Reduce, Ruse, Recycle: Waste Management Discriminations Against Paterson NJ’s Arab American Community (1990-2024)

I. What’s That Smell?

“During the summer it’s really terrible,” says Dzhamilya Karabesheva, “You cannot live here during the summer because of the smell.”¹

Dzhamilya has been a resident of the Southern Paterson, NJ community for at least six years. She resides close the Gaeta Recycling solid waste transfer facility, as does her neighbor Saime Mirza, who noted that the stench of the garbage during the summer is especially strong when it rains.²

“The smell, it’s just horrible in the summer, you can’t even drive down the street. You have to roll your windows up,” adds Jessica Lopez, another local resident.³

“Always the flies, different types of flies, and I think it’s from the garbage,” said Dzhamilya. If Dzhamilya leaves her doors and windows slightly open, insects enter into her apartment.⁴

“We can hear the trucks starting up at five o’clock in the morning,” says Eleanor Webber, another nearby resident on Knickerbocker Avenue. “You can’t sleep through it,” she says, “I’m awake because you can hear the engines going when they’re backing up you can hear the beep, beep, beep.”⁵

“The street is all damaged over there. I changed my springs, my brakes,” adds long time resident John Castaneda. He pointed to the large craters on West Railway Avenue, the same road home the Gaeta management facility.⁶

Dzhamilya, Jessica, Eleanor, and John are not the only residents affected by the pollution in their neighborhood. The waste management/recycling plant Gaeta Recycling, to date, has been operating in their area for more than 30 years, a time unfree from smell and noise complaints.⁷ Their operations have taken place in the heart of Little Ramallah, South Paterson, NJ, the largest Palestinian enclave in the US.⁸ While Eleanor and John may have voiced their concerns, just where are the Arab voices? The smell of shawarma sandwiches and knafa dessert filled this South Paterson air far before Gaeta Recycling did, and so did the Arabic language. As it turns out, this lack of representation may not come as a surprise, and in the same way the Arab Americans found themselves in the neighborhood years before Gaeta Recycling, Gaeta Recycling found itself in the neighborhood years before the Arab Americans.

Where the government decided to locate and build Gaeta’s solid waste transfer facility, again, was by no means a surprise or a mere accident, and it goes back to legislation passed years earlier. In 1975, Chapter 326 of New Jersey Public Law required that each of the state’s counties develop a solid waste management plan for the next decade.⁹ As a result, in 1979, Passaic County developed its own solid waste management plan.¹⁰ These two pieces of governing legislation provided the perfect formula for structural inequality to take place, outlining conditions that made the siting of Gaeta’s facility at their new location practically inevitable. These inequalities don’t just stop there— the decades of redlining, deindustrialization, and industrial zoning upon which the county’s waste management plan was established created a framework within which Gaeta Recycling could continue to pollute the marginalized neighborhood, while the Arab Americans can’t do anything about it every time. Here we ask: How did the Gaeta Recycling plant end up in the Little Ramallah neighborhood? Have the efforts of the Arab Americans in fighting back against Gaeta Recycling led to any changes, or were they thwarted every time? Does Gaeta Recycling continue to expand despite opposing efforts from Arab Americans and community members, and if so, how?

In this case study, we take a look at the “planning phase”, i.e. the decisions made nearly 10 years prior to Gaeta’s establishment in the Little Ramallah neighborhood, in which decades of structural inequalities prior to the community’s vibrancy would have already systematically decided where the waste management plant would go. We then transition to a look at Gaeta’s early expansions and the Arab American community’s initial response, or lack thereof. This is then followed by increased awareness/responses from the Arab American community over a much shorter timeline to then looking at what happened nearly 20 years later, where while the Arab Americans increase in growth civically and demographically, they would ultimately fail in their response every time. Finally, an example and a discussion on how the legislation may lead for these inequalities to happen is given, and how corporations may utilize the legislation to directly avoid the community they’re impacting.

II. From Immigration to a Flourishing Community

Arab immigration to the United States began way back in the late 1800s when the first Syrian and Lebanese immigrants, predominantly Christians, would make their way to the United States. Arab immigration wouldn’t stop there, but would proceed in waves throughout the early 1900s, and post-World War Two, with immigration continuing until today.¹¹ Little Ramallah wasn’t made in one night, however, and Main Street Paterson actually began to develop as home to the enclave’s foundation as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. Syrian workers, skilled in silk growing, weaving, spinning and dying improved the silk product quality of Paterson’s factories and by 1910, Syrian mill owners ran some of the city’s largest silk dying and weaving operations. Silk experience was not the only thing these immigrants brought with them; they opened restaurants, grocery stores, and other service businesses serving both their community and Paterson residents at large. By the 1920s, the early immigrant community of Syrians and Lebanese had built the cultural and economic framework for what would sprout into the nation’s largest Palestinian community.¹²

In 1953, congress passed the Refugee Relief Act granting Palestinians their separate immigration category. This legislation passed several years following the Nakba (Arabic for catastrophe) in 1948, which had seen hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced their homes. A result of the act, an estimated 6,000 Palestinians sought refuge in the United States, followed by approximately 3,000 more after the end of Relief Act’s extension in 1957. Eight years later, in 1965, congress passed the Immigration and Nationality act, seeing more than 400,000 Arab immigrants entering the United States over the next few decades. This significantly larger wave included more Muslims and a greater number of refugees from Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, and continued all the way throughout the early 1990s.¹³ The new inhabitants of little Ramallah, while now settling into a somewhat familiar environment, found themselves marginalized, and disenfranchised, and perhaps sit unknowingly in wait for the systemic injustice about to befall them.

Gaeta Recycling Co., Inc. is a waste management company located at 278 West Railway Ave, in the heart of Little Ramallah, South Paterson, NJ. In 1935, the company began as a one-truck operation by founder Domenico Gaeta. Domenico’s son, Anthony Gaeta Sr., would carry the business forward, beginning the stages of the company’s initial transformation. His son, Anthony Gaeta Jr., looked to expand the operation, beginning the company’s municipal waste collection and building an extensive transfer station. He also played a role in increasing Gaeta’s presence across the state of New Jersey. Today, Gaeta is led by Dawn and Michael Portannese, fourth and fifth generation owners respectively.¹⁴ Under leadership traversing family generations, Gaeta has a history of looking to expand.

In 1985, Gaeta was established to operate a solid waste transfer station/materials recovery facility in Paterson, NJ. The area, comprised of residences and buildings of different uses, also surrounds an I-2 heavy industrial zone. Helping solidify its role as a part of the Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan (PCSWMP), Gaeta Recycling inclusion into the latter was certified on July 15, 1985. This was subsequently followed by approval from Passaic County and the DEP to expand operations. In 1995, Gaeta increased daily capacity from 95 to 117 tons. Then, Gaeta applied to increase its daily capacity up to 720 tons, increasing facility capacity to 3600 tons per week. However, a few years later, after notices of deficiencies issued by the DEP, Gaeta submitted a new permit application, reducing its expansion request to 350 tons per day on average.¹⁵ Under the leadership of Anthony Gaeta Jr., Gaeta eventually became approved for 420 tons per day. Then, under the leadership of Michael Portannese, the station was expanded to handle 720 tons per day. Today, Gaeta is actively looking to nearly significantly increase their capacity from 720 tons per day to 1,200 tons per day— becoming the largest permit in the county.¹⁶

III. The Planning Phase

On April 22, 1970, congress marked the nation’s first Earth Day. That day also saw the establishment of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) by then New Jersey governor William T. Cahill. The department stated that its sole mission was, “to protect, restore, and preserve the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land on which we live.”¹⁷ As part of its establishment, the NJDEP was given direct authority to assume the functions of the state Public Health Council and the Department of Health as it pertained to solid waste. Here the first version of the Solid Waste Management Act was created, with one of its goals being to provide a legislative framework to regulate the environmental aspects of solid waste disposal under the DEP.¹⁸ 5 years later, amendments were made to the Solid Waste Management Act, under the heading of Chapter 326 Laws of N.J. 1975 (Ch. 326 PL 1975), now with the primary goal of controlling solid waste flow through developing and implementing solid waste management plans. The legislation now required that each county develop a solid waste management plan for the next ten years.¹⁹

In response to the requirements of Ch. 326 PL 1975, Passaic County released its solid waste management plan in 1979. Passaic county was stated to have, “developed a dynamic plan for high technology resource recovery systems to handle the majority of the County’s waste stream by 1985.” The plan contained five sections: public information and participation program; identification of technical needs; development, evaluation, and selection of alternatives; selection and siting of facilities; and financial and institutional plans. Under section, “Selection and Siting of Facilities”, the County outlined its site selection criteria.²⁰ These criteria would legally legitimize the siting decisions which led to Gaeta Recycling taking its place right in Little Ramallah.

Of the criteria listed was public acceptance, under which the county stated that, “Acceptance by the public is most likely to be achieved through siting of the facility in areas zoned to accommodate industry with a similar environmental climate.”²¹ The Gaeta Recycling facility is located within an I-2 heavy industrial zone, matching the criteria very well. A second criterion listed highlighted the importance of major road and railroad accessibility. The county wrote, “Akin to the above objectives is the selection of a site accessible to major roads capable of accommodating significant numbers of solid waste vehicles connecting collection areas with the facility. Accessibility to railroads may be an important consideration in a facility utilizing front end separation, in that it may facilitate delivery of recovered materials.”²² Located at 278 West Railway Ave, Gaeta’s facility is right next to a railroad— a second criterion match. A third criterion pertained to the cost of acquiring a proposed site. Here, the county stated, “The availability and purchase price of proposed site are important considerations. Municipally or county-owned sites may thus be more attractive than those which must be purchased from the private sector.”²³ The area the Gaeta facility is in was previously redlined and a product of deindustrialization, hence lowering the cost compared to other potential site locations— a third criterion match.²⁴ The criteria outlined in the PCSWMP nearly a decade earlier seemingly point right towards 278 West Railway Ave being the new home from Gaeta Recycling.

IV. Strange and Silent Beginnings

A few years after Gaeta Recycling established itself at 278 West Railway Ave in 1985, the recycling plant began to expand. In 1993 the facility added a weighing scale, and in 1995, increased daily capacity from 95 to 117 tons. In January of 1998, Gaeta applied to increase its daily capacity to 720 tons and add an adjoining lot to its facility. After providing for notice and public comment, Passaic County adopted Amendment 2-1999 on March 9, 1999, and incorporated Gaeta’s proposal into the solid waste management plan. Interestingly enough, no objections were raised to this proposal at the time, and Amendment 2 became certified a few months later.²⁵

This certification did not come without a few other strange occurrences, however. After the amendment’s adoption and before its certification Gaeta had also applied to make major modifications to its existing facility requesting authorization to also accept type 10 and type 23 vegetative waste and enlarge the facility, two additions not originally part its original application. Since these additions were never certified, the DEP determined Gaeta’s application was administratively incomplete. As a result, Gaeta amended its application and applied for a second amendment to the waste management plan to include those other two additions. Passaic County then adopted amendment 3-1999 granting the request, again with no objections/challenges to this certification.²⁶

Amendment 2 and amendment 3, both integral parts of Gaeta’s application for major modification, were both certified with no objections whether from a public hearing or providing for notice and public comment. The absence of a response during these two parts of their expansion is especially strange considering the appearance of a large initial response almost a year later in 2000 after the DEP determined Gaeta’s amended application was administratively complete and supplied copies of its application to various local, state, and federal agencies. Here, finally, several parties responded, including neighboring residents, the Passaic County Health Department, the City of Paterson, and the Paterson health officer. They voiced concerns about odor and noise pollution, traffic, rodents and insects, and pedestrian safety. On July 25, 2000, Paterson’s Planning Board even submitted a resolution opposing the expansion.²⁷ The silence during the adoption and certification of amendments 2 in 3 in 1999, followed by a large response in 2000, is particularly noteworthy and would serve as the beginning for what was yet to come.

V. Increasing and Sustained Community Response

In 2001, after being informed of missing requirements as part of their expansion application, Gaeta submitted a new application almost a year later, in 2002, reducing its expansion request. The DEP after considering Gaeta’s new application determined it was technically complete, and provided notice of the application to Passaic County, Paterson and others interested, requiring that Gaeta directly notify residents. Here Paterson’s attorney expressed concern for a lack of a buffer zone between residential homes and the expanded facility and claimed that Gaeta was violating its existing permit in already accepting putrescible waste. Residents also objected to this application similarly to how they objected to the first application.²⁸

After Gaeta responded to these complaints, on June 9, 2004, the DEP tentatively approved Gaeta’s application. After forwarding a draft permit, the DEP conducted a public hearing extending the comment period to August 3, 2004. Here residents opposed the expansion and, again, raised earlier, similar concerns, regarding odor, noise, quality of life, and environmental justice.²⁹ The community again continued to object to the expansion.

Despite this, on December 14, 2004, the DEP issued Gaeta a final renewal of its permit with 59 conditions, concluding that the facility has met the design specification and would operate in compliance with the DEP’s requirements. Here the city of Paterson (Paterson) and the Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC) put forth consolidated appeals, appealing the DEP’s decision to go forth with the expansion. ICPC and Paterson claimed that the DEP’s decision was made without any rational basis, or consideration of the facts, and claimed that the DEP failed to follow its own requirements in three areas, namely an insufficiently detailed environmental health impact statement (EHIS), an inadequate traffic flow plan, and a failure to enforce a building setback requirement. ICPC and Paterson also claimed that the DEP violated principles of environmental justice.³⁰

Specifically, ICPC and Paterson claimed that the EHIS did not adequately describe the neighborhood and municipal setting of the Gaeta facility, and that it failed to describe the impact that the expansion would have on air quality and residential property values. They also claimed that Gaeta’s traffic flow plan failed to minimize impacts on the surrounding residential development. They highlighted how the times of Gaeta’s proposed would coincide often with the times when children and seniors would likely be traveling to and from the proposed Islamic Center community center by foot and car as well as to and from school.³¹

From five years ago in silence, now in front of the Superior Court of New Jersey, ICPC and Paterson argued their case. Their argument and justifications, however, were not enough to prevent the proposed expansion. The court responded to claims regarding the setback requirement, and stated that during the public hearing, the DEP informed the public regarding what to do should a violation take place. In responding to claims made against the EHIS impact statement, the court stated, despite it being a requirement that the municipal and neighborhood setting be appropriately described by law, that no further details need have been provided since the purpose of requiring such a description is to inform the DEP of the possible facility impacts on the neighborhood, and since the facility has been known by the DEP for over twenty years and had their permits regularly renewed no further details are necessary. Further, in responding to traffic flow concerns and the impact on residents going to and from the Islamic Center, they state, “The fact that DEP may not have considered any increased traffic impact on the proposed Islamic Center is not fatal to DEP’s approval since the project was only in its nascent stage at the time and the available information was simply insufficient to warrant DEP consideration.”³²

Legislation not only led to Gaeta Recycling being located Little Ramallah, but it would also keep the Arab Americans from being successful in preventing any changes harmful to their neighborhood and their health. As seen in ICPC and Paterson’s effort to fight back against the Gaeta expansion, legal justifications stood between the Arab Americans and a possibly healthier neighborhood. Despite previous public hearing/public comment periods in which no objections were raised (possibly due to a failure on the part of Gaeta to notify the surrounding residents appropriately as will be soon shown), the court cited what the DEP mentioned at the public hearing after justifying its decision with regards to the setback requirement. Similarly, the court mentioned how the Gaeta facility was known to the DEP for more than twenty years, and despite the legal obligation upon Gaeta to appropriately describe the area within which it is located, the court deemed the lack of information unproblematic. This is especially interesting, considering how while the Gaeta facility, to date, has been in the Little Ramallah neighborhood for more than thirty years, in 2024 they failed to cater to the majority Arabic speaking demographic in providing translated Arabic documents at their public hearing.³³ Further, stating that available information regarding the Islamic Center community center was “simply insufficient to warrant DEP considerations” would indicate a lack of concern with regards to Gaeta’s surrounding community supported by the mention that in 2003 Gaeta had actually begun to build their new building without DEP authorization or a permit, tearing down a neighbor’s fence to do so.³⁴

VI. New Year No Difference

Almost twenty years later, Gaeta continued looking to expand, and while Gaeta’s daily tonnage numbers increased, so would the surrounding South Paterson population. This growth, however, seemingly wouldn’t make a dent in the same structural architecture inhibiting the Arab Americans from making a change. On June 12, 2024, Gaeta held another public hearing this time regarding their proposed expansion that looked to increase their daily waste capacity from 720 tons per day to 1,200 tons per day. Despite Gaeta’s facility being held in the second largest Arab American community in the United States after Dearborn, Michigan, and almost every community commenter at the public hearing noted that Arabic is the primary language spoken in the neighborhood other than English, no Arabic outreach documents were found, and neither were the hearing documents translated into Arabic. A phenomenon especially notable, again considering how the facility has been in its location now for more than thirty years.³⁵

This situation is also reminiscent of that which took place nearly twenty five years earlier with the adoption and certification of amendment 2-1999 and amendment 3-1999 in which there were no objections raised in public hearing or in public comment, a notably strange occurrence considering the large response which took place a year later where even the Paterson Planning Board submitted a resolution opposing the expansion.³⁶ Additionally, in a similar fashion, the legislation seemingly positioned itself as a fortress allowing the recycling plant to continue trying to go ahead with its expansion using laws established decades earlier as an important part of their progress.

In justifying the language selection decisions at this 2024 public hearing, Gaeta stated in their response to comments, “To comply with the requirements of Subchapter 4, Process for Meaningful Public Participation, the two most prominent languages utilized within the community at large as determined by U.S. Census and EJMAP data, English and Spanish, were selected to provide Public Notice and Public Hearing information to the populace.”³⁷ The word, “comply”, utilized indicates a sense of doing enough to fulfill the requirements, even if it is regardless of all pertinent circumstances. Gaeta also goes on to mention utilizing U.S. Census and EJMAP data. Arab Americans may also referred to as minorities without minority status, since while they may be minorities, they may often be overlooked or hidden in legal information and data such as the U.S. census given they do not have their own category, as it may be shown shortly.³⁸ Further Gaeta utilized data constrained only within the block group which contains their facility, namely block group 340311830013.³⁹ As it turns out, limiting the buffer only to this block group leaves out significant information.

 Figure 1. Gaeta’s Selected Block Group                                                                                              Figure 2. 0.55-mile radius buffer about Little Ramallah

Figure 3. Environmental and Residential Indicators (Gaeta Block Group)                                      Figure 4. Environmental and Residential Indicators (0.55-mile radius buffer)

Figure 5. Residential Populations Graph (Gaeta Block Group)                                                             Figure 6. Residential Populations Graph (0.55-mile radius buffer)

In performing our own analysis using EJScreen data, two sets of data were collected, one constrained only to the block group containing Gaeta’s facility (block group 340311830013) and the other within a circular buffer of radius 0.55 miles around that same facility reaching out into little Ramallah. Taking a look at the “Residential Populations” graph for this block group (figure 5), the majority of residents are Hispanic with the population of white non-Hispanic alone (a category which includes Middle Easterners and North Africans) being less than the US average. Now, it is important to note that while the white non-Hispanic alone category can include Middle Easterners and North Africans, the presence of such a category/population does not guarantee that Middle Easterners and North Africans make up a part of it in a given location. This is consistent with the fact that no one was reported in this block group to live in a limited English-speaking household (figure 5), and with what applying our slightly larger 0.55-mile radius buffer reveals. Taking this wider look, applying this new circular buffer about the Gaeta facility, we see a very different population. While the Hispanic population in the region is still larger than 2.5 times the national average, the previously non-existent, now largest category, limited English makes an appearance at 4.7 times the national average— reaching close to twice the size of the initial block group’s largest demographic. Earlier, limiting our scope to solely the block group data, this category of limited English speakers was, again, zero— non-existent. In making the block group selection they made, Gaeta Recycling was able to potentially fulfill the legal requirements while avoiding the community which it directly affects.

VII. Conclusion

Since Gaeta Recycling found its new home amongst the Arab Americans of Little Ramallah, they would have their sights out on looking to expand. While their initial expansions may have gone through without objection and with silence from the surrounding community, soon the community would take notice and consistently fight back against the changes affecting their environment and their lives. Despite these efforts, however, the legislation and legal architecture established decades earlier, before Gaeta even settled in the South Paterson neighborhood, would create a system within which despite the response, the law would find a way around the objection, astonishingly leaving the Arab Americans in the dark, once again, nearly 25 years later since the initial push back and opposition. As of today, Gaeta doesn’t appear to be slowing down, but it is hoped that the Arab Americans won’t be left behind in the dust of the structural inequality which has led to their situation.

¹ Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

² Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

³ Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

⁴ Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

⁵ Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

⁶ Jayed Rahman, “Poor Quality of Life near Gaeta Recycling; Residents Blame Sayegh,” Paterson Times, June 21, 2014, https://patersontimes.com/2014/05/06/poor-quality-of-life-near-gaeta-recycling-residents-blame-sayegh/.

⁷ Gaeta Recycling Company, Inc., “Public Notice,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 14, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/gaeta-notice-20230424.pdf, 1.

⁸ City of Paterson, “South Paterson,” Paterson, NJ, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.patersonnj.com/attractions/south-paterson.

⁹ Passaic County, Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan § (1979), https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/PDF/1/play/, 39.

¹⁰ Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan, accessed May 14, 2026, https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/.

¹¹ Suhad Tabahi and Jacob Bucher, “The Social Construction of Arab Identity in the U.S.: The Historical Complicity and the Modern Responsibility of Social Work,” The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 47, no. 2 (June 2020), https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.4343, 109.

¹² Leo Heit, “Palestine Way: How 35 Syrian-Owned Silk Mills Transformed Paterson, NJ,” When In Your State, August 25, 2025, https://wheninyourstate.com/new-jersey/palestine-way-how-35-syrian-owned-silk-mills-transformed-paterson-nj/.

¹³ Suhad Tabahi and Jacob Bucher, “The Social Construction of Arab Identity in the U.S.: The Historical Complicity and the Modern Responsibility of Social Work,” The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 47, no. 2 (June 2020), https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.4343, 110.

¹⁴ Heidi Jensen, “Gaeta Recycling: A Legacy of Service, Innovation, and Sustainability,” Waste Advantage Magazine, October 1, 2025, https://wasteadvantagemag.com/gaeta-recycling-a-legacy-of-service-innovation-and-sustainability/.

¹⁵ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

¹⁶ Heidi Jensen, “Gaeta Recycling: A Legacy of Service, Innovation, and Sustainability,” Waste Advantage Magazine, October 1, 2025, https://wasteadvantagemag.com/gaeta-recycling-a-legacy-of-service-innovation-and-sustainability/.

¹⁷ Bob Martin, “Earth Week Message,” Department of Environmental Protection, April 19, 2016, https://dep.nj.gov/newsrel/16_0024/.

¹⁸ “Environment–Waste Disposal History,” NewJerseyAlmanac.com, accessed May 14, 2026, https://www.newjerseyalmanac.com/environment–waste-disposal-history.html.

¹⁹ Passaic County, Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan § (1979), https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/PDF/1/play/, 39.

²⁰ Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan, accessed May 14, 2026, https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/.

²¹ Passaic County, Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan § (1979), https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/PDF/1/play/, 139.

²² Passaic County, Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan § (1979), https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/PDF/1/play/, 139.

²³ Passaic County, Passaic County Solid Waste Management Plan § (1979), https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/28959/PDF/1/play/, 139.

²⁴ Mapping Inequality, accessed May 15, 2026, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map#loc=4/40.9601/-95.8425.

²⁵ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

²⁶ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

²⁷ In the Matter of Gaeta Recycling Co., Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

²⁸ In the Matter of Gaeta Recycling Co., Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

²⁹ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³⁰ In the Matter of Gaeta Recycling Co., Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³¹ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³² IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³³ “Exhibit 8 Public Comments and Responses Related to Proposed Gaeta Expansion,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 15, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/gaeta-response-to-comments-20241114.pdf, 72.

³⁴ In the Matter of Gaeta Recycling Co., Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³⁵ “Exhibit 8 Public Comments and Responses Related to Proposed Gaeta Expansion,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 15, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/gaeta-response-to-comments-20241114.pdf, 72.

³⁶ IMO Gaeta Recycling Co. Inc. (Superior Court of New Jersey March 1, 2007).

³⁷ “Exhibit 8 Public Comments and Responses Related to Proposed Gaeta Expansion,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 15, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/gaeta-response-to-comments-20241114.pdf, 99.

³⁸ Sara E Grineski, Timothy W Collins, and Ricardo Rubio, “Distributional Environmental Injustices for a Minority Group without Minority Status: Arab Americans and Residential Exposure to Carcinogenic Air Pollution in the US,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, December 4, 2019, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6950280/.

³⁹ “Exhibit 8 Public Comments and Responses Related to Proposed Gaeta Expansion,” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, accessed May 15, 2026, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/gaeta-response-to-comments-20241114.pdf, 99.

Primary Sources: