The Business Council of New York State
BROWNFIELD BUST
By KEN POKALSKY
|
|
September 15, 2003 -- MANY New York communities grapple with the twin problems of abandoned brownfield sites and declining manufacturing jobs. Now the state Legislature is poised to pass a "reform" bill that will do little to encourage the brownfield redevelopment - but much to worsen manufacturers' struggles.
Brownfields are abandoned commercial or industrial sites where environmental contamination impedes redevelopment. These old brick factories, abandoned gas stations, and unused warehouses are visible in most cities and towns across the state.
Reclaiming and redeveloping such sites is widely seen as crucial to both urban renewal and economic growth. Once, they were well-suited to business. They housed jobs for workers and generated tax revenues for our communities. With water, sewer, power and transport infrastructure typically still in place, they could deliver these benefits again.
But after Love Canal, the state and federal governments passed environmental laws with stringent cleanup and liability standards - with the unintended result that most brownfields just sit vacant, idle and dirty.
Under these laws, any property owner can be held responsible for all cleanup costs - even one who merely bought property contaminated by others. Moreover, owners and developers can be forced to endure long, unpredictable approval processes for environmental cleanups, on top of the costs and delays inherent in such projects - all before they start building. Few such obstacles hinder the development of virgin "greenfield" projects.
Many states began reforming their laws about 10 years ago. Typical reforms include:
* More sensible cleanup standards that reflect the intended use - and, thus, the real risks - of the site.
|
|
* A more timely and predictable approval process.
* Liability standards that don't unduly burden innocent parties with the consequences of contamination caused by others.
But in New York, developers still ignore most brownfields - and the bill the Legislature's set to pass won't do much to change that. For example, it would:
* Adopt timeframes for review and approval of brownfield projects that are not binding on state regulators. Potential developers will have no clear idea about when a project can move forward.
* Impose the most stringent brownfield-cleanup standards in the nation. That will raise project costs without adding significant environmental or public-health protections.
* Impose extensive new procedural requirements that will add costs, delays and uncertainty to redevelopment projects.
* Weaken post-cleanup liability reforms with many "reopeners" that regulators can invoke after the issue had been closed. Brownfield developers and site users, in other words, must always worry that they'll be forced into expensive additional cleanups.
More sensible reforms would have included:
* Binding timetables for state reviews of proposed projects.
* Reasonable cleanup standards based on the intended use of property.
* Strong post-cleanup liability protection for developers.
These are not pie-in-the-sky business fantasies. Most of these policies are already in effect in places like Pennsylvania and other major states - where, not coincidentally, brownfield redevelopment is much farther advanced than it is in New York.
Making matters even worse are the bill's heavy new Superfund fees.
While manufacturers statewide are struggling to compete, the bill would saddle business with new fees. That, plus $1.2 billion in new borrowing that all New Yorkers would pay for, would support an increase of nearly 70 percent to the state's Superfund budget.
These fees would cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for many manufacturing plants - diverting these firms' limited resources away from job creation, job retention and productivity improvements that enhance competitiveness. Ironically, the fees could even be imposed on brownfield cleanup projects that remove as little as a single truckload of contaminated soil.
This bill is unlikely to work any better than the informal brownfield program New York has had for the last decade. It will ensure that many urban sites would continue to be bypassed for new development.
That's why municipal and economic-development interests in Buffalo and elsewhere in western New York, where greenfield alternatives remain plentiful, are especially concerned about this bill.
Brownfield-site cleanups simply don't happen when states make them a bad business risk. States that make it practical for businesses to do the job have positive results to show for it.
New York should join the club.
Ken Pokalsky is director of environmental programs for The Business Council of New York State.