Got Lists?

We have a passion for making lists: “To do” lists, grocery lists, wish lists, even lists for Santa. But, in the brownfield industry, we need to keep our list-making in check. A brownfield inventory is just a kind of list. It is a snapshot in time of those properties that meet certain criteria, including someone’s willingness to list it in the first place.

The definition of brownfield includes, for the most part, concrete criteria. Brownfields are usually easily identifiable commercial or industrial sites that are contaminated or perceived to be contaminated. These criteria can be easy to discern. If a long-time resident recalls a long-gone corner gas station, it is safe to assume that some residual petroleum products will be present.

But, the remaining criteria for defining brownfields are the charm: They are abandoned or underutilized. This is where listing these sites as brownfields becomes challenging. Abandoned sites are not hard to identify, but what does an underutilized site look like? And who defines the term? Some think it’s a site within a formal redevelopment plan that demonstrates some higher and better use. Others believe it is those businesses that operate at only a fraction of their potential because they don’t want to convey their property and deal with environmental liabilities. Still others are of the opinion that they can’t actually define what “underutilized” is, but they know it when they see it.

So, if ABC site is identified as a brownfield because it is an abandoned, contaminated chemical manufacturing plant and is listed on a brownfield inventory, does it get removed when a developer purchases the site? When cleanup begins? When construction begins? Even when we can confidently identify brownfields and place them in an inventory, how long do they remain brownfields and therefore, remain on the list? This all begs the question: Why are we creating brownfield inventories? And does every region, state and/or city need an inventory? This leads to even more questions to explore:

Have times changed? When legislation was first passed providing grant funds to develop inventories, the nation didn’t understand the magnitude of the problem or know the number of brownfields that needed to be addressed. Today, there are estimated to be anywhere from 450,000 to one million brownfields nationwide. Do we really need a list of that many sites?

Are all areas equal? Markets like New York City (including southern Connecticut and northern New Jersey), Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco have robust markets. Developers have land acquisition staff that focus just on finding sites in these areas. Do they really want to list them publicly and do we need them to? And, if a real estate market isn’t hot, are there better uses of public agencies’ resources than creating lists?

Better Uses of Resources
Maybe inventories should morph into good summaries of brownfield success stories so others can learn what worked. Regulators could build into the cleanup process a requirement that developers report on the completion of a brownfield redevelopment, including before and after photos of the site and critical analysis of what made the project work. It could be a condition of receiving certain grants or tax incentives. The onus could be shifted to the development community, resulting in free marketing by the brownfield regulatory agencies for all of those involved.

Significant federal funds are spent each year by state and local agencies to develop and maintain brownfield inventories. There is great deal of emphasis put on the brownfield inventory when applying for brownfield grants. Because the demographics of regions, states and cities vary greatly, the need for an inventory may or may not exist. Why spend limited grant funds on inventories when the market is flush? What is needed is more flexibility to meet the individual needs of the applicants.

Now that times have changed, brownfield inventories deserve a second look. Local, state and federal stakeholders should collectively evaluate the benefit of an inventory given the staffing resources of these agencies and more importantly, because the federal grant monies dedicated for this purpose may be more effective to an individual state program.

Using limited grant funding for real work at tough sites — those with extreme environmental challenges, the ones without a market, in-fill sites or sites with little acreage — through the collaboration of local officials, government regulators, the public and the development community, will accomplish more than simply listing them on a database.

The number of brownfields is a constantly moving target and can only ever be a snapshot of the market at any one time. We should keep in mind, that just because we can count something, it doesn’t always mean that we should. BFN

Interested in putting a brown paper bag over your head and being our next unknown complainer? Let’s face it, we know you have issues. Send your missive (400-650 words) to rachels@brownfieldnews.com. We will choose the best article for each issue and publish the rest of your diatribes at www.brownfieldnews.com.