In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

195 B Brownfields Redevelopment Reconnecting Economy, Ecology, and Equity Veronica Eady rownfields are all around us. They pepper nearly every neighborhood in the United States. They could be the vacant lot on the edge of town. They are the abandoned textile mill near the railroad tracks. They could be the decaying gas station, the old Boys and Girls Club, they may even be the charred remains of a home a block from the elementary school. In fact, a parcel of property need only pose the mere perception of contamination in order to be placed in the category of rejected, unappealing, and often unsafe land we call brownfields.1 Though policy-makers and residents alike have for decades decried the burden blighted properties place on the aesthetic, economic, and emotional character of communities, a growing body of stakeholder groups is acknowledging the valuable assets these properties represent . As our population expands, our demand for public services, such as schools, grocery stores, and libraries also expands. Developable land, in turn, has become scarce. Recycling a brownfield site can help save money by reusing land with existing infrastructure. It can preserve historic buildings and build social capacity by giving residents an opportunity to reenvision , reinvent, and restore the places they hold most dear, their neighborhoods. This chapter explores the threats and opportunities posed by brownfields, while placing brownfields in a context, both historically and prospectively. Reusing brownfields can bring many benefits, including environmental cleanup, jobs, and community cohesion. It can also bring challenges, including identifying the level of cleanup that will satisfy the community without economically overburdening new development, and preventing gentrification from the reuse. This chapter identifies tools for brownfields recycling, as well as pitfalls those tools may 14 1. Prior to the passage of The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defined brownfields as “abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities or properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination.” See, e.g., L. Hernández, T. Estrada, and C. Garzón, Building upon Our Strengths: A Community Guide to Brownfields Redevelopment in the San Francisco Bay Area (San Francisco: Urban Habitat Program, 1999). 196 Keeping the Best present. And finally, the chapter suggests methods for communities to measure progress in their own restoration efforts. Classifying a Property as a “Brownfield” The term “brownfield” received its legal definition, embedded in federal legislation, in 2002, with the passage of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107–118, January 11, 2002). That statute defines a brownfield as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment , or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” Often, the slightest perception that contamination may exist on a site has been enough to dissuade developers, potential buyers, and banks from making a deal. Although brownfield sites generally do not have complex or severe contamination problems, the lack of a legal framework for potentially contaminated sites has kept the wary at arm’s length in a desperate effort to avoid being sucked into the liability vortex known as Superfund. Brownfields have contamination that is something short of “Superfund” sites, those extremely contaminated sites governed by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund Law.2 The 1980 Superfund Law, basically, created a mechanism by which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could directly clean up the nation’s most egregiously contaminated sites and could sue potentially responsible parties for cost recovery. EPA could tap the Superfund, a trust fund derived from taxes on the petroleum and chemical industries,3 for the remediation of these sites. Superfund has been severely criticized for its broad liability scheme, providing without proof of fault that any “potentially” responsible party is strictly liable for the entire cleanup of the site. A bank that foreclosed on a Superfund property, for example, would become a potentially responsible party that could be held liable. A company responsible for a tiny fraction of co-mingled contamination could be held liable for the entire cleanup. Girded with the power of Superfund, the EPA could sue any single party remotely connected to the contamination for full reimbursement. This led to ancillary litigation between the potentially responsible parties. Many critics have come to believe that the Superfund has become nothing more than a tool to line the pockets of skillful environmental lawyers. With no federal legislation...

Share