|
Criterion* |
Used By |
Commentary |
|
Marketability (near-term redevelopment
potential) [LP] |
Buffalo, Knoxville, Rhode Island |
|
|
Potentially interested developers [LP] |
Worcester (MA), Bridgeport (CT) |
|
|
Size of contiguous site, size of existing
building(s) if reusable [LP] |
Buffalo, Rochester, Knoxville, Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Available or planned infrastructure [LP] |
Buffalo, Knoxville, Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Proximity to transportation, workforce and utilities
[LP] |
Rochester |
|
|
Site access [LP] |
Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Zoning [LP] |
Knoxville |
|
|
Geotechnical suitability [LP] |
Rochester |
May not be readily apparent. |
|
Community need for revitalization [LP] |
Buffalo, Rochester [for EZ sites] |
Probably a given throughout this area. |
|
Waterfront revitalization potential [LP] |
Rochester |
|
|
Site ownership status (private vs. public,
etc.) [L/F] |
Buffalo, Knoxville, Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Anticipated level of owner cooperation [L/F] |
Bridgeport (CT) |
|
|
Site has viable business [L/F] |
Knoxville |
|
|
Site acquisition costs [L/F] |
Buffalo |
|
|
Potential for active local government role in
direct funding or ownership [L/F] |
Rochester |
|
|
Income potential from future leasing (or sale) [L/F] |
Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Assessed value [L/F] |
Rochester |
|
|
Site financial condition (in arrears,
foreclosure, etc.) [L/F] |
Buffalo, Wisconsin |
|
|
In economic
development zone?
[L/F] |
Buffalo |
|
|
Availability of financial incentives for
assessment, cleanup [L/F] |
Rochester |
|
|
Site characteristics vs. available funding sources |
EMC Brownfields Subcommittee (meeting of 11/16/00) |
|
|
Amount of existing environmental data [E] |
Buffalo |
May be difficult to assess |
|
Threat posed to human and/or environmental
health [E] |
Buffalo |
May be difficult to assess |
|
Presence of viable owner and potential for private
cleanup [E] |
Rochester, Worcester (MA) |
|
|
Existing focus of regulatory attention? [E] |
KK |
Found to be of low risk vs. regulatory target? |