CLF and affected community residents will be back in Court on April 11th arguing that the high-level biocontainment laboratory proposed by Boston University (BU) has no place in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End. Please join us in standing up for this important cause by attending the hearing in Boston on April 11th.

As we reported last year, having failed twice before, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and BU have attempted for the third time to adequately explain how the risks associated with placing a high-level biocontainment laboratory (the “Biolab”) that would test pathogens like ebola and the plague are acceptable for an urban environmental justice community. NIH released its latest Risk Assessment in July 2012. For the third time, that Risk Assessment does not meaningfully address the fact that the Boston location selected for siting the NEIDL comes with substantially more risk potential than rural or suburban alternative sites. The final Risk Assessment also fails to fully analyze the ways in which the environmental justice community living near the NEIDL site would be unfairly affected by proximity to the facility. Unfortunately, however, NIH decided that the Risk Assessment was adequate to close out its investigation of the risks of this facility, and issued a final Record of Decision in January 2013. That Record of Decision is the trigger that brought the parties to this ongoing litigation back to Court.

In this case, six plaintiffs (five community residents and CLF), challenge the adequacy of NIH’s Risk Assessment and Record of Decision in the U.S District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Chief Judge Patti Saris of that Court will hear cross-motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction against the Biolab, on April 11^th in Boston. You can read the plaintiffs’ brief here. Judge Saris’ findings from this hearing will be the final judgment in this case at the trial court level.

This hearing is a major milestone in the case against the Biolab, and community presence in the courtroom is powerful. If this issue is important to you, you need to be there. The details for the hearing are:

BU Biolab Hearing
April 11, 2013
2:30 PM
Moakley Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston
Courtroom 19

Moakley Courthouse is located on the waterfront in Boston, and is accessible by transit via the Silver Line (or a 15 minute walk from the Red Line at South Station). Directions to Moakley Courthouse are available here. The courtroom is likely to be busy and may not be able to fit everyone who would like to be present, so please arrive early to ensure a seat. You should bring identification for security clearance and allow extra time for that process at the Courthouse entrance. Anything you bring with you to the Courthouse will be screened by security.

If you care about Boston’s residents – you should be at this hearing. If you care about environmental justice, the importance of hearing the public’s voice, or the importance of transparency in government decisionmaking – you should be at this hearing. This matter is deeply important – for us and our neighbors – and we hope you’ll show your support by standing beside us on April 11^th.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about bringing backyard chickens back to Rhode Island and paid special attention to the ongoing effort to repeal Woonsocket’s chicken ban. A few days later, the Washington Post ran a feature-length article on low-income Woonsocket residents’ struggles to feed their families.

My last post focused on the ways that historical justifications for chicken bans have become outdated, and also noted some health and environmental benefits of backyard chickens. The Post article casts the Woonsocket chicken issue in a new light: Woonsocket suffers from food insecurity, and backyard chickens can help.

The Post article is worth your time to read (here’s another link to it), but here are a few important takeaways: Every month, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) injects $2 million in benefits (formerly called food stamps) into the Woonsocket economy. With a local unemployment rate of 12% and only low-paying jobs available to many employed residents, a full one-third of Woonsocket residents receive SNAP benefits. In fact, some local grocery stores make up to 25% of their monthly profits on the first of the month, the day when SNAP benefits are transferred to recipients. Together, these numbers – and the article’s well-drawn profiles of several Woonsocket residents – present a picture of food insecurity.

Backyard chickens are not a panacea by any means, but they can help to alleviate food insecurity and promote economic self-reliance. They can turn food scraps, beetles, and grubs into fresh eggs. And their droppings (if dealt with appropriately) are great for growing vegetables too. They add resilience to a broken food system. You can read more about chickens and chicken care by poking around Southside Community Land Trust’s website.

Once you’re satisfied that backyard chickens make sense, you should come out to Woonsocket City Hall on Monday, April 1 at 7 p.m. to show your support for repealing Woonsocket’s chicken ban!

A genuine Rhode Island chicken. Image courtesy of eschipul @ flickr.

All over Rhode Island, people want to keep backyard chickens. The trouble is that the law often doesn’t let them.

Until 2010, Providence banned chicken-keeping entirely. That year, a coalition of residents worked together to overturn the ban. These efforts paid off – now, chickens peck away happily at sites ranging from Southside Community Land Trust’s almost-a-whole-block City Farm to my friends’ snug 1700-square-foot lot in the West End.

After this success in Providence, other cities and towns looked more closely at allowing chickens. Swanky Barrington followed Providence. The City Council in Cranston, where I live, repealed the city’s chicken ban; unfortunately, though, our mayor vetoed the repeal so the ban remains on the books (for now). As spring approaches and our thoughts turn to our backyards, a city and town in northern Rhode Island – Woonsocket and North Smithfield – are considering lifting their backyard chicken bans.

The effort to repeal the Woonsocket ban began the same way most repeal campaigns seem to: a Woonsocket zoning officer ordered a responsible chicken owner to get rid of his birds. Alex Kithes says his neighbors didn’t even realize he had chickens until he offered to share some eggs. As word spread, the city found out and issued a citation. Alex is fighting back. He has drafted a city council member to introduce a bill allowing chickens in Woonsocket, and he is lining up individuals and organizations to lend support.

CLF supports eliminating barriers to local food, and that includes legalizing backyard chickens in Woonsocket. When people keep chickens, they can cheaply opt out of industrial egg-suppliers.  A more direct benefit of backyard chickens is that small broods’ droppings make great fertilizer, while concentrated droppings from large egg-laying operations are toxic. Backyard chickens also add resiliency to our increasingly concentrated food system. And backyard chickens can even encourage organic waste diversion, eating table scraps that otherwise might be landfilled. These are the types of broad-ranging benefits that panelists recently promoted at the Rhode Island Local Food Forum.

Legalizing backyard chickens also allows residents full use of their property to grow food and helps to foster community. To better understand these points, we have to take a brief look back in history. Municipal bans on backyard chickens began with New York City in 1877, followed by Boston in 1896. Both cities were motivated primarily by concerns with unsanitary chicken slaughter; wholesale bans on chickens, however, were much easier to enforce than targeted bans on slaughter.

Over time, however, slaughter of backyard chickens has all but vanished (and is still banned in most modern chicken ordinances, though off-site processors may be available for those who want to eat their birds and not just their eggs). Sanitary concerns have largely disappeared (and sanitation is regulated in most modern chicken ordinances). And chicken bans remain on the books primarily due to worries about nuisance and image. But any well-tailored chicken ordinance will take a dual approach to nuisance: both proactive (setting minimum conditions for housing and feeding chickens, and banning noisy roosters) and reactive (allowing neighbors or municipalities to fight actual nuisance conditions). This approach allows people to keep clean, quiet birds on their property if they choose to do so.

And clean, quiet birds not only are perfectly consistent with a positive community image but can in fact foster community. Backyard chickens can be quite stylish (this coop, for example, looks even better in person!) or even all but invisible – I didn’t realize my West End friends had chickens until they paused our daughters’ play date to go outside and feed the birds. Chickens tend to be great with children, and egg-sharing can bring neighbors together. Finally, there are no known data suggesting that backyard chickens negatively affect nearby property values. The fact is that out-and-out chicken bans restrict property rights and prevent environmental benefits for no good reason at all. Everybody loses.

For all these reasons, CLF supports amending the Woonsocket backyard chicken ban. I plan to speak in favor of repealing the ban at Woonsocket’s April 1 City Council meeting, and I hope you will consider joining the growing pro-chicken coalition as well.

Many of you have been waiting for the next opportunity to voice your concern over the BU Biolab. Your time is coming – the state’s public comment process will begin soon, and the Patrick Administration needs to hear from you.

The proponents of Boston University’s proposed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) – known as the BU Biolab – in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End are in the process of submitting the risk analysis of their project for environmental review. Having failed at this twice before – in the view of the Massachusetts courts and the National Research Council, among others – this is the third time  the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and BU have attempted to adequately explain how the risks associated with placing a a high-level biocontainment laboratory that would test pathogens like ebola and the plague are acceptable for this community.

The latest Risk Assessment, which was recently completed by NIH, is now under final consideration by that same agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CLF has reviewed the final Risk Assessment and, like NIH and BU’s past attempts, it still falls extremely short of addressing concerns about the lab raised by community members.

In particular, NIH’s final Risk Assessment  does not meaningfully address the fact that the Boston location selected for siting the NEIDL comes with substantially more risk potential than rural or suburban alternative sites. The final Risk Assessment also fails to fully analyze the ways in which the environmental justice community living near the NEIDL site, which already battles disproportionately compromised health, would be unfairly affected by proximity to the facility – which unfortunately has great potential for disaster in the event of an accident or malevolent attack. For a copy of the written comments submitted to NIH by CLF and its legal partners last Friday explaining why the latest Risk Assessment is still insufficient, click here.

BU will soon submit its Risk Assessment for review by the state pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), at which point the public will have the opportunity to comment. Public input is the heart of the environmental review process. It is essential that the Patrick administration hear why this facility presents too much risk, and not enough benefit, for this already overburdened environmental justice community. CLF will provide updated information here on how you can submit public comment as soon as those details become available. Check back here soon for how you can get involved!

Boston University (BU) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are preparing a mandatory revised risk assessment for BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL), which has received substantial federal funding through NIH. I described the specifics of this risk assessment in an earlier post. The draft of that risk assessment is currently ready for public review. Though we reported in our last post that the public hearing for NIH’s draft risk assessment would be held February 16, that hearing was delayed by NIH. NIH recently announced that the hearing has been rescheduled for April 19 and that they are accepting public comments on the draft risk assessment. Your input in this public process is crucial – here is how you can get involved:

• Review the Draft Risk Assessment: The first step is to review what NIH has prepared. You can access the draft risk assessment electronically here, and the accompanying Reader’s Guide here. You can also obtain a hard copy of the draft risk assessment and Reader’s Guide in the mail by e-mailing NIH at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or calling (301) 496-9838 to place your request.

• Submit Written Comments: Any member of the public can submit comments to NIH on the draft assessment – that means you! The public comment period closes on May 1, 2012. After reviewing the draft risk assessment, submit your comments to NIH by May 1^st via email at NIH_BRP@od.nih.gov or in hard copy to: The National Institutes of Health, ATTN: NEIDL Risk Assessment, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892.

• Attend the Hearing: The public hearing on the draft risk assessment has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 19, 2012, from 6:30-9:30 PM at Roxbury Community College, 1234 Columbus Avenue, Boston, MA 02120. This is your opportunity to offer comments on the risk assessment verbally. We strongly encourage you to support the local community members opposing this project by attending this public hearing – either to offer comments yourself, or to offer support through your presence. If you would like to offer oral comments, you will need to sign-in prior to the start of the meeting. You can sign-in beginning at 5:30 PM.

Your written and oral comments can be as long/detailed or brief/big-picture as you like – there is no one way to express your opinion. The important thing is that you speak up.

Check the CLF Scoop for more updates or contact me at jrushlow@clf.org with any questions.

While much of Boston was distracted by the approaching holidays, public health and the environmental justice communities of Roxbury / South End scored a victory last Friday, December 23^rd, when Secretary Sullivan issued his final decision to deny BU’s request to begin high level research at BU’s National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories (NEIDL) until a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA.

This decision brings to a close one chapter in a larger, protracted debate regarding acceptable levels of risk for this project, otherwise known as the BU Biolab. Biodefense research conducted at the lab would bring highly contagious, rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola, to densely populated urban neighborhoods. Members of local communities have expressed strong opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Meanwhile, BU has failed multiple times to assess and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Their assessments have repeatedly been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis. Despite this, BU requested a waiver to proceed with operating the lab – a request that applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4) labs, including BSL-3 research. CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request.

Secretary Sullivan’s final decision denies BU’s request to begin BSL-3 research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. We welcome this decision, and consider it to be a victory for the security of the local community and the integrity of the legal process. As stated in joint comments filed last week, we support this decision for the following reasons:

1) It’s the law. The Secretary’s decision is in line with the Superior Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings that require the EOEEA to fully review risk assessments for BSL-3 and 4 research at the NEIDL.

2) It’s too risky not to understand the risks. Careful review and oversight of this facility is necessary given BU’s poor track record of reporting accidents in a timely manner and communicating with the community on this issue.

3) The public not only should participate – they are required to. The EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy requires enhanced state review and public participation opportunities because of the proposed facility’s location in Roxbury/South End.

What You Can Do:

NIH’s Blue Ribbon Panel will come to Hibernia Hall in Roxbury on February 16^th to hold a public meeting and hear comments on NIH’s draft risk assessment for the NEIDL. CLF will post the time and other details for the public meeting here when they become available. Mark your calendar and join CLF and its partners in seeking to ensure that this facility does not introduce unnecessary risk to an already overburdened environmental justice community.

As I sit on the crowded 32 bus for my usual 50-minute-plus journey to get to work, I find myself wondering why no one seems to care that people who ride these buses regularly have to squeeze together as if trying to fit into a human sardine can.

MBTA buses.

The 32, which is almost always packed, worsens traffic on the already congested Hyde Park Avenue. It runs from Wolcott Square in Hyde Park, through Roslindale, to Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain. I’ve been taking the 32 bus my entire life; I lived in Roslindale until I was thirteen, then moved to Hyde Park. However, it hasn’t been until recently that I’ve started questioning the priorities of the MBTA.

Taking the 32 bus to Forest Hills then switching to the orange line to Downtown Crossing is the most convenient way for me to get downtown, where I’ve worked for the past two summers. I could also take the 50 bus to Forest Hills, which is sometimes a longer ride than the 32. The commuter rail, which costs more than twice the amount of the subway, takes only 20 minutes to get to South Station. My other option–taking the 33 or 24 bus to Mattapan Station, then taking the trolley to Ashmont Station, then switching to the red line–requires a little more effort and virtually the same amount of time. No relief.

Many times I have watched the commuter rail speed through Hyde Park Station, breathing in the fumes it leaves behind, trying to catch my breath as I race to catch the 32, and wonder why the people of this area are still cramming into one bus when there is a train that already runs through the neighborhood.

It has become quite apparent to me that the prices for the commuter rail need to be reduced so that common folk like me can afford to take it, otherwise there needs to be an extended train system to accommodate this area. Getting anywhere in Boston through public transit usually requires taking one of the four major lines–red, blue, green, and orange–all of which can only be accessed through a long bus ride from my area.

In an economy that’s stretched thin, like ours is, people have to go to greater lengths just to provide for their basic needs. Now, more than ever, there are so many other factors affecting daily life that to add something as miniscule as transportation to the laundry list is asking way too much for the average person. So instead, many are forced to brave long uncomfortable bus rides with the hope that there is at least one person associated with the MBTA who cares about providing adequate transit for those who need it.

I also cannot help but notice that some slightly more affluent areas of Boston seem to have a far more efficient transportation system than say, Hyde Park. This can only mean that public transportation is not prioritized by areas on a need basis. Don’t let the failing economy fool you; money is still being spent on public transit, just not in logical order. Despite what the MBTA cites as their reasons, the evidence is in the actions.

Maybe when I’m in my thirties they’ll finally get around to it.

Editor’s note: Tiffany Egbuonu is a Posse Scholar and a summer intern at CLF. She is entering her sophomore year at Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, PA.

Do you find yourself relating to Tiffany? CLF is working to bring accessible and affordable transportation to ALL people in the Boston metro area and beyond. Read more about CLF’s public transit work  here.