#Data For Progress

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mehdi Hasan at Zeteo:

While the 2028 Democratic primary is several years away, Democratic candidates are already laying the groundwork for their potential campaigns. Recent Data for Progress polling has found deep discontent among the Democratic base, with Democrats wanting a younger generation of leadership who will do more to fight against Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda. The political figures who are best able to tap into that resistance energy may be able to gain significant support for a presidential run in 2028. In collaboration with Zeteo, Data for Progress conducted a poll of likely Democratic primary voters to analyze the current state of the 2028 field. While many polls of the 2028 Democratic presidential primary survey registered or likely voters who identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, this survey specifically focused on voters who are likely to participate in Democratic primaries, better capturing a sample more closely aligned with the electorate that will actually decide the nomination in 2028. As the most recent Democratic nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris remains one of the most well-known Democratic figures. However, Harris is not certain to run for president in 2028 – she is currently considering a run for California governor, where recent polls have shown her to be the clear frontrunner. In a hypothetical Democratic primary for president, including the 2024 nominee, Harris leads with just 18% of the vote, followed by former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (14%), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (12%), and Sen. Cory Booker (12%). However, when Harris is taken out of the equation – and respondents who chose Harris have their vote redistributed to their second choice – Buttigieg leads the pack with a plurality of 17%, followed closely by Booker and Ocasio-Cortez with 14% each, and Governor Gavin Newsom with 10%. None of the other potential candidates tested break into double-digits.

It’s important to note that presidential primary polling this far out is generally a contest of name recognition. However, to further gauge Democratic primary voters’ perceptions of the potential candidates, the survey asked whether they would consider voting for each of the potential candidates.

According to a new 2028 Democratic Primary poll from Data For Progress/Zeteo conducted between April 9th and 14th with a 4% margin for error, Kamala Harris narrowly leads with 18%, then Pete Buttigieg comes in close at 14%, and AOC and Cory Booker with 12% each. With Harris removed, Buttigieg leads at 17%, and AOC and Booker tie at 14%.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: New poll says Pete Buttigieg & AOC could end up battling for presidential nomination

[kiramoore626]

Supreme Court web designer case goes against most Americans' views on LGBTQ discrimination

Supreme Court web designer case goes against most Americans’ views on LGBTQ discrimination Days after the Supreme Court’s ruling that businesses can deny same-sex wedding services if it clashes with their religious views, new data says most American voters disagree with that position.

[alanshemper]

These are not serious people

[hummingzone]

Poll: Reducing Size Of $3.5 Trillion Democratic Bill Doesn't Change Its Popularity

Poll: Reducing Size Of $3.5 Trillion Democratic Bill Doesn’t Change Its Popularity

A key question in the coming debate over the Democratic “soft infrastructure” bill is how big it should be.  President Joe Biden and his allies have endorsed a package of initiatives on early childhood programs, health care and other Democratic priorities that would add up to about $3.5 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. Several more conservative Democrats in Congress have already…

[tomorrowusa]

[T]he Democratic Party is a coalition party with five partners: African American groups, Latino groups, women’s groups, unions and progressive groups. If you’re only one of five factions, maybe one-fourth of the party, you should only expect to win about one-fourth or one-fifth of the victories. You need to work with other groups in the coalition to achieve political success. Sometimes you’ll win, sometimes you’ll lose, that’s how life works. Ocasio-Cortez has figured that out, but not all progressives have.

Sean McElwee, progressive activist and founder of Data for Progress, in an interview at POLITICO.

Coalition means you have to work with other groups of people to achieve a common goal. Those who insist on perfection and ideological purity set themselves up for disappointment. If you demand all or nothing in politics you are far more likely to end up with nothing.

As the late civil rights leader Bayard Rustin once wrote:

«[T]he difference between expediency and morality in politics is the difference between selling out a principle and making smaller concessions to win larger ones. The leader who shrinks from this task reveals not his purity but his lack of political sense.»  source

[arthropooda]

X

[room-where-it-happens]

https://twitter.com/DataProgress/status/1212823799575527428

[berniesrevolution]

Kristin Bahner and her campaign manager, Taylor Winkel, were out knocking on doors Tuesday night, as they have been most nights as part of their bootstrap bid to flip a Minnesota legislative seat — and potentially flip the state House from red to blue.

As they wrapped up, Winkel told Bahner that they should go over the campaign’s finances that night. With two weeks until Election Day, they didn’t want to leave anything untapped.

They later connected by phone and, after looking through their books, decided that they had enough to hire a canvasser at 15 hours a week, or perhaps spend a bit on digital advertising. It wasn’t much, but with an expected voter turnout of 20,000, every little bit counts.

But then Winkel had a thought: “Wait,” she told Bahner, “we haven’t checked Act Blue since Friday.” Bahner logged on to the platform that processes small donations.

“I look at it and I go, ‘Is that a typo? That can’t be right,’” Bahner said she told Winkel.

Winkel responded, “Well, I did send out a newsletter and make a fundraising pitch.”

“No, Taylor, I think this is a little more than our average fundraising letter,” Bahner recalled saying. “I dug into the reporting feature” — which gives details of each contribution — “and I’m like, ‘Holy cow, this is literally a Minnesota miracle.’”

Winkel took a look for herself, and sure enough, thousands of dollars were flooding in from across the country. Bahner looked closer at who was giving. An engineer from NASA. A nurse manager in Seattle. A floor worker from Best Buy. A retiree from Ohio.

Bahner’s campaign in Minnesota’s 34B District, it turned out, was the beneficiary of a project put together by Data for Progress, a scrappy left-wing think tank that operates outside the orbit of the Democratic Party. Earlier on Tuesday, the group had suggested on Twitter that if progressives wanted to “give smart,” they should donate to eight state legislative campaigns around the country where the winner could tip the balance of power in the chamber. Contributors have the option of equally splitting their donations eight ways, or deciding how much to allocate to each of the candidates.

Minnesota’s House of Representatives has been in Republican hands since the 2014 elections, and the Minnesota Senate was captured by the GOP in 2016. Since Democrats are considered to be the easy favorites in most statewide races, including the governor’s race, winning back control of the legislature would eliminate a key roadblock to passing partisan legislation.  

Sean McElwee, a co-founder of Data for Progress, told The Intercept that he was thrilled to hear that the infusion of money could be game-changing for the Minnesota campaign, but also frustrated that the party hadn’t made such an intervention necessary. “How is this the world we’re living in?” he wondered. “Everybody says, well, people are watching over this. Is anybody watching? … Why weren’t these moves being made?”

The other candidates being supported by the project are Wade Carlisle, an Arizona Senate candidate; Janet Cruz, a Florida Senate candidate; Nancy Fett, an Iowa House candidate; James Gaughran, a New York Senate candidate; Alberta Griffin, a Michigan House candidate; Julie Henszey, a Wisconsin Senate candidate; and Tammy Story, a Colorado Senate candidate.

(Continue Reading)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ryan O'Donnell at Zeteo News:

In the wake of a newly proposed ceasefire deal put forth by the White House and on the heels of President Joe Biden saying people have “every reason” to think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extending the war in Gaza to stay in power, a new Data for Progress survey fielded from June 5 to 6 shows that a plurality of U.S. likely voters (49%) believe Netanyahu is a major or moderate obstacle to achieving peace between Israel and Palestine. Only 18% of voters believe the prime minister is not an obstacle at all.

When asked who is primarily responsible for the lack of a permanent ceasefire in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, a plurality of voters (38%) believe both Netanyahu and Hamas share equal responsibility. This sentiment is particularly strong among swing voters, who believe that Netanyahu and Hamas are equally responsible for the lack of a permanent ceasefire by a 19-point margin over Hamas individually.

Moreover, when asked about Biden’s three-phase ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, a significant majority of voters (64%) express their support. This includes a notable +37 net support from Independents and +44 from swing voters, highlighting widespread approval across various political demographics.

A Data For Progress/Zeteo News poll conducted betwen June 5th and 6th reveals that 65% of voters believe that Israel Apartheid State PM Benjamin Netanyahu is at least a minor obstacle to achieving peace. The same poll reveals that 38% blame both Netanyahu and Hamas for the lack of a permanent ceasefire, 36% blame solely Hamas, and 13# blame solely Netanyahu.

[alanshemper]

Really good Sean McElwee bashing in this one

Another triple reading series ep, we’re spoiling you listeners. We start off with a profile of Data For Progress’s new found clout with Dems in the drivers’ seat, but who’s data? And what progress? Then it’s on to the Federalist, for an author who’s simply furious that a living wage for fast food workers might make their precious burritos cost a few cents more. Finally, a doozy of a Slate piece about killing your dog.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

In recent years, several laws targeting transgender adults have been proposed or enacted. These laws eliminate Medicaid coverage for transgender healthcare, permit pharmacists and hospital systems to discriminate against transgender patients, and impose restrictions on providers in various ways. Until recently, little information was available on how these new statutes affect transgender adults. While their care is often not explicitly prohibited, they may still experience disruptions due to anti-transgender laws. Now, a just released Data for Progress poll reveals that 24% of transgender adults have had their healthcare disrupted or discontinued as a result of anti-transgender legislation. The survey, focusing on transgender and LGBTQ+ respondents, specifically questioned transgender individuals about the impact of anti-transgender policies or rhetoric on their lives. Among the transgender respondents, 24% reported that their access to gender-affirming care was interrupted or discontinued in the past year. Considering the Williams Institute's estimation of 1.6 million transgender Americans, this percentage translates to more than 380,000 transgender adults whose care has been disrupted by recent anti-transgender legislation or rhetoric.

While the survey does not detail the specific disruptions to healthcare access, a range of recent legislative actions and policy amendments may play a role. Several laws and updates in state policy have barred Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care. For example, South Carolina has recently revised its policy to eliminate coverage of transgender healthcare for individuals of all ages. In addition, states such as Florida have introduced strict restrictions, effectively banning up to 80% of all gender-affirming care for transgender adults within the state. A number of states have also enacted laws allowing religious-based medical discrimination against transgender individuals, allowing doctors, pharmacists, and even receptionists and cashiers to decline the dispensation of hormone prescriptions to transgender people. Furthermore, Idaho has recently passed legislation that prohibits the use of public funds or facilities for providing any gender-affirming care, potentially causing significant disruptions to transgender healthcare within the state. The findings are significant, and show that transgender youth are not the only ones impacted by recent anti-transgender legislation. In addition to the 50% of transgender youth that live in states that have barred or heavily restricted gender affirming care, transgender adults appear to also be impacted by recent anti-trans legislation and rhetoric. The consequences of recent legislation and rhetoric extend beyond disruptions in medical care. The survey also inquired about the concerns transgender individuals have regarding discrimination and harassment. The findings are alarming: 68% of transgender adults express concern about facing discrimination and harassment in restrooms, 64% report similar apprehensions about nightclubs, and 62% fear engaging in public displays of affection with their partners. As a result of these concerns, 44% of transgender adults indicate they have contemplated relocating or have already relocated from their community or state due to anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

According to a Data For Progress Poll conducted between March 8th and 14th, nearly a quarter (24%) reported that their access to gender-affirming care was interrupted or discontinued in the past year.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

Over the past three years, 21 states have implemented bans or severe limitations on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. These prohibitions were enacted despite significant resistance from parents and medical professionals who have emphasized that such care is lifesaving for transgender youth in need. Despite this, numerous Republicans have expressed the belief that targeting on transgender youth is a “political winner” for their re-election prospects. However, in the 2023 elections, candidates who featured attacks on trans youth at the forefront of their campaigns suffered significant defeats. Now, a new Data For Progress survey reveals that the broader public does not favor legislative interference in transgender issues. Instead, a decisive 76% of likely voters believe that the decision regarding access to care for transgender youth should rest with parents or medical practitioners.

In the poll, likely voters were asked who they thought should be able to make the final decision on who can access gender affirming care. 54% of respondents stated that the parents of trans youth should make that decision, while 22% said that the decision should belong with the doctors of the trans youth. Only 12% of people answered that the elected state lawmakers should be able to make the decision around whether or not a trans youth should be able to access gender affirming care. Moreover, even Republicans opposed legislative interference in trans care; only 16% of Republicans answered that such decisions should be handled by the legislature. The survey also questioned respondents about the creation of a transgender bill of rights. This year, Senate Resolution 144 was proposed which would codify the right to medical care, education, housing, employment, and more for transgender people. Such a resolution also has a plurality of public support, with 48% supporting such a bill and 43% opposing it.

According to a new Data For Progress poll conducted between November 9th and the 11th, 76% of respondents believe that the final decision on gender-affirming care should be done by either the parent(s) or doctor (54% parents, 26% doctor).

[room-where-it-happens]

If you’re interested in alternative measurements, Data for Progress has their own point estimations that home in specifically on liberal/progressive legislation and how a person compares to someone in similar districts.

Edit: Note this only covers the House, not the Senate, so mostly useful for looking at your House representative.

[room-where-it-happens]

Good piece on survey data and class analysis, by which I mean quantitative analysis that sorts people into categories, not analysis based on class distinctions.

[berniesrevolution]

This plan is called a Green New Deal. 

So far, a comprehensive progressive vision of a Green New Deal has not been presented. This report articulates a vision for a broad set policy goals and investments that aim to achieve environmental sustainability and economic stability in ways that are just and equitable. 

This proposal recognizes:

A Green New Deal is necessary to meet the scale and urgency of environmental challenges facing the United States, based on the best available research.

A Green New Deal can bring job growth and economic opportunity, with particular focus on historically disadvantaged and vulnerable communities.

A Green New Deal is popular among American voters and can mobilize them in 2018.

A Green New Deal can be executed in a way that is environmentally just and distributes benefits equitably.

A Green New Deal is financially feasible and necessary

A Green New Deal is a broad and ambitious package of new policies and investments in communities, infrastructure, and technology to help the United States achieve environmental sustainability and economic stability.

The original New Deal was a series of financial reforms, farmer relief programs, public works projects, and other social programs enacted by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930’s. The New Deal was an economic and job stimulus to meet the needs of the time, designed to put Americans back to work, restore dignity, and bring stability during the Great Depression. Even with its mixed effectiveness, the New Deal was not perfect and displayed an exclusionary racial bias whose effects are still felt today.

America faces different challenges today that are unsustainable and existential.

Despite the achievements in environment regulation over the past 50 years, incremental policy changes and small shifts in market trends are no longer sufficient to meet the scale and urgency of the problems facing Americans and the world today. American lives and livelihoods rely upon clean air and water; healthy forests, farms, and fisheries; and communities resilient to the worst effects of climate change—such as extreme weather, drought, and sea-level rise. The effects of pollution and exposure to toxins persist, and climate change worsens. On top of it all, these all affect low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately.

We need to shift to a new sustainable environment and economy.

Sustainability is about utilizing and preserving resources in ways that meet the needs of today’s generation without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

A Green New Deal recognizes that economic stability is not independent of environmental sustainability.

The trade-off between the environment or the economy is a false one. The goal of a Green New Deal is to build the 21st century economy, which by design will mitigate the causes of climate change while building resilience to its effects, restore the American landscape, and improve access to clean air and water—all in ways that prioritize justice and equity, and grow the economy and jobs.

Environmental regulation and climate action often receive less attention because they are perceived to compete with other local priorities--such as crime, schools, jobs, and potholes. A Green New Deal is not a distraction from local priorities but works to solve many of them.

We agree on the problems, now we need to agree on the solutions.

A Green New Deal is more than just renewable energy or job programs. It is a transition to the 21st century economy. It is a holistic combination of solutions at every level—federal, state, and local—and addresses many problems simultaneously. It does this because it must.

It must meet the scale and urgency of the problems facing America and Americans. It must also meet the level of progressive ambition looking to transform the economy and the environment in ways that achieve sustainability, equity, justice, freedom, and happiness.

This section summarizes specific progressive goals. For complete policy details, download the full report.

TRANSFORM TO A LOW-CARBON ECONOMY

The United States needs to reduce its annual greenhouse emissions from 2016 by 16 percent to achieve our 2025 reduction target communicated through the Paris Agreement[1], and 77 percent to reach our 2050 target.[2] To strive for the global goal of a 1.5-degree future, the U.S. should aim for zero net emissions by mid-century. This requires massive economic and technological transformation in how we create and consume energy, build structures, and transport people and goods. This transformation must accelerate now.

CLEAN & RENEWABLE ENERGY

✔ 100% Clean and Renewable Electricity by 2035

All electricity consumed in America must be generated by renewable sources, including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, sustainable biomass, and renewable natural gas, as well as clean sources such as nuclear and remaining fossil fuel with carbon capture.

✔ Zero Net Emissions from Energy by 2050

We must end all emissions from fossil fuels. The full U.S. economy can and must run on a mix of energy that is either zero-emission or 100 percent carbon capture by mid-century.[3] This includes residential, commercial, and industrial electricity; thermal energy; and transportation.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

✔ 100% Net-Zero Building Energy Standards by 2030

Buildings can stand and operate for over 100 years, and current building standards are not in line with goals for deep decarbonization. Yet buildings also have the highest potential for low-cost emission reductions of all sectors. We must start constructing and retrofitting to the highest performance standards now to avoid locking in outdated technology and to reach these goals by mid-century. New technological innovation every year will push the potential of building and industrial efficiency, helping American citizens and businesses lower energy costs and be more competitive.

TRANSPORTATION

✔ 100% Zero Emission Passenger Vehicles by 2030

The technologies already exist; we only need to scale-up charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to transition 100 percent of sales to zero emission passenger and light duty vehicles by 2030, followed with a swift phase out of internal combustion engines.

✔ 100% Fossil-Free Transportation by 2050

To reach decarbonization goals, we must transition away quickly from the use of fossil fuels in aviation, heavy duty vehicles, and rail. Not everything can be electrified, meaning we must innovate and scale up the next generation of biofuels and carbon-neutral fuels.

CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER NEED TO BE A RIGHT  

While air and water quality have dramatically improved in the U.S. since the passage of landmark environmental regulations in the 1950s and 1970s, progress has slowed.[4] Too many Americans live without access to consistent clean air and clean water. Air pollution from vehicles and smokestacks cause 200,000 early deaths each year and led to negative health effects such as asthma and lung disease.[5] America’s drinking water and waterways are threatened by aging infrastructure and pollution from fossil fuel production. We cannot guarantee clean air and clean water without cutting emissions and fossil fuel extraction.

CLEAN AIR

✔ National Clean Air Attainment

Forty-two percent of the U.S. population--over 130 million Americans--live in areas that still have not attained national Ambient Air Quality Standards as ozone and particulate matter pollution are still too high.[6]  While the EPA continually eases air quality regulations, 22 states do not meet ozone standards.[7] Ground-level ozone, or smog, has worsened significantly in recent years as higher average temperatures and more days of extreme heat intensifies smog.[8] Reductions in fossil fuel combustion and certain industrial activities will reduce ozone and particulate pollution across the country, especially in urban areas where air quality tends to be worse.

✔ Cut Methane Leakage 50% by 2025

Methane, a greenhouse gas 28-36 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is the second-largest industrial source of climate pollution from the oil and gas industry. Methane leaks from oil and gas production and distribution cost the U.S. economy approximately $2 billion annually.[9] These leaks are enough to power 6.5 million homes a year. Much of the pollution can be curbed with existing low-cost technologies that can improve air quality and reduce emissions.[10]

CLEAN WATER

✔ National Lead Pipe Replacement & Infrastructure Upgrades

America’s problems with lead in drinking water extend well beyond Flint, Michigan. In 2015, 18 million people were served by water systems with lead violations.[13] We need to remove lead service lines and fix other water problems with a prioritization of underserved communities. This requires meaningful investments in water treatment infrastructure upgrades across the nation. And yet, federal investment in local water infrastructure has declined from covering 63 percent of costs in 1977 to just 9 percent today.[14] By investing in clean water infrastructure, it will stimulate the development of economically-critical projects that will create jobs and increase American economic competitiveness.[15]

✔ Guarantee Access to Affordable Drinking Water

To keep up with the mounting costs of water infrastructure needs, many utilities across the country have been increasing water rates. In some cities, the average monthly cost of water for a family of four has increased 30 percent since 2011.[16] In 2015, 1 in 9 households in Detroit had their water shut off because of prohibitively high water bills. The EPA needs to establish more consistent and comprehensive standards on water affordability, protecting low-income residents from extreme price increases.

✔ Protect Two Million New Miles of Waterways

The quality of our water supply also depends on the restoration, conservation, and sustainable land management of forests and wetlands. The 2015 Clean Water Rule, if fully enforced, would extend protections to two million new miles of streams and tributaries, and 20 million acres of wetlands. Protecting our watersheds and waterways, particularly upstream, benefits our natural environment, human health, and food supplies, as well as enhances the resiliency of our built infrastructure. Waterways and their related forests and wetlands constitute a natural infrastructure that saves money and produces additional benefits such as reduced emissions, jobs, and habitat protection.[17]

RESTORE THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE

It is hard to envision America without picturing its glorious landscape—whether it is the rolling plains and hills, wide rivers, snow-capped mountains, sandy coastlines, great lakes, or rich forests. The American landscape is not only our heritage but also a vital resource. Our lives and livelihoods rely upon the landscape for food, fiber, minerals, homesteads, protection, wildlife, and recreation. Clean air and clean water are not possible without healthy, robust lands. This landscape is our largest natural emissions sinks, literally absorbing millions of tons of greenhouse gases out of the air annually. We must tend to it.

FORESTS

✔ Reforest 40 Million Acres of Public and Private Land by 2035

America’s forests are 25 percent smaller than they were when settlements began around 1630, and only a fraction of what remains is old-growth forest, while the rest is regrowth of deforestation.[20] Forested lands continue to come back slowly, but it is well below the pace needed. To reach a net-zero emission economy by mid-century, we must reforest land—in other words, the remaining emissions our economy still creates are canceled out by the emissions absorbed by land. Similarly, many forests are badly in need of restoration, threatened by drought, wildfire, and invasive species, which are only exacerbated by climate change.

Expanding forests by 40-50 million acres by 2035 could achieve reductions of 600 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050. With forests as part of a holistic plan, the full land carbon sink could offset up to 45 percent of economy-wide emissions annually by 2050. [21]

WETLANDS

✔ Restore 5 Million Acres of Wetlands by 2040

Wetlands—including swamps, marshes, and peatlands—are vital ecosystems for all types of wildlife and biodiversity. They support seafood, recreation, and tourism industries; protect American shorelines from storm surge; filter water; and absorb carbon. America has lost over half of its original wetlands.[22] The rate of loss is increasing, and a third of what remains is in poor condition.[23],[24],[25]

SUSTAINABLE FARMING & SOIL

✔ Expand Sustainable Farming and Soil Practices to 30% of Agricultural Land by 2030 and 70% by 2050

A thriving agricultural sector relies upon healthy soil. Healthy soil also supports carbon sequestration, flood protection, reduced erosion, and pest and plant disease control. Beyond the field, the excess use of pesticides and fertilizers affect soil and water quality, leading to such effects as deadly hypoxia and algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. It also diminishes property values and recreational uses of nearby waters, costing the U.S. at least $2.2 billion annually.[26] Sustainable farming and soil practices are not only practical but also economically beneficial to farmers.

Increasing uptake of key soil carbon-beneficial conservation practices to 70 percent of U.S. cropland could result in an increased soil carbon sink of over 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equiv. per year by 2050—this represents half of current agricultural emissions. [27]

BROWNFIELDS & HAZARDOUS SITES

✔ Cleanup Brownfields and All Hazardous Sites

A brownfield is a previously occupied property of which its redevelopment or reuse is complicated due to the presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States[28] and 1,343 sites listed on the Superfund National Priority List, which are locations with significant hazardous material contamination.[29]

Neighborhoods adjacent to brownfields are more likely to be low-income and minority neighborhoods.[30] Cleaning up and redeveloping these sites is not only important for human health and the environment, but it can increase local tax revenues, grow jobs, lift property values, and ease development pressure off undeveloped lands.[31],[32]

[READ FULL REPORT HERE]