Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE EPA BROWNFIELDS '98 CONFERENCE?

[VMiller@nrdc.org (Vernice Miller)]

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE EPA BROWNFIELDS '98 CONFERENCE? 
Author:  CHARLES PATRIZIA <CAPATRIZIA@phjw.com> at INTERNET
Date:    04/06/98 06:27 PM

Speaking as someone who represents developers in Brownfields
projects, I think it's important to clarify the notion that developers don't 
pay attention to community interests.
     
The first issue for any developer is whether the site is suitable for the 
intended purpose -- if the site isn't as good for the intended use, or if it 
will cost more to prepare and develop the site than another suitable site, 
then the issue of community interests never gets teed up.  Remember
that from the developer's perspective, it's only worth taking on the 
brownfields issues if the site has other attributes (location, 
transportation resources, etc.) that give it value beyond what it will take 
to rehabilitate.
     
Once a site has passed through that examination, then community 
concerns are, at least for successful developers, an important issue. 
As others have pointed out, state authorities will look to the community's 
reaction in setting clean-up standards; communities have a role in the 
permitting process.  And good developers want to be good neighbors.  
     
On the other hand, a community group which pushes for a pristine
standard, especially early in the process, is very likely to live with a site 
that remains contaminated -- developers want a site that can be
developed on time and on budget.   Risks of delay and risk of an ever 
more stringent standard are two reasons why developers often look to 
greenfield sites rather than brownfields.  If brownfields are to be 
developed, communities must be involved, but they must also be realistic 
about what a developer can do economically.
     
--IMA.Boundary.199370298
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from igcb.igc.org (192.82.108.46) by mail.nrdc.org with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.12 Enterprise) id 00072AD5; Mon, 6 Apr 98 21:55:57
-0400
Received: from igc2.igc.apc.org (root@igc2.igc.org [192.82.108.39])
 by igcb.igc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA04379;
 Mon, 6 Apr 1998 18:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost)
 by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20420;
 Mon, 6 Apr 1998 18:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from cpro@localhost)
 by igc2.igc.apc.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20396;
 Mon, 6 Apr 1998 18:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 18:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: CHARLES PATRIZIA <CAPATRIZIA@phjw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980406182441.20096A-100000@igc.apc.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cpro-brownfields@igc.org
Sender: owner-cpro-brownfields@igc.org
Subject: Re: SUGGESTIONS FOR THE EPA BROWNFIELDS '98 CONFERENCE? 
To: cpro-brownfields@igc.apc.org

--IMA.Boundary.199370298--