Re: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy

["Henry, Clark" <ClarkH@BES.CI.PORTLAND.OR.US>]

 I agree that there is a huge problem with allowing property owners to abandon their properties without closing out the environmental obligations on the property.  That said, I find it difficult to accept that all the property owners are corporate entities with the capacity to conduct such cleanup.  

I also agree that there are cases where the cost of cleanup is a small portion of the redevelopment costs.  In my mind these projects do not represent the quintessential problem.  I admit I have not seen the evidence coming from New York and do not know where in New York this comes from and what kind of development is being studied.  Even so I feel comfortable saying that if we are looking at the cleanup cost to redevelopment cost ratio of a project in Manhattan or on industrial to mixed use/condo/class A office, it is hardly comparable across the board.  

These comparisons are difficult to apply when looking at small infill development.  Things like historic dry cleaners on a 10,000 sqft lot that require $400,000 of assessment and cleanup whose clean value is only $200,000 and zoning wants two town homes.   This is hardly a case where cleanup costs only 1% - 5% of the redevelopment cost.  This model also does not fit redevelopment of industrial land back in to industrial use where the 'buy low, sell high' principle doesn't apply the same.    

I do not have an empirical study to point you to, just anecdote as I struggle to create $200,000 of value from nothing on a tiny yet very dirty site and try and convince elderly couples to give up their life savings to pay for a cleanup on a site they had no part in polluting.  Let's not forget that the Polluter Pays Principle is really the Legally Defined Responsible Party Pays Principle.  

I don't disagree with the general sentiment below, I just find it impossible to categorically dismiss the assumptions we have all been operating under.  

Clark

Clark Henry
City of Portland
Portland Brownfield Program
(503) 823-5863 - office
(503) 823-5565 - fax
clarkh@bes.ci.portland.or.us 
www.brownfield.org
 



-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Schnapf, Lawrence
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 9:16 AM
To: lsiegel@cpeo.org; Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy

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