Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Deb,

In Brooklyn, only the Gowanus Canal - the waterway itself - is proposed 
for the "Superfund" National Priorities List. The adjacent properties 
that are proposed for redevelopment would not be hurt by policies 
denying brownfields funding to Superfund sites.

People who have smelled the canal are skeptical that Listing would 
create a greater stigma.

Lenny


Chisholm, Deb wrote:
> The Brooklyn Gowanus Canal site is proposed to the NPL.  This is a very important point not to be overlooked.  It may escape the stigma attached to a Superfund designation, but it does not get funding typically associated with Brownfield sites.  Sites on or proposed to the NPL are ineligible for Brownfield funding from EPA and from HUD's BEDI program.  The only way to remove the proposed status is to clean it up - with regulatory oversight just like a real Superfund site.  We have a site in NH also in this Superfund purgatory.  So when looking to escape the stigma of Superfund, people should be careful about what concessions they're really making.     
>  
> Deb Chisholm
> Brownfields Coordinator
> Nashua Community Development Division
> City Hall, 229 Main Street, PO Box 2019
> Nashua, NH 03061-2019
> Phone: (603) 589-3074
> Cell Phone: (603) 491-7763
> Fax: (603) 589-3119
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org on behalf of Trilling, Barry
> Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 3:25 PM
> To: 'lsiegel@cpeo.org'
> Cc: 'brownfields@lists.cpeo.org'
> Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
>
>
>
> Lenny:  I believe you make my point for me with yoir examples:  the reality on and under the ground may have less to do with stigma than the title we attribute to the property.  Some properties that are considered "mere" brownfields have significant contamination but may escape deserved stigma until the seriousness of their condition becomes publicly known.  Any property that carries a "Superfund" label automaticallly has an indelible mark, notwithstanding its level of contamination or success in cleanup.  Once the label attaches it is almost always irreversible.  Non-Superfund brownfield sites may have hope for development and reuse that the Superfund label would not permit.  Hence the reluctance to make the Brooklyn Gowanas Canal a Superfund site.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
> To: Trilling, Barry
> Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
> Sent: Tue Sep 15 14:57:33 2009
> Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
>
> Barry,
>
> Brownfields sites include many uncontaminated parties. (In fact, in
> Michigan the only requirement appears to be that the property was once a
> field.)
>
> And Superfund sites include lands that should never be redeveloped for
> continuing human occupancy.
>
> But there are many sites, such as factories where releases impact
> groundwater in the neighborhood, that could go either way.
>
> There are about 20 Superfund listings within ten miles of my house, and
> many have undergone redevelopment. There are many more non-Superfund
> sites with documented contamination.
>
> My point is that whatever stigma exists - at least here - is a function
> of the contamination and has little to do with whether the sites are
> listed under Superfund or any other regulatory program.
>
> Lenny
>
> Trilling, Barry wrote:
>
> > Lenny:  There's a world of semantic and legally significant difference between a "Superfund" site and a "brownfield."  Superfund sites are thought of as the worst kind of environmental disaster zones, such as the Love Canal or Times Beach.  The Operating Industries SIte, for example, long rated #1 on the EPA National Contingency List, started its life as a 400 foot pit and over time was filled with industrial waste until to towered as a hill 1/4 mile up into the horizon, with literally thousands of potentially responsible parties.  This is a far cry from a typical brownfield, for instance a former metal finishing shop located in a strip mall.  Most voluntary remediation programs do not extend eligibility to Superfund sites.  A brownfield, on the other hand, may not even be contaminated, but merely carry the stigma of potential contamination by virtue of its prior industrial use.  It is easy to understand how the stigma of the word Superfund will stick, while a brownfield si

> te may lose that stigma after undergoing cleanup.
>
> > Barry J. Trilling
> > W I G G I N  A N D  D A N A
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:39 PM
> > To: Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com
> > Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
> > Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the background. I find it ironic that in some locales, such
> > as New York City, developers and the city prefer "Brownfield" over
> > "Superfund" because it supposedly does NOT carry the stigma.
> >
> > My experience in Silicon Valley suggests that whatever stigma is
> > associated with contaminated property doesn't come from a government
> > label. Instead, it derives from the contaminated or blighted condition
> > of the property. To the degree that labeling helps repair that
> > condition, it overcomes the stigma.
> >
> > Lenny
> >
> > Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > First a clarification is in order.   The columnist refers to the EPA
> > > Brownfields Program as "offering tax incentives, grant funds,
> > > low-interest loans and employee training for developers willing to build
> > > in areas designated a brownfield."  This particular laundry list of
> > > incentives for sites located in a designated Brownfield Area is correct;
> > > however, the government entity offering them is the State of Florida,
> > > not EPA.
> > >
> > > That said, the larger point the columnist makes is spot on and
> > > underscores what has historically been a steep learning curve - and
> > > persistent source of resistance - in Florida for both private sector and
> > > public sector actors thinking about putting a toe in the Brownfields
> > > arena. More specifically, although environmental professionals here have
> > > long been promoting the Florida Brownfields Program as an effective way
> > > to, in the words of the columnist, "spark a new wave of economic
> > > redevelopment" and "eliminat[e] urban blight in commercial and
> > > industrial areas," inexperienced local governments and developers cite
> > > the fear that a "Brownfields label" would lead to further market
> > > dysfunction as a principal basis for staying on the sidelines.
> > >
> > > While there has been no empirical study of whether and, if so, precisely
> > > how and to what extent properties that have been formally designated a
> > > Brownfield in Florida (i) suffer some measure of diminution in value,
> > > (ii) have a more difficult time obtaining financing (or financing at
> > > market rates), or (iii) are marginalized or rejected by end-users, the
> > > weight of experience among Brownfield practitioners throughout the state
> > > strongly suggests exactly the opposite.  What the marketplace has
> > > actually taught us since enactment of Florida's Brownfields Program in
> > > 1997 is this: The Brownfields designation accelerates the recycling of
> > > contaminated property and turbocharges a project's ability to attract
> > > any combination of equity, debit, investors, residents, and tenants. The
> > > designation and the processes that follow provide a level of comfort and
> > > assurance that state and local environmental regulators will be
> > > institutionally invested in the project, that local government officials
> > > will utilize all of the planning and economic tools and resources at
> > > their disposal, that credentialed and serious legal and engineering
> > > professionals will be engaged, that the cleanup will proceed on a smart
> > > and predictable schedule, that development and construction will be
> > > subject to innovative and cutting-edge design methodologies, and that
> > > the risk of exposure to be liability will be managed in a sophisticated
> > > and effective manner.
> > >
> > > The line in the column that resonates most deeply - "A bit of stigma
> > > over a designation no one will remember should not deter these cities
> >
> > > from getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in redevelopment funds" -
> >
> > > also rings extraordinarily true, notwithstanding the issue that some
> > > observers take with the notion that the designation creates even "a bit
> > > of stigma."  If there is stigma, it's in the underlying contamination or
> > > perception of contamination (among other criteria) that triggers the
> > > eligibility for designation in the first instance.  The designation, on
> > > the other hand, is the delivery vehicle for the financial and regulatory
> > > incentives, the private capital, and the expedited permitting (among
> > > other benefits) that create the initial catalyzing effect and launch a
> > > project towards rehabilitation and reuse.  In short, the designation is
> > > neither manifestation nor exacerbation of market dysfunction; rather,
> > > it's a swift first step towards prompt environmental cleanup and
> > > successful economic revitalization.
> > >
> > > Finally, yes, local governments should, as the columnist concludes, "act
> > > quickly" to get their fair share of federal and state grant programs and
> > > other economic incentives because the marketplace in Florida has also
> > > taught this lesson: Private capital chases the flow of public funds, and
> > > the powerful leveraging effect created by the combination of public and
> > > private money is the single greatest factor in establishing the
> > > feasibility of a Brownfields redevelopment project.
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > > Michael R. Goldstein, Esq.
> > > Akerman Senterfitt
> > > One Southeast Third Avenue, 28th Floor
> > > Miami, FL 33131
> > > Direct Line: 305.982.5570
> > > Direct Facsimile: 305.349.4787
> > > Mobile Phone: 305.962.7669
> > > michael.goldstein@akerman.com
> > >
> > > "Recycle, Reuse, and Restore Environmentally Impacted Properties:
> > > Rebuild Your Community One Brownfield at a Time"
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael R. Goldstein, Esq.
> > > Akerman Senterfitt
> > > One Southeast Third Avenue, 28th Floor
> > > Miami, FL 33131
> > > Direct Line: 305.982.5570
> > > Direct Facsimile: 305.349.4787
> > > Mobile Phone: 305.962.7669
> > > michael.goldstein@akerman.com
> > >
> > > "Recycle, Reuse, and Restore Environmentally Impacted Properties:
> > > Rebuild Your Community One Brownfield at a Time"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://www.akerman.com/>
> > > www.akerman.com <http://www.akerman.com/> | Bio
> > > <http://www.akerman.com/public/attorneys/aBiography.asp?id=619> | V Card
> > > <http://www.akerman.com/public/attorneys/vcard.asp?id=619>
> > >
> > >
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may
> > > be privileged and confidential information, and is intended only for the
> > > use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this
> > > message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> > > dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
> > > prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
> > > immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
> > > communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
> > >
> > > CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS
> > > regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated
> > > otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is
> > > not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person
> > > for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal
> > > Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> > > party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
> > > [mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:13 PM
> > > To: Brownfields Internet Forum
> > > Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
> > >
> > > What's a little contamination among friends?
> > >
> > > COLUMN BY MARK SCHANTZ
> > > SUNCOAST NEWS (FL)
> > > September 5, 2009
> > >
> > > What's a little contamination among friends, especially when it means
> > > millions of federal tax stimulus dollars being available to local
> > > governments and area developers?
> > >
> > > Cities like Largo and Clearwater have already utilized the Environmental
> > > Protection Agency's Brownfields Redevelopment Grant Program to
> > > revitalize their depressed areas, by providing economic incentives to
> > > developers and business owners. These grant funds can spark a new wave
> > > of economic redevelopment eliminating urban blight in commercial and
> > > industrial areas. It can help property owners repair and redevelop
> > > buildings.
> > >
> > > The Dunedin City Commission is considering declaring its downtown
> > > community redevelopment district and other parts of its city a
> > > brownfield. The designation would be a great fit in Tarpon Springs,
> > > which badly needs to attract developers and spark economic redevelopment
> > > downtown, at the Sponge Docks and along the Pinellas Avenue corridor.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > For the entire column, see
> > > http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com/content/2009/sep/05/pi-whats-a-little-contamination-among-friends/
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 <http://www.cpeo.org/> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Brownfields mailing list
> > > Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
> > > http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > 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 <http://www.cpeo.org/> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Brownfields mailing list
> > Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
> > http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
> > **********************************************************************
> > This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It
> > may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication.
> > If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error;
> > any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly
> > prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this
> > transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana
> > immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender
> > and delete the transmittal and any attachments.
> >
> > Neither this message nor the documents attached to this
> > message are encrypted.
> > **********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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 <http://www.cpeo.org/> 
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It
> may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication.
> If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error;
> any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly
> prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this
> transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana
> immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender
> and delete the transmittal and any attachments.
>
> Neither this message nor the documents attached to this
> message are encrypted.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Brownfields mailing list
> Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
> http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org


--


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