Re: [CPEO-BIF] Re: Brownfields Digest, Vol 34, Issue 25

[Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@gmail.com>]

I don't disagree with Joe's objectives. My problem is that funds or tax 
breaks may be provided private developers with no assurance that the 
residents or existing businesses in a community will benefit.

Subsidies should be provided to entities with community benefit missions 
or, if provided to private developers, linked to community benefit packages.

If the goal is simply to influence the location of projects, then the 
benefits of that geographic choice should be demonstrable.

Lenny

Joe Schilling wrote:
> Given that it is unlikely anytime soon for the federal
> government to create a holistic and comprehensive community revitalization
> initiative is there a way we can build on the success of BFs redevelopment
> and tweak a few BFs policies here and there so that it can accomplish more
> area-wide revitalization.  
>
> So, yes, I'm advocating a policy direction that would create "spill" over
> benefits from these BFs policies/projects so that a community could, if it
> wants, leverage, apply, use certain BFs incentives to redevelop true BFs AND
> adjacent/nearby vacant and abandoned properties (not functionally
> obsolescent) and thereby accomplish significant community revitalization
> goals instead of an isolated BFs project here and there.  Such an area wide
> approach could also address the properties where the redevelopment market is
> non existent, perhaps transforming the properties into green infrastructure?


--


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
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org


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