RE: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10

[frandacosta@att.net]

--
Here is San Francisco State and Federal Agencies do not think anything wrong building 1600 homes in the middle to Chernobyl. Parcel A on Hunters Point is one glaring example. As usual too much talk and very little focused action.

Brownfield legislation has helped crooks so many that they have made millions using various loop holes to cap toxic sites and exploit innocent people. Think about it.

I represent the First People of San Francisco the Muwekma Ohlone. It is wrong to polute Mother Earth in the first place. The White Folks think nothing of polluting - and then just like that they would like all that they polluted to be made clean. It simply does not work.

www.muwekma.org 

Francisco Da Costa
Director
Environmental Justice Advocacy

www.franciscodacosta.org 
			

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "peter " <petestrauss1@comcast.net>
> Bruce:
> 
> There has always been a tension between development of Brownfield sites and
> protection of public health.  Setting aside the issue of responsibility for
> a moment ("who pays for what"), I think that most of us come down on the
> side of protecting public health.  So if the brownfields revolution must
> stop because of inadequate protection of public health built into the
> program, then so be it.  
> 
> Now for the issue of responsibility.  I think it will be a rare case if a
> developer undertakes a thorough and diligent investigation plus has some
> type of insurance to manage the risks, and still is stuck with major
> unanticipated cleanup costs.  Developers have to be held responsible for
> managing this properly.  The aim of the Brownfield legislation is to
> encourage developers to take on these properties, providing a carrot of some
> public funding to investigate the property and possibly help clean it up.
> But I have never seen a policy statement that would let developers off the
> hook if there were a public health risk created by their actions. I contend
> that even previously closed sites should be the responsibility of the
> developer if there is a legitimate threat to human health.  
> 
> In the case at hand, Lenny raised the issue that through development of a
> property, a pathway (vapor intrusion) could be opened up.  I tend to agree
> with Larry Schnapf that the potential for this pathway should be assessed
> prior to any development. But I'll add the caveat that it should have been
> assessed even before VI became such a public issue.  Most property
> investigations that I am aware of would take this into consideration.  The
> issue of vapor intrusion is not altogether new; it's only that more
> sophisticated tools are available to assess its potential, combined with
> changing cancer risks.  
> 
> Hope all is well.
> 
> Peter Strauss
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
> [mailto:brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Bruce-Sean Reshen
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:43 PM
> To: brownfields@list.cpeo.org; Larry Schnapf
> Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 6, Issue 10
> 
> I suggest we distinguish between those sites that were previously "closed"
> and current sites undergoing remediation and closure.  For current sites
> developers should be well aware of VI issues and potential costs can be
> rationally included into the costing process.  If developers choose not to
> deal with such issues (and assuming the regulators do not insist), then they
> should clearly bare those costs if and when further remediation becomes
> necessary.
> 
> However, we must realize that previously closed sites fall into a separate
> and distinct category.  Developers who completed all appropriate inquiry
> under the rules at that time without uncovering any VI issues and did all
> required remediation, could not possibly factor VI issues into their cost
> analysis.  The implicit brownfields bargain is that a developer should be
> able to rely on the brownfields agreement for protection.  While the
> developer should be
> expected to obtain insurance coverage for reopener issues related to the
> remediation work ,  issues unrelated to prior cleanup activities should not
> be the responsibility of the developer.  If environmental purists wish to
> hold the development community to such unrealistic standards, then the
> brownfields revolution is over.  Development will come to a halt and we can
> all obsess about the future destruction of "greenfields" and wonder why no
> one want to take on
> the responsibility of reviving unutilized brownfield sites.  Brownfields
> development requires a measure of finality.  To deny this reality is
> shortsighted and extremely poor public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> LSchnapf@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > My view of the VI issue is somewhat different from my esteemed colleagues
> of the bar. I think that vapor intrusion should be addressed like any other
> media (e.g., groundwater and soil) and then an appropriate remedy be
> included as part of the development to address the on-site exposure. If a
> developer is building a structure and will either be inviting persons onto
> the property or selling/leasing the parcel, it is only fair for the
> developer to address VI.
> >
> > Like any other remediation issue, I think the main concern here is
> uncertainty. If a developer knows discovers that there is a VI issue, then
> they can engineer that into the development and price it into the project. I
> dont think the public fisc should be depleted for on-site VI issues that
> could be address by engineering solutions as part of the development.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > --
> > Larry Schnapf
> > 55 E.87th Street #8B/8C
> > New York, NY 10128
> > 212-876-3189 home
> > 212-756-2205 office
> > 212-593-5955 fax
> > www.environmental-law.net website
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Brownfields mailing list
> > Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
> > http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Brownfields mailing list
> Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Brownfields mailing list
> Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields


_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields