A Public Trust to Embrace Abandoned Sites
by
Paula Dohnal
An abandoned site in London before it was cleaned up to make room for the 2012 Olympic Stadium.
November 18, 2009
Written by Arthur Bogen
Environmental Planner, Valley Council of Governments, Derby,
CTThey sit there, blighted above ground and insidious
underground. They can be large or small; they stand alone or in the middle of a
neighborhood. Larger cities have a number of them. A rural mill town may have
just one. No one is responsible for them anymore, or a corporate shell may hold
this liability. If some of the low-hanging brownfields fruit has been picked,
these are certainly the bottom of the barrel. Yet we can’t let them stay there
as they are. We could address them by creating a National Brownfields Public
Trust. These sites would be put into the trust, cleaned up, and resold, with
the proceeds going back into the trust. It would be similar to other programs
that dealt with the resolution of toxic assets, except that that is literally
what these sites are.
The
historic liability, including RCRA closure financial guarantees, would be
assumed by and stay with the trust to facilitate financing by traditional
lenders. Cleanups would be guaranteed by the trust. If any subsequent
additional contamination is found that requires attention, the trust would have
to respond. There would have to be extensive closure sampling and documentation
to separate new events from the historic.
The municipality would forfeit any
back taxes in exchange for a tax stream going forward. Funds could be returned
to the municipality if there is any excess of sale price over cleanup,
insurance, and administrative costs.
Priority of cleanup would have to
be balanced among parallel concerns and virtues. Imminent human health risk
conditions and ecological impacts would have to be priority sites, tempered by
proposed reuse plans that would trigger other benefits. The new tax stream
would help many people receive services that may not otherwise be furnished. The
criteria for ranking priorities of response would have to be worked out among
many stakeholders. Some sites may receive interim measures to contain a
condition rather than clean it. The other virtues of new jobs and blight
reduction as well as remediation may be the preeminent drivers.
Initial funding of the trust could
come from a tax on the closing of all real estate transactions. It seems fair
to make the levy universal because that is the social effect of these sites. Their
presence brings down adjacent property values; their market unavailability puts
pressure on open space for development; they deny municipalities needed taxes. Their
contributions to unhealthy conditions impact people and care systems, and their
blight shames and depresses us all.
There may be arguments against
including some sites. Some sites are a legacy of inadequate enforcement, resulted
from corporate or personal malfeasance, or predate best management practices
and regulations. Whatever the reasons, the sites should be put in the trust
because in is unconscionable to leave them as they are. It is poor economic and
ecological stewardship to leave them alone. These sites are usually near some
developed infrastructure, which, with some upgrades, could be more economical
than bonding to build new roads and developments in continuing sprawl. There is
the logic of infill development, smart growth, and the redress of environmental
injustice. The rationale that makes brownfields reinvestment a good practice
applies here, too. These are just the more extreme cases, the orphaned sites. It
is time to bring them in from the cold and embrace them.
Comments
No comments have been posted. Post the first comment below!