Uncategorized

Social change in the South Durham nonprofit uses 'community lawyering' to help communities help themselves By Diana Smith, Staff Writer Each week, the three attorneys from the Southern Coalition for Social Justice come to work in a snug office space in downtown Durham. Their quarters are cramped and their numbers are small, but their mission is huge to use their acumen to empower communities to become their own legal advocates. It's a lesser-known approach to practice called community lawyering. Instead of focusing on an individual client, attorneys work with community organizers, researchers and other specialists to address the underlying social problems that bring clients, often low-income ones, to court in the first place. "It's a multi-disciplinary model, so we work as a team to represent community-based organizations," explained SCSJ attorney and founder Anita Earls. The nonprofit also uses a "human-rights perspective" to focus on a broad range of legal issues such as immigration and civil rights that may have far-reaching political or legal implications. "Taking a human-rights perspective is a little different," she said. "We're not filing cases in the International Court of Justice, but we think that the issues our clients face in the state and in the South should be evaluated next to those international human-rights guarantees." That description may seem abstract, and SCSJ attorney Chris Brook understands that. He recently spoke on a panel about community lawyering at the ABA Equal Justice Conference in Orlando, Fla. "A lot of people had not heard the term before," he said. "The concept itself was not challenging for them to grasp. But to a certain extent it was a challenge to the way they've been taught to operate as attorneys." That's because the philosophy runs somewhat counter to the traditional adversarial model taught in law schools. Add the human-rights component to the mix, and it's understandable that SCSJ's mission might not be crystal clear, Brook said. "You often have to explain that part of our organizational premise to people," he told North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. Explanation: Part One In basic terms, community lawyering de-emphasizes litigation and encourages attorneys to work with communities to resolve legal problems out of court and keep them resolved. In a 2004 article in the Utah Bar Journal, scholar David Dominguez explained that type of success won't happen simply through pro bono work. "The strategy of community lawyering is to lessen the growing demand for legal services by teaching the community what more it can do for itself, capitalizing on its own informal problem-solving capabilities as much as possible before turning to attorneys," Dominguez wrote. For example, Brook is working with three community groups in Greensboro in a multi-racial collaboration to address gang violence. "What they're trying to do is to bring gang leaders together to renounce violence and see their organizations as a way of supporting their community instead of as something that must be suppressed and eliminated," Earls said. The legal component comes into play because Brook initially went to court for several members of the collaborative who had criminal charges pending against them. The charges were later dismissed. "Largely it's not because of any great legal work. But because we rigorously collected the facts and got testimony from those involved, we found there was no real crime there and that the charges that had been brought just weren't born out of what actually transpired," he said. Explanation: Part Two Another way to understand the community-lawyering model is to view it in terms of outcomes, Brook said. Lawyers are typically trained to see a problem and "destroy it," he explained. And expedited elimination of the issue may sometimes be all a client wants or needs, particularly in practice areas such as business litigation. But because of SCSJ's community-oriented approach, having an attack-dog mentality does not necessarily fit with its organizational mission. "What community lawyering says is that you certainly need to bring your specialized knowledge of the law to the community," Brook said. "But if you just walk into a room and have the loudest voice to drown out everyone else's, you might solve the problem you're trying to destroy in the short term. "But long-term, you run the risk of making the community dependent upon you such that when the attorney is not there, the community can't function." That's why SCSJ focuses on showing communities that legal remedies are just one of many tools they can employ to combat their problems locally. Plus, the most effective strategies that lawyers can use in court will emerge from their dialogue with those immersed in the communities themselves, Earls said. Brook agreed. "There are some communities I've worked with since law school, so I know them very well and I know their problems very well," said Brook. "But the fact of the matter is I am never going to understand the challenges their communities have in the same visceral way they do. And pretending I do is not only inaccurate, but it's presumptuous." Community-oriented, yet individualized approach While SCSJ has served as general counsel helping the state NAACP with voting-rights cases and assisted organizations to gain nonprofit status, it also handles cases involving individuals where the outcome can serve as an example of a broader social issue the community wants to address, Earls said. It currently serves as co-counsel in an heirs' property case in New Hanover County in which developers have filed a petition to partition a 180-acre strip of land called Freeman Beach. The land has historical significance because it was the only beach in North Carolina open to African-Americans during segregation. "The Freeman Beach case is an example of heirs' property, but what we're also looking at is the impact on low-income and African-American communities in particular since it's the poor and minority communities who tend to run into these problems," Earls said. Similarly, SCSJ attorney Marty Rosenbluth provides direct representation to clients with immigration and deportation issues, but their particular cases can raise broader questions about policy and procedure. For example, Rosenbluth recently represented a U.S. citizen originally from Ukraine who had been arrested on criminal charges and placed into deportation proceedings because of an error in his records at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. It took four months for Rosenbluth to get the mistake corrected. The client's detainer was finally lifted a week before he was scheduled for deportation. Rosenbluth said his success on the case demonstrates that SCSJ fills a gap in North Carolina. "One thing that gets left out of the debate and what makes what we do unique is that people who are in the immigration courts don't have the right to have an attorney if they can't afford one," he said. "Even though the consequences can be very grave, the federal government considers it a civil procedure and not a criminal one. If this family hadn't found me through luck, they never could have hired a lawyer," Rosenbluth said. "He'd be gone today."

From The New Hill Community Association submitted these comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the New Hill Sewage Treatment Plant site.…

Half of Apex Town Hall was a sea of red shirts April 14 at the public hearing on Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities, a proposed sewage plant slated for New Hill. The people in red, representing a New Hill residential association, had a common message: Build it somewhere else. “Who wants to live near a stinking sewage plant?” asked resident Vickie Gardner. “I’m embarrassed that our sewage is going to be piped through beautiful countryside to the New Hill community,” said Carl Thor, a Cary resident, one of the 46 speakers who weighed in that night. As proposed, the $329 million plant will sit between Shearon Harris Road and New Hill Holleman Road. Called “site 14,” it will service the surging sewage needs in Cary, Apex, Holly Springs and Morrisville, towns who have partnered on the project, with Cary funding over half of the cost. The meeting stretched to three hours, with detailed presentations on the plan’s engineering report, environmental impact statement and certification requirements. Mayors Keith Weatherly (Apex), Dick Sears (Holly Springs), Harold Weinbrecht (Cary) and a representative for Jan Faulkner (Morrisville) spoke in favor of using New Hill. “As a mayor personally committed to environmental protection, I am proud to be speaking in favor of this facility,” Weinbrecht said. He left the hearing immediately after his comments, something that didn’t go unnoticed. “The people who have been very hard to work with has been Apex and Cary. And who’s missing in this room?” asked New Hill resident Bob Kelly. Weinbrecht responded in an e-mail that he had to meet guests from France and left Cary Town Manager Ben Shivar, Public Information Officer Susan Moran and several utility staff members to brief him on what he’d missed. The Cary Mayor’s statement at the hearing left no doubt that he supports New Hill as the preferred site for the plant. “Exhaustive analysis of draft EIS proves without a doubt that [the] project should move forward,” he said. “Move forward without delay and move forward on Partners’ proposed site.” Residents’ objections included lowered property values, stench, noise and light pollution. They fear leaks in the pipeline, possibly contaminating their well water. They questioned accountability to New Hill, whose people aren’t represented by the towns spearheading the project. Resident Anne King said that there are 231 people, two churches and historical cemeteries within a half mile of site 14. “Put the site where there are fewer people,” said John Moore. Nobody disputed the need for a new facility, which will accommodate ballooning populations and fulfill previous interbasin transfer requirements issued by the state to return water to the Cape Fear River by 2011. The plans also address Holly Springs’ commitment to relocate its waste discharge from Utley Creek. Chris Brook, an attorney representing New Hill, questioned how the towns intend to make that deadline with a project slated for completion in 2013. Residents said there are other sites near U.S. 1 that will accomplish these goals without impacting their community. Many urged “site 21/23,” located west of New Hill Holleman Road — land owned by Progress Energy. But town documents favor the New Hill site based on discharge lake logistics, environmental protection and water quality. New Hill residents countered that they think the decision had more to do with politics. Some cited racism. “There is an 83 percent minority population within a half mile radius of site 14,” said Edna Horton. Other comments were more pointed. “When I get up in the morning and look in the mirror, I know why they chose it,” said Louis Powell, a black resident. “We don’t have the political clout to fight you. We don’t have the money.” Documents predict a 15 to 35 percent utility bill increase for the towns serviced by the new plant. See more on the project at westernwakepartners.com. Another public hearing is scheduled for this summer. vdehamer@nando.com. or 460-2608.

Citizens have less than two weeks to comment on a draft Environmental Impact Statement on a controversial wastewater treatment plant proposed for New Hill, a primarily African-American community in unincorporated western Wake County. "Why did they choose this site? When I get up in the morning and I look at myself in the mirror, I know why they chose it," said Louis Powell, an African-American resident of New Hill. The controversial $327 million project has a long history. The towns of Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs, and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park, have formed an alliance, Western Wake Partners, to determine the best site for a sewage treatment plant. In 2006, they issued an environmental impact statement determining the unincorporated town of New Hill was the best place to flush their waste—despite reasonable alternatives in other underpopulated areas near the Shearon Harris nuclear plant. However, that EIS elicited massive citizen outcry as well as skepticism from state regulators because of incomplete data and a lack of public input. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources officials wrote that the report should not be considered an "accurate, complete and adequate document" because it "does not appropriately evaluate the population directly impacted" in New Hill. So in 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took on the report, so that it would comply fully with state and federal environmental laws. Yet, the Corps' draft EIS, written by a team of consultants hired by Western Wake Partners, has arrived at many of the same conclusions as the Partners' original EIS. Though it does not explicitly argue for locating the plant at New Hill, the report appears to pave the way for the Partners' intended outcome. "We believe, very strongly, that the Partners' preferred site represents the most cost-effective, and environmentally sound, alternative that meets the needs of our local communities—and it's clearly supported by the draft EIS," said Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly at an April 14 hearing to receive public comments on the draft report. The Town of Cary, as the lead agent in the Western Wake Partners, has already used its power of eminent domain to own and control the 237-acre parcel in New Hill. The project includes a 62-acre plant and a network of pump stations and sewer lines, with an estimated completion date of 2013. The $327 million price tag will be divided among the participating towns, whose financial burden has increased by roughly 70 percent since the project was first proposed. (Original reports estimated that the plant would cost $193 million, and would be ready by the end of 2010.) Under the new timetable, the project will miss a 2011 deadline, set by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission, for transferring water from the Neuse River basin to the Cape Fear River basin. (The proposed wastewater treatment plant would discharge water back into the Cape Fear basin.) New Hill residents say the deadline should no longer be used as a reason to site the plant in their backyard. At the April 14 hearing, John Moore, a member of the New Hill Community Association, argued that using the same consultants in the recent evaluation biased the Corps' finding. "You would not trust the words of a used car salesman saying that his mechanic checked out the car you're about to purchase," he said. "However, for this proposed $327 million expense, the Army Corps of Engineers trusted data, and conclusions, that were paid for by the Western Wake Partners." Unlike any of the other alternatives, the New Hill site would be located within a historic preservation district, and in a minority community. According to the New Hill Community Association, the site would impact 230 residents, more than three-quarters of whom are black. However, the Corps' draft EIS argues that impacts to this "environmental justice" community can be mitigated. Providing water and sewer services to the community would help "substantially decrease the significance of any potential adverse impacts" to the community, the report states. And, like the original EIS report, the Corps' draft EIS downplays the minority population in New Hill by relying on census block data for the entire "service area"—not the area immediately surrounding the plant. At the April 14 hearing, New Hill residents contended they were never involved in the site selection process, yet will shoulder the burden of the Western Wake Partners' project, without any of the benefits of a wastewater treatment plant. (A water and sewer extension policy, for example, would still require New Hill residents—who rely on wells and septic tanks—to pay hook-up fees, and would only be available to a limited group.) The New Hill site is the only site in the report that will require costly "mitigation" measures to reduce odor, noise and traffic—since it is the only site to be placed within a town center. "Gosh, to me, you don't have to be that smart to say, 'Let's take it out of the center of New Hill—where you've got hundreds of people—and put it down here beside a nuclear plant, where nobody lives," said Bob Kelly, a New Hill resident.