Re: [CPEO-BIF] "Brownfields widespread, confidential Ohio industrialpollution

[hmayer@rci.rutgers.edu]

Lenny -

I agree with you in concept, but the State of New Jersey has taken the same
position - no privately owned properties can be identified as a "Brownfield"
without the prior approval of the owner.  I don't know of any city in the
state
that has done anything contrary to this decision.

One way around the problem is to list properties available for 
redevelopment, and
in the individual details note that the property is known to have contaminants
based on xyz environmental assessment report.  This still requires the owners
permission, but he receives some benefit (marketing of his property) in
return.
For most cities the redevelopment of the site is key, not branding it with a
brown "B" and exposing itself to legal issues.

Henry Mayer, Ph.D.
Executive Director
National Center for Neighborhood
        & Brownfields Redevelopment


Lenny Siegel wrote:

> Arizona's position, like Ohio's, is unacceptable! Contamination, not
> publicity, is responsible for a decline in property value. Concealing it
> - even concealing past contamination that has been removed - is
> essentially fraud. It's like selling a car with a defective
> transmission. If the property is in bad shape, the value should reflect
> its condition. The way to restore the value is to restore the condition
> of the property - to clean it up.
>
> I've heard for years that there is a powerful "stigma" resulting from
> the listing contaminated property, but my experience is the opposite. I
> live in Silicon Valley, among perhaps the largest concentration of
> Superfund National Priorities List sites in the country. Our property
> values - for comparable housing - are also among the highest in the
> country. I believe that listing - a key part of a response process that
> convinced the public that something was being done to protect our
> families and our property - was essential to keeping this a desirable
> place to live.
>
> Lenny
>
> willis-frances.ren@ev.state.az.us wrote:
> >
> > Arizona doesn't have a law forbidding a listing of Brownfields, so far as
> > I know.  Still we do not try to list Brownfields properties.  The
reason we
> > give is that such a list could adversely influence property values of both
> > Brownfields sites and adjacent sites.
> >
> > Ren Willis-frances
> > Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
> > willis-frances.ren@ev.state.az.us
> >
>
> --
>
> Lenny Siegel
> Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/968-1126
> lsiegel@cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit
> http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields
>
> If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd
> like to subscribe, please send a message to
> cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
> Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit
http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd
like to subscribe, please send a message to
cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less. 
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01