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

[Bruce-Sean Reshen <reshen@mindspring.com>]

I agree with you that it is wrong to pollute the earth irrespective of your race, color, religion, sexual preference or national origin.

frandacosta@att.net wrote:

> --
> 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