[CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy

["Schnapf, Lawrence" <Lawrence.Schnapf@srz.com>]

How is it that in the 21st century property owners and operators are
still allowed to abandon property without first having to remediate the
sites? 

When the brownfield movement arose in the mid-1990s, the justification
for those programs was that liability concerns and uncertainty over
cleanup costs had contributed to the creation of brownfields. However, I
believe that justification was premised more on lore and unexamined
assumptions. The real reason for the creation of brownfields was because
property owners were allowed to abandon property without being required
to remediate the sites. 

There seems to have been almost a mythological belief that has been
built up over the past decade that it is the costs to remediate
brownfield sites that is impeding redevelopment. However, if the
empirical information coming from the New York BCP is representative of
the rest of the country, the cleanup costs for brownfield sites are only
1%-5% of the potential redevelopment value-with most of the sites
bundled around 1%. These costs hardly represent "material" liability or
cost (which is the term routinely used in transactions) and would seem
to be insufficient to  "complicate" redevelopment. In many cases, the
remediation costs are simply a "delta" over the construction costs.

New York now requires the projected development costs to be calculated
and disclosed by applicants seeking to enroll in the BCP. I would
suggest that this might be useful for all states and even the government
so that they can focus these precious resources on sites or projects
where the remedial costs truly material. 

It also seems to me that to prevent future creation of brownfields, what
we really need are tougher laws requiring owners/operators to
investigate,disclose and remediate contamination before they may legally
close down operations. Companies are required to provide employees with
60 days advance notice before they may close a plant under federal and
state WARN acts. Maybe we need environmental WARN acts as well. 

Larry

P.S. Of course, if someone is aware of empirical data showing that
brownfield remediation costs are material to redevelopment of those
sites, I'd appreciate if you would point me to those studies.       



     

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:51 AM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Park at Special Devices site, Santa Clarita,
California

Caution urged with park site
Contaminated property will require special signage, critic says

By Brian Charles
Santa Clarita Signal (CA)
May 17, 2009

A city plan to buy a piece of contaminated land near Placerita Canyon is

drawing criticism. It's also drawing comparisons to another infamous 
toxic-waste site.

The city of Santa Clarita plans to spend $2.5 million to buy the 
140-acre Special Devices site near Placerita Canyon, said Rick Gould, 
city of Santa Clarita park director. The site was the home to Special 
Devices Inc. The company manufactured explosives for the air bags used 
in automotive safety systems, and explosive release charges for the 
doors on the Mercury space capsules, Gould said.

When Special Devices abandoned the site in 1999, the company left behind

a site with contaminated soil, said Ken Paine, project manager for the 
California Department of Toxic Substance Control.

...

According to the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act study published

in December, the contamination in the soil was enough to prohibit 
home-building, but not enough to stop the city from turning the site 
into open space.

...

For the entire article, see
http://www.the-signal.com/news/article/13336/

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
a project of the Pacific Studies Center
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@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org


*****************************************************************************
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this 
communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the 
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties.
***************************************************************************** 



NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may 
contain confidential information that is privileged or that constitutes attorney 
work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is 
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately 
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachment(s) from your system.  Thank you.
==============================================================================

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org