2009 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: Peter Strauss <petestrauss1@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy
 
Larry:

Doesn't NJ have a law requiring that sites be cleaned up before they are abandoned or transferred? I recall seeing it years back. It may have applied to only industrial users of a certain size.

Peter
On May 18, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Schnapf, Lawrence wrote:

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

  Follow-Ups
  References
  Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Brownfield Data
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy
  Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Santa Clarita article and Brownfield policy

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index