I will take the bait though since I have commented on this issue before I didnt need much encouragement..:)
Compared to other state brownfield programs, the amounts at issue are not very significant. However, I think this story is an example of how flawed the process of awarding brownfield funding is throughout the country. From what I have seen, little if no analysis is done before awarding brownfield funds to determine if a viable responsible party remains available. In essence, the brownfield programs are contributing to a moral hazard b/c companies know they can abandon sites and the taxpayers will pick up the tab if there is a developer willing to redevelop the site.
Now, I understand the need to provide funding to stimulate re-use. However, given how brownfield funding is becoming constrained by budgetary issues, I think EPA and the states need to start seeking cost recovery from responsible parties to replenish brownfield coffers. Many brownfield sites have been abandoned by entities who are still in business or at least there are viable successors to such responsible parties.
I think when applications come in, the applicants should be required to make an attempt to identify past owners or operators who could be liable. As part of the application process, the agency could then contact the responsible party and give them an opportunity to make a "contribution" to the cleanup. The NY Oil Spill fund uses this approach and it has been helpful in getting RPs to step up to the plate. If they refuse or are not initially identifiable, then the funding can still be made to the applicant but there should be an effort to recover those costs. If the agency feels it has inadequate staffing, perhaps it can enter into contigency fee arrangements with lawyers. Im sure there would be a number of firms who would love to do this work.
The threat of cost recovery could bring much needed resources to brownfield progams. I have been involved in some projects where the RP agreed to provide some funds to a redevelopment ine exchange for a liability release.
The threat of cost recovery also should not pose a risk to the brownfield developer since they will be receiving liability protection from the state. Thus, the RP would not be able to turn around and sue the developer.
I would also suggest that laws like the NJ ISRA or Conn Transfer Act could help minimize creation of new brownfields by forcing companies closing plants to investigate and remediate the sites. It simply seems wrong to me that companies can close plants, export jobs to third world countries and leave the US taxpayers with the cleanup costs.
Most of the brownfield programs were started when the country's economy was booming and the states were flush with cash. Times have changed and so must our brownfield programs if they are to remain viable. Cost recovery seems like an important piece to ensuring that brownfield programs are sustainable.
Larry
Schnapf LLC
55 East 87th Street, Ste. 8B
New York, NY 10128
212-756-2205 (p)
646-468-8483 (c)
Larry@SchnapfLaw.com
http://www.SchnapfLaw.com/
Named to Chambers USA 2009-10 Client Guide of America’s Leading Lawyers for Business.
AV® Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell
Listed in 2010 New York Super Lawyers-Metro Edition
-----Original Message-----
From: Lenny Siegel [mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org]
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2011 12:01 PM
To: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] New Jersey "officials didn't track the $281M ..."
[Any reactions to "Now that the fund has run on hard times, DEP said, it’s reviewing whether it gave money to any sites that should have been cleaned by the polluters and not the public."? - LS] N.J. officials didn't track the $281M spent from brownfields fund to clean polluted properties By Christopher Baxter nj.com July 31, 2011 MOUNT HOLLY - A mural painted on an abandoned building in Mount Holly depicts brightly colored storefronts, the kind local officials had envisioned for this corner after applying to a state program designed to turn toxic land into new homes and bustling businesses. But that may never happen, because the state brownfields fund to help clean polluted properties is nearly broke. And worse yet, officials concede no one knows for sure how well the public’s dollars have been spent. Since 1994, New Jersey has doled out $281 million from the fund to investigate and clean up contaminated land, but in what would seem a fairly monumental oversight, state officials acknowledge they have never kept track of whether the roughly 1,600 sites were actually developed and are now on the tax rolls. ... Now that the fund has run on hard times, DEP said, it’s reviewing whether it gave money to any sites that should have been cleaned by the polluters and not the public. ... For the entire article, see http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/ nj_officials_say_they_failed_t.html -- 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 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