From: | CHARLES PATRIZIA <CAPATRIZIA@phjw.com> |
Date: | 16 Jan 1998 10:53:39 |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | Top 10 Functional Brownfields- Reply |
Bruce is clearly correct that it less a question of what the prior use of the site was, than what is the proposed use today. The value of the site can be enhanced by some aspects of prior use (e.g., steel mills usually had rail access already installed. That's good news for a renewed manufacturing use, but not good news (maybe even bad news, given spills sometimes associated with tracks) for a commercial or residential use). The proposed use can also affect risk assessment and the "how clean is clean" issue, which feeds directly into what level of remediation will be required, and therefore what risks and costs must be apportioned. A manufacturing use, which may result in paving a large portion of the site for storage of materials, parking, etc., creates a different calculus than a multipurpose commercial use. Chuck Patrizia Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker | |
Prev by Date: Article: New use for tainted land (fwd) Next by Date: Re: Top 10 Functional Brownfields | |
Prev by Thread: Re: Top 10 Functional Brownfields Next by Thread: Article: New use for tainted land (fwd) |