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 arestill allowed to abandon property without first having to remediate thesites? When the brownfield movement arose in the mid-1990s, the justification for those programs was that liability concerns and uncertainty overcleanup costs had contributed to the creation of brownfields. However, Ibelieve that justification was premised more on lore and unexaminedassumptions. The real reason for the creation of brownfields was because property owners were allowed to abandon property without being requiredto 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 theempirical information coming from the New York BCP is representative of the rest of the country, the cleanup costs for brownfield sites are only1%-5% of the potential redevelopment value-with most of the sitesbundled around 1%. These costs hardly represent "material" liability orcost (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 wouldsuggest that this might be useful for all states and even the governmentso 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, whatwe really need are tougher laws requiring owners/operators toinvestigate,disclose and remediate contamination before they may legally close down operations. Companies are required to provide employees with60 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, 2009A city plan to buy a piece of contaminated land near Placerita Canyon isdrawing 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 behinda 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 publishedin 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 thepurpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties. ***************************************************************************** NOTICEThis 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 anyattachment(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 |