MIke: My experience and yours differ significantly. I too have seen
significant increases in awareness by the general market of the
opportunities provided by brownfield incentive programs, but they have
far from reached the point of overcoming the general market's resistance
to impaired properties. The playing field is far from level, with
lenders reluctant to provide necessary financing, many state agencies
still pursuing shot-gun style "polluter pays" policies in which innocent
owners and purchasers are compelled to atone for the sins of past owners
and operators, and suspicious community and environmental activists
dogging any form of development that does not restore pristine
pre-human habitation standards. Owners of such properties are reluctant
to part with them because of the fear of lingering liabilities and
purchasers, save for the benighted few described in your earlier
posting, have not rushed in to purchase these sites, despite your own
experience. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, state voluntary
remediation programs have worked effectively to bring these properties
back on the general mainstream market. In Connecticut, however, despite
the existence of voluntary cleanup programs that provide some measure of
protection to prospective purchasers, our Transfer Act provides a scheme
of never-ending liability and extends to cleanup of contamination that
migrated off property boundaries-- liabilities which, with very limited
exception, can extend to subsequent owners. While New York and New
Jersey both have sophisticated cleanup programs, they are burdened with
bureaucratic impediments that discourage the development of all but the
most economically promising properties (although NJ's adoption of a
licensed environmental professional program is a step in the right
direction away from bureaucracy). I suspect that only when most state
programs are more like PA and less like those with burdens reflecting
the very stigmatization we're discussing will most of us brownfield
practitioners be able to share your rosier outlook.
Further, a note to my friend Larry Schnapf in response to his message:
If states and the federal government adopt your suggestion about even
more compelled disclosure than we already have I suspect the problems
I've noted above will only be compounded and we'll see even more sites
boarded up, un-remediated, and undeveloped.
Barry J. Trilling
W I G G I N A N D D A N A
Barry J. Trilling
W I G G I N A N D D A N A
From: Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com [mailto:Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Trilling, Barry; ClarkH@BES.CI.PORTLAND.OR.US; petestrauss1@comcast.net
Cc: ChisholmD@nashuanh.gov; brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: RE: The Stigma Issue
To the contrary, my friend! Today's contaminated property reuse
community is hardly the exclusive province of opportunistic specialty
developers. In fact, I would argue that the OSDs are rapidly losing
market share to the more conventional and mainstream developers and end
users who strategically and programmatically pursue and build retail,
residential, industrial, and mixed projects on these types of
properties. (I don't know that I was "lauding" anyone in my prior post,
but to the extent that I was, I laud the conventional and mainstreams
too.) That said, the greater point that I was trying to make is
directly counter to your assertion that specialty investors will have
the "edge in sophistication and understanding of risk." Because I
believe the opposite is true - i.e, that there is such widespread access
to good information, regulatory and economic agency assistance, and
qualified and experienced environmental and redevelopment professionals,
that the playing field has been leveled (or near leveled) - the scary
folklore associated with the Brownfields or NPL status of a contaminated
site, historically communicated and understood as "stigma," is now
increasingly being heard and interpreted (and acted upon) as
"opportunity." A caveat: I'm fully aware that stigma as classically
and commonly understood hasn't gone away and won't - and can't - anytime
soon. Still, there is something afoot that is worthy of note and
discussion (and that, in my opinion, reaffirms the health of the
transactional and reuse marketplace for contaminated properties of all
stripes). To sum up, the thesis that I'm proposing here and in my last
post is that neither the Brownfield label nor the Superfund label in and
of itself creates the same dysfunction in the marketplace as it might
have ten years ago and perhaps even as recently as five years ago.
Again, I see the label more as dinner bell than alarm bell and more
likely to attract rather than repel an increasing universe of (both
specialty and mainstream) buyers, redevelopers, and end users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Trilling, Barry [mailto:BTrilling@wiggin.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:17 PM
To: Goldstein, Michael (Sh-Mia); ClarkH@BES.CI.PORTLAND.OR.US;
petestrauss1@comcast.net
Cc: ChisholmD@nashuanh.gov; brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: RE: The Stigma Issue
Talk about feeling compelled to re-enter the dialogue!! Mike's comment
goes to the crux of the problem: the existence of stigma is a major
contributing factor to the reluctance of the main-stream real estate
development, investment, and financing community to deal with brownfield
properties. As long as this under-served realm of impaired properties
remains the exclusive domain of the opportunistic special investors
described, and impliedly lauded, by Mike, we will not have moved far
enough in having these properties cleaned up and developed. The
rational objective of public policy should be to make these properties
as attractive as possible to the mainstream market in order to get them
cleaned up and redeveloped. Yes, the specialty investors will always
have the edge in sophistication and understanding of risk, but we should
not abandon the field to them.
Barry J. Trilling
W I G G I N A N D D A N A
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of
Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:02 AM
To: ClarkH@BES.CI.PORTLAND.OR.US; petestrauss1@comcast.net
Cc: ChisholmD@nashuanh.gov; brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] The Stigma Issue
I feel compelled to re-enter the dialogue to offer this observation: In
many communities (and many markets) across the country, there appears to
be a subtle yet very real counter-dynamic at work that reflects a
willingness of private investors and their capital to move towards
stigma as opposed to away from it. We have clients - and I'm sure that
many others on this listserve do as well - that use the Brownfields
designation or the Superfund status of a site, property assemblage,
corridor, or region as initial screening criteria to identify potential
deal opportunities that they may want to pursue and acquire. So . . .
if one party's stigma is another party's potential value proposition, is
there really any stigma at all? And in terms of trying to empirically
quantify the actual monetary discount purportedly related to stigma, if
there are parties - in fact if there is a whole industry - willing
(eager) to close, cleanup, and redevelop a given site, again, is there
really any stigma at all?
Perhaps stigma, in this light, doesn't really mean what we think it
means. Perhaps it should be redefined to simply refer to those parties
who lack the knowledge, ability, and risk tolerance to properly
underwrite cleanup and construction premiums related to contamination
and then identify, structure, and manage risk and liability properly.
In this sense, maybe stigma is not a "thing" to be quantified, but a
"state of mind" to be understood and put in context.
I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I do know this:
There are plenty of folks out there who, when they hear a site is a
Brownfield or on the NPL, not only do they not run the other way, their
response is, "fantastic, tell me where it's located, what I can do with
it, and what the asking price is."
Put another way, for an increasing number of parties the Brownfields or
Superfund status of a site isn't an alarm bell, it's the dinner bell.
-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 <mailto: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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Henry, Clark
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:14 PM
To: Peter Strauss
Cc: Chisholm, Deb; brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
I'm not trying to say that brownfields don't have a stigma, it's just
that it is different than superfund because an innocent future owner's
liability, or protection against it, is different.
Not knowing the details of the case you reference below it is difficult
to make any calls on this but initially I would say that yes, it is
different. If the barrier was constructed to prevent recontamination,
it seems to me like it is not related to the groundwater contamination
and is an engineering control for ongoing operation of the brownfield
site. Very common. If the barrier is intended to prevent vapor
intrusion whose source is the groundwater, it is still different because
the regulators recognize that the brownfield isn't the source of the
contamination and the cost of the barrier can be recovered from the
polluter (ideally). There is also a difference in cost (and final
closure), which is what stigma and liability really boil down to. In
the case of the Willamette river, the unquantified liabilities are in
the hundreds of millions. A vapor barrier on a small footprint doesn't
even compare.
I do not know what the potential costs of the Gowanus cleanup are but
that's the quintissential problem, not knowing. There is no question
that the Gowanus should be cleaned up. The question is, how does it get
paid for? Yes, in a sense, it's unique but I wonder just how unique.
It's a waterway whose sources of pollution are the properties around
it. When designated as a Superfund site, its cleanup will be paid for
by the owners, after many years of public involvement and legal haggling.
As stated below, I'm not taking a position on brownifeld vs. superfund
but it's important to recognize that superfund designation of a waterway
most definitley casts a stigma on the surrounding properties because
that's who created and will pay for the pollution.
Clark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Strauss [petestrauss1@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:42 PM
To: Henry, Clark
Cc: 'Evans Paull'; lsiegel@cpeo.org; Chisholm, Deb;
brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
Clark:
Let's look at a different scenario, one where I have some experience.
The site was designated a brownfield site, and the relatively small
footprint of the new building was cleaned up. However, during the
remediation they discovered that groundwater flowing beneath the
property was contaminated with a variety of chemicals, requiring them to
build barrier that would prevent recontamination. The "upstream"
sources have not been cleaned up, or face any enforcement actions,
although the state regulators have promised to attempt identify
responsible parties, (and only after the community's consultant pointed
it out). I am skeptical that they have the resources to follow through
on this commitment. Isn't this the same situation as you cite below.
Isn't the "stigma" the same?
Gowanus is a unique situation. It is located in a highly urbanized
area. It is not a "natural" canal. After years of pouring all sorts
of industrial contaminants into it, the surrounding area lost most of
its industrial sources. As a result, and a project that allowed some
clean water to flow into the canal, it supported, for a time, a fish
population. This became the driver for health and ecological risks to
exceed the EPA criteria for listing on the NPL. Ironically, if it were
just a stagnant, highly polluted canal that supported no life (except
for bacteria), it wouldn't qualify.
Peter
On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Henry, Clark wrote:
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 <mailto:clarkh@bes.ci.portland.or.us>
www.brownfield.org <http://www.brownfield.org>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Evans Paull
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:38 AM
To: lsiegel@cpeo.org <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>; Chisholm, Deb
Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto:brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Dunedin and Tarpon Springs, Florida
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.
We produced a report on ways to tie sediment cleanup to landside
development, available at:
http://www.nemw.org/images/stories/documents/Innov_Financing_GL_Dec08.pdf
Evans Paull, Senior Policy Analyst
Northeast Midwest Institute
50 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-329-4282 (cell)
fax 202-544-0043
epaull@nemw.org <mailto:epaull@nemw.org>
www.nemw.org <http://www.nemw.org/>
NEMW Brownfields Website
<http://www.nemw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=18:brownfields&layout=blog&Itemid=214&layout=default>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org> on behalf of Trilling, Barry
Sent: Tue 9/15/2009 3:25 PM
To: 'lsiegel@cpeo.org <mailto:'lsiegel@cpeo.org>'
Cc: 'brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto:'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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
To: Trilling, Barry
Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto:brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
<brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto: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>
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
>Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:39 PM
>To: Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com
<mailto:Michael.Goldstein@akerman.com>
>Cc: brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
<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>
>>[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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
>>http://www.cpeo.org <http://www.cpeo.org/> <http://www.cpeo.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Brownfields mailing list
>>Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto: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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
>http://www.cpeo.org <http://www.cpeo.org/> <http://www.cpeo.org/>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Brownfields mailing list
>Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto: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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
http://www.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 <mailto: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 <mailto:lsiegel@cpeo.org>>
http://www.cpeo.org <http://www.cpeo.org/>
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto:Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org <mailto: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.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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