|
Point/Counterpoint: Shaking off the Mothballs
Point by Sven-Erik Kaiser
Counterpoint by Frank Veale
Counterpoint by Greg Rogers
Mothballing brownfields. Warehousing sites. Companies just paying taxes and mowing lawns. We have heard so much on the subject that it has become a cliché of complaint. It comes down to the same issue - what's to be done about properties withheld from the market due to known or potential environmental contamination?
Brownfield developers care because they see some of the best opportunities dangling just out of reach. Communities care because idled properties can be black holes sucking the potential out of their revitalization plans. And regulators care because they are frustrated in their efforts to find out if there even is a threat at these properties.
How big a problem is mothballing? No one really knows - no registry exists and likely never will except by a few intrepid souls at the local level. Information is still largely anecdotal. Only a few studies have even been attempted and they bog down in details of ownership and usage. Nobody posts a "Not for Sale" sign.
Warehoused sites can be explained away with many reasons - investment potential, weak markets, expansion plans, rights-of-way or even development buffers.
But sometimes we get a peek behind the curtain and companies openly discuss their corporate policies and strategies for keeping brownfields off the market. That is when it becomes clearest that the situation needs more attention - that the market is working toward perverse results and calls out for correction.
The reasons for mothballing brownfields are well known and have been extensively discussed. Owners fear regulatory action, cleanup costs and third-party liability. The potential costs of cleanup and litigation are judged to outweigh the benefits of sale and reuse. It's a business calculation without regard to the ultimate costs borne by communities through frustrated neighborhoods, stymied plans, and blocked projects.
Here is a survey of some of the leading ideas that have been put forward, a mix of carrots and sticks:
Sven-Erik Kaiser's appeal to return known or potential brownfield properties to active and productive use has obvious merit. Many parties, including owners of such properties, would like to see each property returned to a use that eliminates an eyesore, presents a more positive view of the company and the community and generates a positive cash flow for the owner and the municipality. It appears to this observer that all should welcome the end result Mr. Kaiser's article seeks to elicit.
Unfortunately, the article adopts a suspicious, if not hostile, tone toward all potential brownfield property owners and does not acknowledge the legitimate concerns of current owners of some of these properties. It may even be read to imply that all seek to attempt to avoid their responsibilities and the law, and disregard their community neighbors.
Counterpoint: Mothballing and the Balance of Pain
By Greg
Rogers
Change does not automatically occur when people see what is in it for them, but people do change when they perceive that the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing. Properties with known or suspected contamination are mothballed because corporate decision makers perceive the pain of doing so to be less than the pain of going to market.
The pain of change (going to market) is fear - fear of personal accountability for voluntarily exposing the organization to an indeterminate and potentially catastrophic loss. Right or wrong, many attorneys advise their clients that they have no legal duty under environmental laws to investigate owned properties with suspected but unconfirmed contamination. Let the sleeping dog lie.
Related links:
Inaugural Brownfield Leadership Summit a Success
Brownfield Prevention