|
Title: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
Without taking a Superfund or Brownfield only
position, I do recognize a difference from
the stigma attached to each, especially when the Superfund site is a
waterway and the stigma rides with the upland properties as Evans points out
below. Since the rivers did not pollute themselves the liability rides on
the upland sites even if they themselves are not designated superfund
sites. Portland, Oregon is experiencing the issue Evans describes
below. Those upland sites are considered to be in what we are
calling the Superfund cloud, or the study area in which EPA sees liable parties
located. Sites within that cloud are not eligible for brownfield
funding. Tacoma Washington is experiencing the same thing.
This nuance creates confusion which never makes a purchaser
comfortable.
Without EPA confirming that a purchaser has
successfully achieved protections afforded through All Appropriate Inquiry,
they avoid the purchase of a property within that 'cloud' for fear of
being dragged into unquantified Superfund and NRDC claims. Most (if not
all) states have some form of Prospective Purchaser
Agreements establishing protection from State agencies for
brownfields but they don't have authority
over Superfund. The result locally is hundreds of acres of unused
employment land in a state with 12.3% unemployment.
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
I don't know the specifics
of the Gowanus Canal, but EPA often designates a larger landside area as
contributing to the Superfund site. I'm familiar with several west coast
cities, where current or proposed sediment cleanup superfund/NPL sites also
include a large land area as contributing to the Superfund site. This
has generated much concern in the locality and for business investment related
to stigmatizing large areas of the cities. These contributing areas seem
to have murky legal ramifications, but concerns were elevated in one
city when EPA turned down a brownfields application because the site was
deemed ineligible due to its location within a Superfund site.
These issues of Superfund/NPL vs. other
mechanisms are often debated in the Great Lakes region, where there is federal
funding under the Great Lakes Legacy Program for sediment cleanup, but only at
sites where the NPL enforcement mechanisms have failed or there are
well-documented orphan shares. The two sources can also be mixed under
an interesting formula (see: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/legacy/rule/rfp.html#8._Evaluation_Process_)
For Gowanus, I assume there is no similar
alternative source for federal funding of orphan shares.
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org on
behalf of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 8:26 PM
To:
Chisholm, Deb
Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Re:
[CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
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
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
|