He publicly walked away from an adviser role for the Environmental Protection Agency, but he's still dedicated to smart housing and healthy communities
As a civil engineer, Carlos Martín could expect to get a few “likes” now and again on his social media feed – occasional affirmations for posts on designing missions, for example, or links to stories about smart sewer flows or the potential of cross-laminated timber.
But when he posted his letter of resignation from the Environmental Protection Agency’s research and development subcommittee, the tweet went viral. More than 10,000 retweets and likes from people responding to his stand against threats to stifle scientific research and the EPA altogether.
On May 12, 2017, Martín, along with Peter B. Meyer, resigned from the EPA’s Sustainable and Healthy Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors, or BOSC, of the EPA. The BOSC is an outside advisory panel for the EPA that serves to counsel the EPA on the validity and significance of the scientific research it conducts. The decision came after the administration did not renew – as was standard practice and expected – the BOSC membership of Courtney Flint and Robert Richardson, who also serve as co-chairs on the committee. In fact, Flint and Richardson were among nine members of the 18-member BOSC that incoming EPA Director Scott Pruitt summarily dismissed.
In Martín and Meyer’s letter, the two said the effective removal of the co-chairs suggests that their knowledge was not valued by the current EPA administrators. “Like so many of our colleagues in the broader research community, we have deep concerns about the leadership at EPA and its continued obfuscation of scientific evidence and the research enterprise.”
The letter notes the proposed 40 percent reduction for the Office of Research and Development.
“We cannot in good conscience be complicit in our co-chairs’ removal, or in the watering down of credible science, engineering and methodical rigor that is at the heart of that decision,” Martín and Meyer wrote.
Martín came to the EPA no stranger to federal service. For eight years he worked at the Bureau of Housing and Urban Development, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, as part of the Partnership for Advancing Technology and Housing, or PATH program.
Today, Martín is a senior research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute. In his work there, he directs research and evaluations on the physical qualities of housing and communities, as well as the industry behind them. To the federal agency, Martín came with the mindset around making housing equitable and sustainable, and understanding its role in creating social outcomes.
But it was not to last.
Joanne Zuhl: That had to be very difficult to resign from your role with the EPA, because this is a position, at least from our vantage, where you can make a difference – and then to find it’s made untenable.
Carlos Martín: It was a painful decision for me. It was a hard one to come by. I really liked being on this committee, but I feel like to be an effective insider you have to be on the inside. And there was no evidence that anything the subcommittee produced would be listened to by anybody. I just didn’t want to be a shill for that – for somebody putting out a message that I, in many ways, was complicit with. I couldn’t do it.
It’s been interesting seeing the tweet replies that have come back. Clearly we got responses from other subcommittee members. and I did get a response from the Office of Research and Development saying we’re sorry to hear this.
But the bigger reaction that I’ve gotten is from the Twitter world. The majority of the replies are really positive. There were a couple of responses that I would think would typify a right-wing response. And there were some responses from the left that were actually critical of the decision because now there’s an opportunity to put more industry people in or fill the board with climate change deniers. And I totally get that, I totally respect that opinion. That was not my decision.
J.Z.: I have that same question about the remaining membership, and those left behind. What’s your response to the criticism that if you leave you can’t be in the right place at the right time?
C.M.: I respect that. I won’t speak for the subcommittee members who chose to stay on, but the majority of them did choose to stay on and wait out their terms to see what would happen. I personally couldn’t do that. Personally and professionally. One, I can’t be privy to any kind of messaging that is counter to what scientific evidence supports. Two, I didn’t see it as a tenable strategy to be an insider trying to push for change, when there was no evidence that that was going to be effective.
J.Z.: You were talking a bit about the pressures coming down from this administration Can you give our readers a sense of what was coming at you? What were you seeing happening?
C.M.: Even just from the gut punch of Courtney (Flint) and Robbie (Richardson) not being renewed, without any notification after it happened, was clearly a sign that something was off. They had been told, and they had told us, that they were likely to be renewed. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. But clearly the proposed budget cuts to the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, the language around climate change in particular, is one of the environment issues I’m most concerned with. And the rhetoric we’ve been seeing around changing the composition of scientific advisory boards in the federal government in general, but particular the EPA, to include more industry representation.
FURTHER READING: Street Roots' ongoing coverage of climate issues
J.Z.: For a lot of people concerned about the environment and climate change, it’s scary to hear about the changes happening. What can we do about this? Are you looking at other ways to engage?
C.M.: I still have my day job. I’m still a researcher, and I feel like part of my obligation – as the professional tradition I’ve chosen to enter – is to continue doing my own research, and doing it rigorously and soundly.
I’m an engineer by training, and engineers aren’t taught to be good activists, but I think we’re seeing a sea change in the civil commitments: Everybody from scientists to engineers to medical physicians and public health practitioners are starting to see. I always point to people like Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha in Flint, Mich., who started noticing that all the kids she was seeing had high lead exposure. And the civil engineer (Marc Edwards) from Virginia Tech who was the one who started testing the water in Flint on their behalf. These are people who are realizing that, you know what, we have a commitment. Part of our job has been to uphold public safety, in addition to ensuring that our work is rigorous and peer reviewed.
FURTHER READING: The man who exposed Flint's lead-poisoned water
Technically my doctorate is in civil engineering. Just the beginning of that phrase – civil – means we’re inherently tied to the public infrastructure to promote the public good. The early civil engineers were the ones who created sanitation systems, water delivery systems, transportation for people to get from one place to another. These were civil goods – public goods. I’m lucky enough to be an engineer in that way.
J.Z.: You joined the EPA about two years ago. There has been real progress made over the 50-year history of the EPA. What progress was there to be made? There’s a lot at stake.
C.M.: Very much so. I certainly won’t take credit for any of the achievements that have occurred even in the last administration, but if you look historically since EPA’s founding, if you look at things like basic regulation around our environment, like the Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act – these were things that dramatically changed people’s lives, and not just in terms of the kind of water or the kind of air that you’re exposed to on a daily basis.
If you look at water, for example. My husband is from Portland, Maine, and he grew up in a working-class neighborhood that was on the water, because that’s where working-class people lived from the turn of the century through the mid century, because water was polluted. That’s what poor or working-class people could afford. As of the Clean Water Act, that changed dramatically, and that property became valuable because the water was clean and people wanted to be near the water. So there’s all sorts of ways that improvements and interventions have made improvements to our public health and safety, and to our economic bottom line.
So in the last administration we saw movement toward clean power plants, toward regulating green house gas emissions from coal burning plants, and the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement. These are significant advancements. And it’s a challenge to see how the science would not support those actions.
One of the things on the subcommittee itself, we had no regulatory power. But that office does all the research that supports those other offices. And one of the things they’ve done, is make sure they’re aligned with the Office of Air, the Office of Water, so when those program offices have a long-term issue or a chronic incident – for instance a toxic spill – the in-house Office of Research and Development was there to support that. We heard from not just our office of R and D, we would hear from those offices directly how supportive the R and D has been. So when you’re eliminating the Office of Research and Development, eliminating any kind of potential guidance, you’re actually affecting other parts of the EPA as well.
J.Z.: In this election year we didn’t hear anything about housing, affordable housing, homelessness at the federal level. We heard of it at the local level. What does that tell us? It’s a massive issue in local communities, but it’s not even getting a breath of air at the federal level.
C.M.: It’s gotten some air, but I would say a deflated air. If you look at the proposed HUD budget for Fiscal Year 2018, for example, we see similar things that are happening at the EPA. Major massive cuts to vouchers, to all program offices, to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and the virtual elimination of HOME funds. So big sources of funding, both to support low-income people and also to provide housing for homeless populations.
It’s the same kind of language: A policy context around budget cuts and programs that are proposed to be shutdown versus the rhetoric around what the ultimate goal is. So at the EPA, the goal was to have industry more at the table and reduce regulations that prohibit economic growth. And at HUD we’re seeing a greater burden and reliance on “boostrappism,” of making sure that the people who get housing assistance aren’t “too comfortable,” the phrase that we heard from (HUD Secretary) Ben Carson.
Certainly the people that are appointed are also a sign of the political context which we’re dealing with. Both in having Scott Pruitt, who as a state attorney actively fought against many of the EPA actions. And Ben Carson is somebody who hasn’t had that much familiarity with how housing programs work.
J.Z.: Portland is in a housing crisis. In this housing crisis, we have housing projects that seem to trying to address a lot of issues. There’s always been the question of how many problems should affordable housing solve?
C.M.: It’s difficult to think about how every housing development, every potential housing program has a clear nuance, but I feel like in some ways, some of the things that add costs to developing housing should clearly be noted, but some things that add cost, maybe they add cost for a reason. because there’s just as much of a public good to gain from it. With some of the energy efficiency and green building techniques that are required of affordable housing, some of those will actually decrease the long-term maintenance of the building, so it actually saves money in the long term.
So, even though the up-front costs may be more, but the long term maintenance of the assisted housing development is going to be a lot better for the developer, which allows them then to build more housing down the road. So we always have to think through the nuances for each cases.
I won’t touch on the union prevailing wages rule too much. I’m sure as Oregonians you’ve been keeping track of what’s happening in California, but it’s a very heated argument right now in California.
J.Z.: You’re talking about the issue of not requiring low-income housing developers to pay prevailing union wages for affordable housing. (Editor’s note: Numerous bills are before the California State Legislature around requiring – or eliminating – prevailing wages in the private sector, including residential housing construction.)
C.M.: California is one of the few states that actually requires that their low-income tax credit properties pay prevailing wages, so there are a lot of bills proposing the elimination of that. And I think these strategies tend to pit people against each other who would otherwise be very much in favor of each other’s position. We’re fighting for crumbs. And when we’re fighting for crumbs, we focus on who has the crumb, instead of focusing on that fact that there is a whole loaf of bread that somebody is holding back.
J.Z.: How do we get at that loaf of bread?
C.M.: Oh gosh. That may be beyond my ability to answer. But certainly we as citizens of all backgrounds, of all income levels, have to be aware of what’s going on in our governments. We have to be paying attention. We have to realize that, even among those of us who are lucky enough to be middle income or upper income, should know that they benefit from low-income people living in their neighborhoods, on multiple counts. Culturally, socially, but economically they’re also providing services in their local neighborhoods. We all benefit from everybody doing well.
Those are the decisions that we have to make. So when things appear as if they’re nuisances for some communities, like the NIMBYism that so pervades, or for the housing development community, the additional costs for doing business – I can’t imagine anybody telling me at least to my face that giving a homeless person or family or house is a bad idea.
J.Z.: It’s understanding that having an extremely poor population in your community is a burden upon everybody in that community.
C.M.: Everybody. It’s a burden on the nation, because we’re not thinking about how everybody can be productive. I don’t like to resort to bottom lines, but if everybody is productive economically, the nation benefits.
J.Z.: What are some examples – that local leaders aren’t even thinking about – to correct our imbalance in our housing market?
C.M.: Portland certainly has been on the vanguard of trying to think innovatively. You may disagree with that – I say that because I think most people in the communities facing extreme housing affordability crises are still feeling it. The crisis hasn’t gone away, so they don’t think their city or communities have been that innovative. And that’s the sad part; we’re still in this crisis moment. Some of the experiments we’ve seen, like inclusionary zoning, the creation of accessory dwelling units, and the opening up of people to be able to formalize what may have already been existing under the desk, like ADUs. Los Angeles’ experiment to expedite the permitting process. That’s a regulatory cost that doesn’t benefit anybody, just making the process so slow and bureaucratic that affordable housing developers and even market rate developers can’t develop. That doesn’t help anybody.
And all the major cities all have mayors who are promising or trying to figure out ways to experiment. So right now we’re just tracking which of these have success.
J.Z.: What is the next great civil engineering breakthrough that is going to alter our housing market?
C.M.: I would like to think that the next big civil engineering breakthrough is not technological at all, and it’s social. It’s a better alignment of engineering activity, everything from research to actual building and construction to maintenance that is aligned to the social purpose – if it’s a public good, if it’s housing a specific population. I’ve always been of the mindset that science and technology are neither positive or negative nor are they neutral. They always play a role. And if we as a society determine that a certain activity has to occur, engineering can be a tool for this. It shouldn’t be driving it. That’s the weird thing about the Flint water crisis or the affordable housing crisis that many cities are facing, is that it makes the practitioners aware of the real implications of our work. And I’ve always thought that as a professional, my whole life, and I put it in practice because I’ve worked in federal government, I’ve worked in advocacy around housing and research and around housing quality, and I’d like to think that maybe something like the EPA resignation reminded me that the whole purpose why I do what I do is for my communities.
Engineers and scientists – just like medical doctors – there’s a certain amount of authority we should view with them because of their amount of experience and exposure. But we’re all citizen engineers and citizen scientists and citizen medical people, right? We should all know where our water comes from. We should all know where the waste that we produce, where that ends up going. Engineers certainly have created the systems by which we are able to forget and not have to pay attention to it, but that doesn’t mean that as regular citizens we shouldn’t be paying attention.
Email Managing Editor Joanne Zuhl at joanne@streetroots.org.
