Among other civil rights protections, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is Executive Order 12898, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The Executive Order states, "Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." The FTA even has a powerpoint that explains how environmental justice laws specifically relate to transportation projects.

By having the Expo Rail Line Phase 1 operate in South LA with the safety hazards, traffic impacts and noise pollution from countless at-grade street crossings and street closures and train horns (among other adverse impacts), and having NONE OF THESE IMPACTS in the most affluent and only majority white census tract along the alignment (Culver City), the Expo Line Phase 1 project places a disproportionate adverse health, safety and environmental impact on majority-minority and poor communities. Therefore, the project and MTA are guilty of engaging in environmental racism. This is accented by the fact that MTA is spending more money in the 1 mile of the line west of La Cienega to the Robertson terminus than in the 4 miles in South LA from Vermont to La Brea.

Some have asked, how is it possible that some of our very own local African-American elected officials (Bernard Parks, Yvonne Burke, Jan Perry, and Herb Wesson) who owe their very seats to the blood, sweat and tears and lives of millions in the civil rights movement could possibly support such an egregious violation of clear environmental justice laws in their own backyard with the project they're in charge of building?

I still have no idea what the heck it means

Your title was "Environmental Racism Explained".

Your post explains nothing, merely states the fact that millions of dollars were spent, and continue to be spent, in an effort to bring low cost public transportation into predominately black areas.

This is in direct accordance with the directive.

If they didn't bring public transportation into the inner cities, that's "racism", because it makes it easier for them to escape the inner city and go to other parts of the city they weren't likely to be seen before.

You can't have public transportation without some inconveniences, such as the at-grade crossings and so on. That's the price paid.

There's no way to comment on why more money is being spent in a specific period of time, on one section of track vs. another. Go find out why, and what projects are in the pipeline, then make such claims.

Which is in and of itself, pretty contradictory. Your post complains about the trains' negative impact on a particular part of town, then claim it's also racist because the MTA is spending more on providing services in another, presumably not-so-black part of town.

Which is it? Is it "racist" because taxpayer money is being used to provide subsidized transportation, albeit noisy, to inner city, black neighborhoods, or is it "racist" because they aren't spending "enough"?

It's neither.

Go ask the residents of South Central if their lives would be improved by the removal of those trains and their annoyances, then make your judgment. Until then, quit with the "racism" nonsense. I'll bet you aren't even old enough to have experienced real racism.

I wonder if that original post was actually original or if it was taken from somewhere else.

I did have a hard time making the connection between the title and the content.

i know a site sell runescape money,but what is runescape money mean??

__________________
i like wow,runescape.lol