RE: FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

["peter " <petestrauss1@comcast.net>]

I look at the brownfields issue from afar, but I had thought that by the
very nature of the Brownfields Program, developers obtain some sort of
public "subsidy", whether it be in the form of site characterization,
reduced liability etc. From my own limited experience in the San Francisco
Bay Area, brownfields programs addressed how to ease the financial burden of
cleaning up and developing un-used contaminated urban properties. 

Perhaps I am missing something? Perhaps someone could explain what makes a
property qualify as a Brownfield with a capital B, not merely an abandoned
contaminated property in an urban area, without it first receiving some sort
of subsidy. 

Peter Strauss      

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:44 PM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: Re: FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

I like Peter's "clawback" proposal.

Unlike some of the private sector representatives on the list, I don't 
see such conditions as the imposition of new impediments to development. 
Development has always been supported by a wide range of "carrots" and 
limited by a wide range of "sticks." Many of those are taken for granted 
because they have been in state and federal tax code for a long time. 
Peter's proposal would refocus such carrots and sticks, not introduce 
them for the first time.

Lenny

-- 
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
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