|
 |
By Sven-Erik Kaiser |
Brownfields and smart growth are inextricably linked in their history and their impact. The U.S. EPA’s initiatives on brownfields and smart growth are leading examples of the close connection between environmental and economic concerns. Together, these two efforts helped reframe national, regional and local debates over growth, environmental protection, economic development and community revitalization.
Few people know the full story of just how closely the brownfields and smart growth programs evolved together at the federal level. They both emerged in the 90s as offshoots of EPA’s hazardous waste management and cleanup programs and then matured into independent programs in their own right.
The brownfields initiative culminated in the passage of the Brownfields Law in 2002. The federal smart growth effort has similar roots. It started with a few pilot grants and then found its own legs at the national policy level. The two programs share ideas, research and even staff. For example, brownfield grant criteria include smart growth considerations and smart growth grants are available to brownfield communities.
As the old saying holds, what’s bred in the bone will out in the flesh, and so it is with these two programs. Brownfields began in the waste program office of EPA and focused on getting properties cleaned up and reused. The brownfield program deals with the reuse of real estate with environmental concerns that must be addressed. The program’s achievements generally are measured by summing up site-specific results.
In contrast, EPA’s smart growth effort started in the agency’s hazardous waste policy office and has maintained a broad planning orientation. Smart growth programs generally are concerned with promoting policies and strategies for encouraging economic growth while reducing sprawl. Smart growth results are usually measured at the community-wide or regional level.
These distinctions between brownfields and smart growth are certainly not exclusive and we can all think of many individuals and organizations that operate at both the tactical site level and the strategic regional level. Many of the goals of brownfields and smart growth are similar — healthier neighborhoods, revitalized communities and sustainable development.
A growing commonality between brownfields and smart growth is the increasingly strong support from the private sector. Job creation, economic leveraging and tax revenues are driving forces in redeveloping brownfields. Much of the brownfield policy work provides incentives and certainty to businesses involved in reusing contaminated properties.
The smart growth movement also benefits from heightened private sector interest.
Recent reports such as “Smart
Growth is Smart Business,” issued in 2004 by NALGEP and the Smart
Growth Leadership Institute, demonstrate that business leaders are increasingly
pursuing smart growth market opportunities. As a result, the private sector
is taking on a growing role as a smart growth advocate, partnering with localities
and grass roots organizations to promote smart growth planning.
This harnessing of the power of the market is part of a general reframing of
the false argument of the environment versus the economy. The sky-is-falling
approach of the “Club of Rome” days has been replaced by more thoughtful
consideration of the interaction between social and economic needs.
This might be best demonstrated by the popularity of Jared Diamond’s two recent books exploring the linkage of economic and environmental concerns. In his 1999 book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond looked at geographic and environmental conditions leading to civilizations’ success. He followed that up in 2004 with Collapse, a study of how some of the same conditions have led to societal meltdowns. The significance of Diamond’s insights is in making the connection between economic and environmental choices and in challenging thoughtful people to consider how other civilizations found innovative ways to cope with change.
That brings us back around to brownfield redevelopment’s role in growth. Allocating public resources to brownfield cleanup and reuse means reinvesting in central cities and established suburbs. Brownfield redevelopment takes advantage of existing infrastructure such as roads, schools, utilities, water and sewers and police and fire protection.
For cities, it means revitalization; for suburbs, it provides choices for directing development; and for rural areas, it means relief from the inexorable pressure to develop green spa-ces and working lands. As a result, brownfields and infill redevelopment are among the strongest tools in the growth management tool kit.
Smart growth advocates encourage brownfield redevelopment by emphasizing, strengthening and directing development toward existing communities — the same places blighted by abandoned, contaminated brownfields. Brownfields and smart growth are inherently linked and the success of both initiatives will continue to provide communities with opportunities for economic gain while cleaning up the environment.
Sven-Erik Kaiser is with the U.S. EPA’s Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment. Any opinions expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. EPA
Counterpoints
Dialogue Nearing the End
Miles to Go Before I Sleep