FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

["Trilling, Barry" <BTrilling@wiggin.com>]

Thanks to Peter Meyer for pointing out I sent this to him directly
rather than to the list serve.  This has been a very interesting and
productive discussion.  BJT

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter B. Meyer [mailto:pbmeyer@louisville.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:23 PM
To: Trilling, Barry
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies


Barry, you and I are 100% in agreement in wanting to assure that we "not

erect a public policy that sets unrealistic goals and imposes 
bureaucratic processes that discourage the private sector from engaging 
in brownfield remediation and cleanup."  (Take a look at what I've been 
fighting in Kentucky until recently for an example of how NOT to promote

brownfield redevelopment... we may finally have turned the corner ...)

My point is simply that claw-backs on agreements voluntarily accepted by

developers, that are based on environmental condition goals attained 
(which are far easier for a firm accepting a subsidy to assure than an 
employment target) could be used to assure public benefit in return for 
receipt of public funds. The inclusion of claw-back provisions, 
moreover, could reduce uncertainty about RBCA responses for communities 
that are concerned about local environmental conditions. In such an 
instance, the developer may be trading off some uncertainty about the 
final costs for attaining an agreed-upon target agains the uncertainties

associated with community resistance to a project and the possibility of

stigma and its depressing imapcts on property values -- and thus on 
financial rates of return.

You responded to me alone, not to the listserv, so I have done the same,

respecting your privacy. I am happy to have this exchange made public, 
and am appending your response to me here ... please send it to CPEO if 
you meant this exchange to be read by others.

Peter

Trilling, Barry wrote:

>Peter:  As you describe the claw-back, it does not amount to 
>punishment, but merely the obligation to live up to a commitment 
>entered into with open eyes.  My point remains, however, it is 
>impossible to calculate how much more productive investment there would

>have been without the obligation to give back if goals were not met.  I

>shall not attemp to prove the negative.  My concern is that we not 
>erect a public policy that sets unrealistic goals and imposes 
>bureaucratic processes that discourage the private sector from engaging

>in brownfield remediation and cleanup.  Brownfield development already 
>suffers from its difficulty in comparison to building in open fields 
>without the environmental taint exposure to liability.  Subsidies help 
>level the playing field and result in both economic and environmental 
>gain.  We will attract more developers with a carrot, after digestion 
>of which, the state cannot take back.  I suggest that we can attain 
>accountability with disciplined look-back and adjustment, rather than 
>difficult, time-consuming, and ultimately counter-productive attempts 
>to recoup funds which appear to have been unwisely invested.  Barry
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may 
>constitute a confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not 
>clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you have received this transmittal in error; any review, copying or
distribution or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you suspect
that you have received this transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin
and Dana immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender
and delete the transmittal and any attachments. Neither this message nor
the documents attached to this message are encrypted.
>**********************************************************************
>
>  
>





**********************************************************************
This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments.
Neither this message nor the documents attached to this message are encrypted.
**********************************************************************

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