Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />environnlental costs are borne locally. Further, that portion of the <br /> <br />~ <br />o <br />tAJ <br />W <br /> <br />economic benefit which is not exported is not equally distributed in the <br /> <br />local area. The basic rule seems to be that those who have, get more, <br /> <br />while those who have not, do not. <br /> <br />Because of this, it seems important that the social analysis of the <br /> <br />impacts associated with PL 92 -500 examine the differential iInpacts on <br /> <br />persons at different points in the local community social structure. The <br /> <br />"equity of consequences" indicator ascertains whether a given program <br /> <br />will result in unequitable costs for some groups or in excess benefits <br /> <br />for others. Other useful indicators of the inlpacts of a given course of <br /> <br />action on different social groups within a community or region include: <br /> <br />(1) The nurn.ber of and income class of persons likely to benefit from <br /> <br />(or, alternatively, suffer from) a given course of actioh; (2) the likely <br /> <br />or expected distribution of benefits associated with a given course of <br /> <br />action among the beneficiaries compared to current distributions of <br /> <br />assets and income; (3) the effect of the proposed course of action on <br /> <br />current patterns of expenditures within a community. This latter point <br /> <br />asks the question of whether a proposed or possible course of action <br /> <br />would change community expenditure patterns in such a way as to help <br /> <br />some residents who are now relatively deprived, given current patterns <br /> <br />of expenditure. Numerous recent actions on the federal level have <br /> <br />required that the effect of a given action on the distribution of income <br /> <br />4l <br />