From: | "Robert Hersh" <b_hersh@verizon.net> |
Date: | 28 Sep 2007 12:48:21 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | [CPEO-BIF] Changes mooted to NY State brownfield program |
Brownfield cleanups criticized Health dangers still present after some work, environmentalists say By Tom Wilber Press & Sun-Bulletin ALBANY -- New York's program to clean up contaminated sites is so lax that polluted land is still a health danger even after it has been "cleaned," some environmentalists charge. "Public funds should not be used to subsidize dirty cleanups," said Laura Haight of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "A new survey of other states' brownfields programs showed that New York has second-rate standards for many chemicals that are not protective of children and drinking water," said Anne Rabe of the National Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an organization founded in 1980 in the wake of the Love Canal toxic-waste disaster in Niagara Falls. The advocates made their comments Tuesday before a meeting of the Assembly and Senate Environmental Conservation committees, which are considering changes to the state's 4-year-old brownfields cleanup law. ...The cost of cleaning brownfields versus the financial return a company can realize from doing business on them is ultimately what will decide their fate, said Kenneth Kamlet, an attorney who specializes in Broome County brownfield issues. Factored into the cost is legal liability that comes with pollution issues. "You need to have a willingness to take on a site, but being able to show the economic worth is critical," he said. Kamlet agreed that any legislation "needs tweaking over time." But, regarding the existing brownfield program, "I think there is much less wrong with this than environmental groups are leading legislators to believe." Rabe contends the law contained two significant compromises: developers were held to relatively strict standards, in exchange for the nation's most generous tax breaks: as much as 22 percent of the cost of the entire project, not just the cost of cleaning up toxins. That has led to criticism that a handful of developers of large projects are getting the bulk of the benefits, leading to relatively little money being left for hundreds of smaller projects that also qualify. For the entire article, see: http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/NEWS01/7092 70369 Bob Hersh CPEO _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] New Jersey Commerce Commission awards $7 million to clean up 2 brownfields Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Not enough brownfields in Britain for housing | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] New Jersey Commerce Commission awards $7 million to clean up 2 brownfields Next by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Not enough brownfields in Britain for housing |