either 7:55 or 9:35, presumably in order to stagger the bus schedules.

Beginning this summer, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began urging schools to consider later start times. In doing so, the CDC joined other experts advocating for the same thing, including the American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s essential that young, still-developing teenagers average between 8.5 to 9.5 hours of sleep a night. However, a CDC study found:

That high schools that begin as late as 8:55 a.m. have 66 percent of students getting eight or more hours of sleep on school nights, which is the recommended amount for high school students. Schools that begin at 7:30 a.m. have an average of only 34 percent of students obtaining eight or more hours of sleep on school nights.

That makes a serious difference in how students learn throughout the day. According to a University of Minnesota study:

Researchers analyzed data from more than 9,000 students at eight high schools in Minnesota, Colorado, and Wyoming and found that shifting the school day later in the morning resulted in a boost in attendance, test scores, and grades in math, English, science, and social studies. Schools also saw a decrease in tardiness, substance abuse, and symptoms of depression. Some even had a dramatic drop in teen car crashes.

However, not everyone is happy with the changes–particularly the parents of the children who will be in one of the middle or elementary schools that will start at 9:35 AM. But pressure from the community to change the start times in a way that benefited as many children as possible seemed to outweigh the hesitations. Seattle hopes that by being one of the largest school districts in the country to make the switch to later start times it will start a trend and show other large school districts that it’s doable–maybe more will jump on the bandwagon for the 2016-2017 school year.

Learn More: School Start Times: Do More ZZZs Equal More As? 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Votes for Later School Start Times appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the term gentrification before–the process in which college-educated, higher-income individuals move into low-income parts of a city in order to live closer to cultural centers. While most people argue that this process leads to new development and better government services, they also highlight how it can displace the existing residents of these communities.

While that narrative is pretty straightforward and easy to grasp, it is important to ask whether gentrification is responsible for many of America’s urban problems. Read on to see what the arguments for and against gentrification are and what studies actually say about the process. Is gentrification as bad as people make it out to be or are other developments just as problematic?

What is Gentrification?

Like any word, gentrification has a simple definition, but in practice the process tends to be much more complicated. The formal definition of gentrification is: “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.”

History

Prior to gentrification, there was white flight–the phrase used to describe the mass migration of whites out of inner cities and into suburbs. White flight started in the mid-20th century and continued for decades to create the many suburbs that we have today. In the wake of this migration, cities like Washington, D.C. took on a majority-minority character as minorities moved downtown and white people left for the suburbs. Gentrification is typically used to describe the reverse of this process, with affluent people, often white, trickling back into inner cities.

While dilapidated or unused properties have always been refurbished and repurposed over time, the term gentrification itself traces its roots back to 1960s London. In 1964, a British sociologist named Ruth Glass coined the term to describe what was happening in a run-down neighborhood of London. Working-class immigrants were being replaced by professional types, who wanted to be closer to the cultural centers of life. This follows the narrative of development associated with gentrification today as young, educated people seek affordable rent in new parts of a city.

According to the typical story of gentrification, this group is then followed by a second wave that is usually composed of young professional types who move in once a neighborhood becomes more established. After the second wave, the neighborhoods themselves also begin to improve aesthetically as more money pours in. New residents create a stronger tax base and increase investment incentives for companies. Infrastructure is repaired and rebuilt while new construction is started. All this new activity begins to raise the property value of everything from the corner store to the apartment complex down the street. As a result, the original low-income, typically minority residents are essentially priced out of their own communities and forced to leave for somewhere more affordable. The video below looks at several aspects of gentrification and how it is normally understood:

Who does gentrification affect?

The major criticism of gentrification is that the process boils down to affluent whites pushing poor minorities out of their own neighborhoods, in an effort to return to the inner city that their parents and grandparents abandoned years earlier. However, when you look at the evidence and research on gentrification, that narrative doesn’t always hold up.

According to several recent studies by economists and sociologists, the process of gentrification, as it is generally understood, is actually not always accurate. On average, there is little evidence to suggest that more gentrification leads to greater displacement among the original residents. This is not to say that no one ends up being displaced, but generally speaking, displacement is not a significant consequence of gentrification.

In fact, for those who stay in their neighborhoods, regardless of race, gentrification can actually have positive effects. While rents do rise as property taxes increase, residents also have more opportunities like better jobs. In fact, the whole narrative associated with gentrification is called into question as the studies also showed whites are not very likely to move into historically minority neighborhoods at all.

Regardless of whether gentrification is as bad as some people believe, a backlash against the perceived trend has already begun. There are examples in Brooklyn and Philadelphia, but arguably the most notorious backlash occurred against a store in London selling cheap cereal at high prices in a low-income neighborhood, which led to boycotts and protests. In a somewhat surprising turn of events, however, this backlash against gentrification has spawned a counter-backlash, with those accused of gentrification standing fast in the face of criticism.

What Does It All Mean?

While gentrification can affect poor communities, generally that is not the most significant problem. The new investment and diversity actually tends to improve a community. The real problem is that the process of gentrification might only affect certain communities, leaving others with extremely high rates of poverty.

In a study of Chicago’s poor neighborhoods, Harvard researchers found that gentrification only occurred or continued to occur in neighborhoods where the racial composition was at least 35 percent white. They found that the process would actually stop in places where 40 percent or more residents were black. In other words, affluent whites may not be forcing poor black people out of their neighborhoods, rather they are bypassing them completely. This is not to say that the influx of wealthy whites simply improves poor neighborhoods, rather historically black neighborhoods tend to be neglected when it comes to new investment and development. Not only does this challenge the conventional perception of gentrification, it also reinforces an older and more sinister problem in the United States: segregation.

The continuation of segregation is not being perpetuated only by whites returning to the inner city, but also in black migration out of cities. Recent evidence suggests that minority populations are increasingly moving to the suburbs. While individual neighborhoods may be integrating, new suburban trends are actually increasing segregation. On the suburban and town level within metropolitan areas, racial divisions are actually increasing. The following video gives a look at segregation in the US and the problems it leads to:

While the continuation of segregation is bad enough, it has yet another negative aspect associated it. Since gentrification or any other process of development are slow, if not completely non-existent in historically poor neighborhoods, those neighborhoods remain poor and disadvantaged. For all its own potential evils, gentrification may simply expose the familiar problems of segregation and perpetual poverty that are still going unaddressed.

The Government’s Role in Gentrification

The idea of outsiders coming into an inner city neighborhood with cash and plans for improvement is not a new idea and had a name before gentrification: urban renewal. Urban renewal, unlike gentrification, was a product of government policy, which was intended to revitalize various sections of cities. Housing reform movements began as early as 1901 but really gained momentum in the 1930s when zoning ordinances were passed separating housing and industrial areas.

The movement was crystallized in Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949: the Urban Renewable Program, which promised to eliminate slums, replace them with adequate housing, and invigorate local economies. The act failed, however, in one of its other main goals: addressing segregation. Developers’ decisions to build high-income housing, large development projects, and highways that physically divided cities ensured the practice would continue. This disproportionately affected minority residents. Many were forced to move, often to other more crowded and/or expensive areas.

The government took another try at housing with the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which was meant to stop segregation in neighborhoods at all levels. Additional measures were put in place over the years such as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which replaced the emphasis on the demolition of decaying urban areas with rehabilitation.

As these problems persist, and with the racial strife continuing to plague the United States, President Obama sought to create legislation to address housing once again. In his plan, which was announced in July, data would be compiled then given to local authorities who could use it to more accurately distribute Housing and Urban Development funds. These efforts are intended to end the negative aspects that gentrification perpetuates, including poverty concentration and segregation. The accompanying video below details Obama’s plan to address segregation:

Conclusion

Gentrification is a well-known issue in the United States, but when you take a closer look at what is going on the trend becomes much more complicated. While displacement and housing costs are significant problems for local governments, gentrification might not always be at fault. The traditional gentrification narrative says that as wealthy people move to poor urban areas housing prices and live costs rise, displacing low-income residents. Emerging research challenges that narrative but notes that many low-income communities still face significant challenges. While people are starting to question the traditional understanding of gentrification, backlashes against inner city development and its perceived effects continue.

Studies show that gentrification does not cause displacement at the rates that most people may think, but it does highlight new trends in segregation. While inner-city communities are becoming more diverse, urban housing prices in general are going up. As a result, many low-income residents are moving to suburbs, which face further racial division. Historic segregation and displacement from urban renewal has created areas of concentrated poverty, which have grown consistently over the past decade. This poverty also tends to disproportionately affect minorities. According to CityLab, “One in four black Americans and one in six Hispanic Americans live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared to just one in thirteen of their white counterparts.” While most people think of the inner city when they think of poor neighborhoods, poverty and segregation are actually growing in many U.S. suburbs. Overall, the face of many American cities and towns are significantly changing.

Resources

Regional Science and Urban Academics: How Low Income Neighborhoods Change

US2010 Project: Separate and Unequal in Suburbia

Slate: The Myth of Gentrification

The Atlantic: White Flight Never Ended

City Lab: The Backlash to Gentrification and Urban Development has Inspired its Own Backlash

Harvard Gazette: A New View of Gentrification

The Hill: New Obama housing rules target segregated neighborhoods

Curbed: As ‘Gentrification’ Turns 50, Tracing its Nebulous History

Encyclopedia.com: Urban Renewal

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gentrification: What is it Doing to Our Urban Centers? appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton might have some explaining to do before she can claim the top spot in the Democratic primary. Any pro-Hillary voters who prioritize moral plans for American foreign policy should probably look into the candidate’s past in Haiti. The Pulitzer Center hosted journalist Jonathan M. Katz on Monday night for a discussion about the Clintons’ influence and rather infamous legacy in Haiti and I was fortunate enough to be able to attend. It’s surprising how little the failures and destruction of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s presence in Haiti have been brought up so far. Hopefully by 2016 this topic will be making headlines.

First, some background on the topic: on January 12, 2010, the deadliest natural disaster ever recorded in the hemisphere, a magnitude-7.0 earthquake, devastated Haiti’s southern peninsula and killed 100,000 to 316,000 people. Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the Haitian reconstruction effort and vowed to help the country “build back better,” so that if another disaster struck, Haiti would be able to respond more quickly and with more efficiency. Hillary described their efforts as a “road test” that would reveal “new approaches to development that could be applied more broadly around the world.”

The Clinton Foundation alone has directed $36 million to Haiti since 2010. Another $55 million has been spent through the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund, and an additional $500 million has been made in commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network. But what does Haiti have to show for all of these investments? Not much, according to Katz. “Haiti and its people are not in a better position now from when the earthquake struck,” he said. The hundreds of millions of dollars and the years of reconstruction efforts have yielded negligible results. For a project so expansive, Hillary has kept relatively quiet about Haiti thus far in her campaign. Her spokesman declined to comment on how Haiti has shaped her foreign policy, saying Hillary would address that “when the time comes to do so.”

Hillary’s big plan for how she would “rebuild” Haiti in the wake of desolation was characteristically American: through business. With big corporate plans on the horizon, Bill and Hillary became exceedingly familiar faces in Haiti leading up to the 2011 presidential elections. It’s not surprising that the candidate who vowed to make Haiti “open for business” was ultimately the victor. Former Haitian pop star Michel Martelly eventually won the race, after Hillary salvaged his candidacy when he was eliminated as the number 3 candidate by convincing the parties to accept him back into the race. Katz said that this vote was fraudulent. Martelly, a businessman and strong proponent of foreign investment in Haiti, was “attractive” to the State Department, Katz noted. He very much had a “Clinton view of Haiti and a Clinton view of the world.”

That’s how Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory geared toward making clothes for export to the U.S., was born in 2012. Bill lobbied the U.S. Congress to eliminate tariffs on textiles sewn in Haiti, and the couple pledged that through Caracol Park, Haitian-based producers would have comparative advantages that would balance the country’s low productivity, provide the U.S. with cheap textiles, and put money in Haitians’ pockets. The State Department promised that the park would create 60,000 jobs within five years of its opening, and Bill declared that 100,000 jobs would be created “in short order.” But Caracol currently employs just 5,479 people full time. “The entire concept of building the Haitian economy through these low-wage jobs is kind of faulty,” Katz stated on Monday. Furthermore, working conditions in the park are decent, but far from what should be considered acceptable.

Not only did Caracol miss the mark on job creation, but it also took jobs away from indigenous farmers. Caracol was built on fertile farmland, which Haiti doesn’t have much of to begin with. According to Katz, Haitian farmers feel that they have been taken advantage of, their land taken away from them, and that they have not been compensated fairly. Hundreds of families have been forced off the land to make room for Caracol. The Clintons led the aggressive push to make garment factories to better Haiti’s economy, but what it really created was wealth for foreign companies. This trend was echoed when the Clintons helped launch a Marriott hotel in the capital, which has really only benefited wealthy foreigners and the Haitian elite.

Mark D’Sa, Senior Advisor for Industrial Development in Haiti at the U.S. Department of State, said that many of the Clintons’ promises remain unfulfilled and many more projects are “half-baked.” Haiti remains the most economically depressed country on the continent. If Hillary wins in 2016, U.S. policy geared toward Haiti will undoubtedly expand, meaning even more money will be funneled to the Caribbean nation to fund the Clintons’ projects, for better or for worse. According to Katz, the truth is that we don’t actually know how much money has been thrown into the Caribbean country to “rebuild” it, and that with economic growth stalling and the country’s politics heading for a shutdown, internal strife seems imminent.

The introduction of accountability for the foreign aid industry is the most important change that can be made, according to Katz. Humanitarian aid does nothing positive or productive if there are not institutions in place, managed by individuals who actually live in these countries, to oversee that aid is serving rather than hurting the people it is supposed to “help.” Hillary Clinton’s efforts in Haiti have fueled political corruption, destroyed arable farmland, and have forced hundreds of families to leave their homes and their jobs to make room for a factory that has not given even a fraction of the amount to Haiti as it has taken. If the introduction of accountability is the way to go, then we first need to start talking. So Hillary, what do you have to say about Haiti?

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why U.S. Foreign Policy Isn’t Ready for Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

Lower Manhattan is a landfill. Composed largely from earth excavated during the subway construction process, it is an unnatural geographic feature and prone to flooding, as Superstorm Sandy demonstrated. In the ominous projections regarding melting ice caps and rising sea levels, it is one of the first places predicted to be inundated. In the 21st century, new plans to expand New York City continue to raise concerns and are questioned by environmental groups, as exemplified by the proposal for the offshore Hudson River Park, dubbed Pier 55.

Former head of Paramount Pictures and Fox, billionaire Barry Diller, is the primary promotor of this project and has pledged over $130 million to its construction. The 2.4 acre park would include concert venues, restaurants, walking and bicycling paths, and lawns. It would sit on a series of pillars standing between 15 and 70 feet above the surface of the water.

Many people are concerned, however, with the opaque manner in which the project is being pursued. Many details have yet to be disclosed to the public and to organizations that have raised concerns, raising questions as to the motivations for the park and the nature of its accessibility. That is to say, private control of public space is a contradictory concept and inhibits the true nature of an area that is apparently intended to be for the enjoyment of the people.

Furthermore, environmental groups are highly concerned as to the ramifications of the park, which would be built in a part of the Hudson River that is a marine sanctuary and spawning ground for striped bass. The Hudson River conservation organization Riverkeeper is worried that driving down pylons could disturb sediment and that the shade cast by the park would affect the behavior of fish and ecosystem dynamics. Yet the trust claims that the height of the park, facilitated by the use of the pillars, would allow for sunlight to reach the water. Furthermore, this park would not entirely be a brand new piece of construction dropped down in the middle of the water. Rather it is to be placed in large on the site of the previous Pier 54, which was once a dock for ocean liners including the Lusitania but has since fallen into disrepair and is collapsing into the river.

The Cunard Line’s arch at Pier 54. Courtesy of jim.henderson via Wikipedia.

Pier 55 requires approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation before construction can begin as scheduled in 2016. Yet these reassurances fall somewhat flat considering the knowledge that the trust submitted an environmental assessment form as opposed to a full environmental impact statement. While it points out that its report contained over 200 pages, it nonetheless had fewer requirements to answer. This ties into the opacity of the project, raising suspicions.

Diller was the primary benefactor of the High Line as well, another project that converted decaying urban space into productive real estate for the enjoyment of the public. Plans to build a Low Line park underground at the previous site of a trolly terminal on the Lower East Side have so far been met with much excitement. On the surface, Pier 55 seems like an altruistic and productive idea. But the fact that it is indeed on the surface raises a new set of concerns. Building in the water is far more complicated that revamping an old site on the land. The dialogue needs to be more productive before this project gets started; hopefully in the months to come questions will be answered and all parties involved will be reassured that this plan will work. The pier seems like a good idea and looks like it will be a fun place to visit once it is completed; as long as it does not inflict environmental damage, hopefully it will come to fruition.

You can check out more information and see a photo gallery of the proposed Pier 55 plans by clicking here.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hudson River Park Development in NYC Raises Questions appeared first on Law Street.

In most cultures and throughout history, under the ground has been a place to which few have been interested to venture. It is a place of darkness and isolation, with morbid undertones. Underground is thought of as a place of burial; having crypts and tombs, it is thought of as a place of death. But New York City’s proposed Lowline could change all that, bringing life and light to the deep places of the Earth.

Set to open in 2018, the Lowline is a planned underground park set to be built at an abandoned trolley station on Delancey Street on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The space, built in 1908, was abandoned 40 years later when trolley services ended in the city; however, there is still some aesthetic appeal with regard to high ceilings and cobblestones. It is located right next to the JMZ subway station, so travelers passing through can stop by. It will have trees, grass, benches, and natural sunlight. This last point is the great appeal; a system of mirrors and refractors will channel sunlight through an irrigation system–specialized pipes–to distribution panels underground. This will allow for real plants to grow under real conditions.

Courtesy of mike via Flickr.

Abandoned urban spaces are eyesores and breeding grounds for dangerous social and health conditions. This program will transform this particular space into something productive and for the public’s benefit. It will provide green space for an otherwise highly built up and concrete sector of the city. Of course, green space and benches will not be enough to draw sufficient crowds regularly enough to maintain the financial viability of the park. Especially considering that the main draw is the natural sunlight, on a cloudy or rainy day when people would not be interested in spending time in an outdoor park, the Lowline might be gloomy and unappealing as well. Therefore engineers intend to include retail space, youth activities, and culturally motivated programs. In this sense, the Lowline is not just a park but a center of activity and events.

Underground cities are not new conceptions. One of the most notable manifestations is in science fiction master Isaac Asimov’s planet-wide city of Trantor in the Foundation Trilogy. In these novels, the massive city is mostly constructed of domes and underground systems; residents do not have much access to open air. People often suffer severe emotional and mental strains as a result, feeling claustrophobic, depressed, and paranoid. Further, the layout is in some ways a tool of control by a tyrannical political regime. At any rate, the philosophical lessons of these books are poignant warnings with regard to planned cities and livelihoods of citizens. If the Lowline is successful it could set a precedent for people spending more time and possibly even living underground like rodents. Human beings are physiologically surface dwellers; it could be a sociological step down to emphasize the underground in this way.

Courtesy of Kris Arnold via Flickr.

Yet this might be taking it too far, and we should focus on all the practical benefits that can be derived from this system of thought and technology. As designer James Ramsey points out, the solar technology can be adapted to places such as hospitals, schools, basements, and office interiors as well. This could enable for much improved mental conditions as well as aesthetic appearances of otherwise bland built environments. Sunlight and green plants have been linked to increased mental health and productivity. Furthermore, if real trees will be able to grow underground due to the real sunlight, imagine the implications for the agricultural industry. Perhaps large swaths of plants can be grown underground in regions whose environments are otherwise unsuitable. This would allow for more effective production and distribution of food, overcoming restrictions of climate, insects, and the like.

In an era of limited access to space and aesthetics, concerns over energy and food, and questions about public welfare, the Lowline represents creative thinking and technological innovation with wide implications and exciting opportunities.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Underground Cities, Brought to You by New York’s Lowline appeared first on Law Street.

Repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been an increasing popular debate topic over the last several years. Though buried under other hot topics, such as foreign policy, government surveillance, and celebrity gossip, this conversation has been simmering on a back burner since at least the early 90s. The general consensus for those who would repeal the act is that it would then be reformed, though there are some who want it gone altogether. Read on to see why people are concerned about the date of the Endangered Species Act.

The History and Purpose of the ESA

The Endangered Species Act as we know it was passed by Congress in 1973. It was preceded by the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, which was amended three years later. Some of the main changes to the 1973 version included the creation of a set definitions for words such as “endangered” and “threatened,” widening the law to include plants, and restricting the federal government from any action that would endanger a listed species.

Another expansion the ESA provided was including protection guidelines from the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Washington, DC, which was signed by 80 nations taking a stand against environmentally harmful trade practices. An example of this was in 1989 when ivory imports were banned because of elephant poachers in Africa.

There were amendments to the act in 1978, 1982, 1988, and 2004, most of which dealt with defining exact parameters of what the government could and could not do, as well as smoothing out the process of proposing candidates for inclusion.

The point of the ESA is to not only stop the decimation of endangered species but also to recover them and ultimately delist them when they are no longer in danger of extinction. This is to be achieved through recovery plans written by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) biologists in collaboration with experts. The goals of the FWS are further explained in this video that they released for the ESA’s fortieth anniversary last year.

When an animal or plant is listed, it becomes illegal to “take” it without a federal permit. Typically these permits are granted for reasons of conservation or scientific research. Under the definitions section of the act, “take” is explained as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Take” doesn’t apply to plants unless they are on federal land. Laws can differ slightly from state to state, however, as some may have extra restrictions. It’s always best to know the rules as they apply to you.

How does a species make the list?

When considering a candidate for listing, the Fish and Wildlife Service uses a five-factor list, any of which can make the candidate eligible.

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(C) disease or predation;

(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The species selected represent the most critical cases, but there is also a list of candidates that meet the qualifications but can’t be moved forward due to budget or time restrictions. According to the FWS, in these cases the agency “works with States, Tribes, private landowners, private partners, and other Federal agencies to carry out conservation actions for these species to prevent further decline and possibly eliminate the need for listing.”

By the Numbers

• Thirty-one listed species have been fully recovered and therefore delisted.
• Ten listed species have been delisted due to extinction.
• There are 1,371 listed animals and 886 listed plants.
• The total expenditures for the 2013 fiscal year for endangered and threatened species by federal and state governments was more than $1.7 billion.
• Sixty-eight percent of protected species whose conditions are known are improving or stable.
• Thirty-two percent of protected species whose conditions are known are declining.
• Ninety percent of listed species are on track for their recovery rate deadlines, as outlined in their recovery plans.
• A 2013 poll reported that 42 percent of Americans said that the ESA should be strengthened, 25 percent said to leave it alone, and 24 percent said it should be weakened.

For Repeal and Reform

One of the main arguments for reforming the Endangered Species Act is that there is little incentive for private landowners to comply. In fact, once an endangered species is found, the land becomes subject to restrictions without any financial compensation from the government, so there is arguably reason for such property owners to kill and dispose of the endangered animal before anyone else finds out about it. This use of government command instead of reward is a problem for free market fans and property rights activists alike.

Attorney Damien Schiff explains some of these property rights in the video below by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Schiff also brings up the idea of prioritizing species worth saving, which has been reflected in arguments that the law is too inflexible in its efforts to save every endangered species.

Others believe the act puts nature before people, as jobs that would be created developing protected land are taken away and many government dollars are spent that could be put to use on humans or that could remain in taxpayers’ pockets. It has even been suggested that selling land currently under Federal protection could result in revenue for the government.

The question of cost is addressed in the NBC News story below about saving the panda.

On the more scandalous side of the controversy, there have been allegations that seeds of listed plants have been spread across mining sites in order to halt progress. Another case of abuse of the act was when an environmental group sued the FWS because four types of shrimp weren’t listed. The legal action was allegedly an attempt to block the development of 1.7 million acres of land.

Those who are more concerned with the science behind the act say that it is actually too targeted at individual species rather than biodiversity as a whole, which could be a more effective goal. Environmentalists are also concerned that the government, charged with enforcing the ESA, doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of projects that could impact an area’s ecosystem. While a short-term risk to a listed animal would warrant a stop on the plan, some feel the government ignores or doesn’t adequately research risks that could be problematic later.

Support For the Act

A key argument against the ESA is that extinction is a natural process, but many scientists believe that it is starting to happen at an alarming rate due to human predation, clearing of habitats, and use of food sources. This is being called the sixth wave of extinction, and by this logic, we as humans should strive to correct the damage we have done. This logic is also applied when supporters factor in climate change and pollution as sources of man-made extinction. Proponents of the ESA argue that it is our moral and ethical responsibility to care for the animals and plants we have affected through our rapid expansion into their territories.

Also, scientists have proven that the extinction of one animal often disrupts the food chain to cause a domino or ripple effect of extinctions. Our health as humans could be affected by such disruptions if not kept in check, creating clear ties to our well being and that of our environment. Supporters also note that measures taken to ensure the health of animals and plants, such as stopping deforestation and keeping our waters clean, are practices from which we all benefit.

There are also questions about the origins of arguments to repeal the act–do they come from genuine concern or lobbyists from lumber, mining, and oil drilling companies? In other words, are repealers really concerned with people or corporate profit?

Another rebutted argument against the act is that it has only a one percent success rate (with success being measured only in delistings), but less than one percent of species listed have gone extinct. This, plus the fact that the majority of measured populations are stable or increasing, makes it clear that this seemingly crippling statistic isn’t so impressive, after all. In addition, the above-listed statistic about 90 percent of species being on track for recovery is a strong argument for a different–and more optimistic–measurement of success. If the act is allowed to continue, successes will come in time, preserving our wildlife for future generations.

Perhaps the simplest reason for support is that the ESA makes people more conscious of the world around them. It informs the public of species that need to be protected, increases awareness of humans’ effect on other lifeforms, and it creates dialogue about the consequences if said species die out. After all, if there are unknown consequences to certain animals’ extinction, we may not discover them until it is too late.

Conclusion

It seems that many questions surrounding the Endangered Species Act have to do with the worth of funding such a large endeavor and how to accurately measure its success. If one takes a narrow approach in defining success as delisting, the ESA has very little to show. If one accounts for improvement and stability, though, there is a lot more weight behind the project. Is it the government’s place to support wildlife, or would we be better off focusing on ourselves? Does the 41-year-old act need a facelift in order to make it more efficient and beneficial to humans? This issue hasn’t moved into the political forefront yet, but as the volume of this conversation increases, Americans are going to need to decide what role they play in the natural world.

Resources

Primary 

FIsh and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ESA Basics

Fish and Wildlife Service: A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Delisting Report

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Animals

Fish and Wildlife Service: ECOS Listed Plants

Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures

Conservation Biology: Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn’t Work–And What to Do About It

Additional

Citizen Review: Everybody Knows They’re Not Really Endangered: We Just Need Them to Stop Mining

Defenders of Wildlife: Conservation Leaders From Congress, Interior & Citizen Groups Decry Bill to ‘Repeal’ Endangered Species Act

National Wildlife Foundation: Endangered Species Act by the Numbers

LA Times: Foe of Endangered Species Act on Defensive Over Abramoff

BBC: Biodiversity: The Sixth Great Wave

Daily Mail: Scientists Use Wasps and Aphids to Prove ‘Domino Effect’ of Extinction

Politifact: Only One Percent of Endangered Species List Have Been Taken Off List

ESA Success: 110 Success Stories for Endangered Species Day 2012

Biological Diversity: Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Want Congress to Strengthen, Protect Endangered Species Act

WND: Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Biological Diversity: A Wild Success

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Endangered Species Act: Repeal and Reform or Leave it Alone? appeared first on Law Street.