Title: Message
Apologies for the spelling typo's: I wrote that last message
on my Blackberry while on a train, but I think the meaning nonetheless came through. BJT
Peter Meyer and I actually agree more than we disagree
except with regard to the efficiency and wisdom of claw backs. I
object to a non-market oriented approach that has no upside and that is subject to post-hoc second guessing that may result in discouraging optimum
participation in the brownfield develoment process. Rather than
clawbacks, why not borrow a page from the private sector and use a "risk sharing" approach to inventivize goal attainment, followed bt program
evaluation and adjustment? For example, the public entity could award an
amount to the developer for an amount with a clearly articulated and
quantifiable negotiated goal which, if not met, requires some refund, and if
exceeded, requires some bonus to the developer. That would be a rational
arms length process that would encourage participation and disincentivise poor
performance. Barry
-----Original Message----- From:
brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
<brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org> To: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
<brownfields@list.cpeo.org> Sent: Fri Oct 27 02:20:12
2006 Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies
Having worked in local economic development for some 30 years and brownfields for over a decade, I
have to agree fully with Barry Trilling on the ideal for determining what
subsidies are appropriate. But I still disagree with him completely on the
real possibility of the calculation being seriously undertaken at the local
level. Thus some sort of ex-post monitoring, holding recipients responsible
for what they promise, is needed.
Sharon Barr accurately points out
that, "... it is very hard to come up with a perfect formula that also works in the dirty nitty-gritty world of political influence and
decisionmaking. One cannot underestimate the role of politics in this arena
..." This is the reality. Her observations echo academic research and
informal narratives about economic development practice that have been around for decades. The public sector generally has to rely on the
applicants for financial support for the data it needs to assess their applications ... and it is not realistic to assume that there will be no
distortion of the information provided in order to increase the chance of
getitng funding.
The political pressures on local officials are
actually more acute in the case of brownfields than in 'normal' economic
development. Efforts to influence decisions come not merely from developers
interested in potential profits from brownfields, but also from
neighborhoods and community based organizations concerned for pollution
abate and human and environmental health risk reduction.
The
possibility of deriving a single allocation formula for brownfield support
is further confounded relative to the grant of support for traditional economic development efforts due to multiple objectives As Sharon
noted, traditional economic development has focused on jobs, incomes, and
property value increases, while brownfield redevelopment efforts include
additional objectives, including housing provision, protection of human
health, preservation of environmental conditions.
In light of these
concerns, it is inappropriate for public policy to be grounded wholly in a
belief in the possibility of objectivity in subsidy provision, or in calculations of public rates of return. Barry, and others who have agrred
with him, are correct that any retrospective look back and imposition of
accountability might discourage some developers from engaging in some brownfield projects.
However, the increased efficiency and
effectiveness of public spending on brownfields that such accountability
could generate must also be considered. Any subsidy funds provided that are
not needed to make a project economically viable are funds not available
for other possible subsidies that could actually increase the number of
brownfields redeveloped. The issue is not one of "subsidize or not" but
rather of the allocation of public funds to maximize attainment of
public objectives through that spending.
We can all agree that we
want to see the limited brownfield funds available have the greatest possible impact on the rate of site mitigation and redevelopment. We may
all also agree that we would prefer to see more public funds available. To
the extent that additional appropriations depend on demonstrated
effectiveness in utilization of current funds, increased accountability can
lead directly to future expansion of public funding for the reclamation of
contaminated lands,
Peter
Meyer
_______________________________________________ Brownfields
mailing list Brownfields@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields
********************************************************************** 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
|