|
|
|
|
|
The Classic Brownfield Story Line By Sven-Erik Kaiser I am originally from Syracuse, New York, just down the road from Rochester, so I understand some of the frustration that comes through in this case study of the Orchard-Whitney site. My wife is from Rochester and her family still lives there, giving me the opportunity to visit Rochester several times annually over the past 20 years. Rochester, like Syracuse, suffered the classic brownfield story line of the ‘70s and ‘80s — industrial losses followed by commercial and housing declines. Rochester did a lot of good things to remain vital, including establishing a successful brownfield program. The city benefited from the continuing presence of Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch and Lomb. It has marvelous museums and science centers, energetic colleges and universities, beautiful parks, a fine zoo and a minor league baseball team with a downtown stadium. Rochester even celebrates its horticultural past, known as the “Flower City,” with parades and festivals. Now Rochester is threatened again as globalization challenges the core companies that drive the area’s economic vitality. Too often of late, the newspaper headlines are of layoffs and closings, instead of groundbreakings and ribbon-cuttings. While every property has its own unique history and future, analyzing reuse alternatives requires an awareness of the larger forces affecting the parcel, city and region. Score One for Reuse Looking more closely at this particular situation, I see a lot of encouraging things: • Rochester has been masterful in tapping into federal and state funding programs. • EPA and New York are helping to pay for the environmental site assessment (and it looks like a lot of assessment will be needed given the history of the site). • EPA removed some drums several years ago, helping reduce threats at the site. • HUD’s CDBG program helped fund demolition work after the fire. There is a promising range of redevelopment assistance available, not just for the Orchard-Whitney property, but also for the surrounding neighborhood. This will help create the area-wide improvements that can drive real estate transformations. The property is located in state and federal economic development zones, providing the opportunity for funding and tax incentives. The city also has EPA grants that can fund additional assessments and low-cost cleanup loans. I see a lot in place to help move this site into the reuse column. A Drag on Redevelopment So what is left? Writing from the environmental perspective and leaving the economic issues for my colleagues, I see some remaining environmental questions that could be a drag on redevelopment. Phase II: Completing the Phase II environmental site assessment will provide the city and developers with the critical information they need to move forward, particularly regarding the contamination and the cost to clean it up. Without that information, reuse scenarios are only castles in the sky. Armed with the data from the Phase II, the city can begin meaningful discussions with regulators, investors and the community. Liens: The drum removal created a potential federal lien situation. The city needs to sort that out with EPA so there are no lingering lien questions to scare off developers and lenders. The city should contact the EPA Region 2 office in New York City to find out whether such a lien exists and how it encumbers the property. Additional cleanup work can be factored into an arrangement to discharge or forgive the lien, but all of that needs to be worked out with EPA. Liability: If the city takes control of the property, there are some liability considerations to keep an eye on. The city is entitled to liability protections if it gets the property through an “involuntary acquisition” such as tax foreclosure. If acquired through purchase, the “bona fide prospective purchaser” protection may be available. Properly undertaken, the transfer can protect the city from future liability and preserve the city’s eligibility for federal cleanup funds in the future. VCP: Next, as the property moves into the cleanup phase of reuse, the city should be working closely with the state regulators through its voluntary cleanup program (VCP) or other response programs. Whether the city, a developer or a new user undertakes the cleanup, the state should be involved so that plans and results can be reviewed and approved. Cleanup under the state VCP also can protect the city from federal liability in the future. It looks like the state has been active at the site, so the city is moving along the right path here. Community: Finally, the city needs to continue working with the neighborhood and community groups to build support for future reuse of the property. Unaddressed concerns about the health and environmental impacts of brownfields and their reuse has slowed or blocked many projects. Neighbors are a good source of information about the property’s history and its future. They often have good ideas about what new uses the community needs and can support. The case study mentions ongoing communication about cleanup and redevelopment plans and community involvement must continue. I will be sure to look up Orchard-Whitney the next time I visit my Rochester relations. Given all the work the city is putting into it, I will not be too surprised to see backhoes and work crews cleaning up and redeveloping the property. BFN Sven-Erik Kaiser is with the U.S. EPA’s Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment. Read Rochester’s Poster Child, the case study this article is based on, and other expert advice on the Orchard-Whitney site from the varying perspectives of the Brownfield News editorial board: Send your site for next year’s “Doing the Deal” issue. |
|
Brownfield News is the official publication of the National
Brownfield Association |
© 2005 Environomics Communications. 5440 North Cumberland Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60656
|
