Saturday, April 26, 2003

Guest Viewpoint: More potential than peril in brownfields

BY KENNETH S. KAMLET

The Press & Sun-Bulletin has done an excellent and inspirational job of publicizing and promoting the efforts of Greater Binghamton to implement the economic recovery recommendations outlined in the BC Plan developed by AngelouEconomics.  

The Press also has given well-deserved recognition to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has gone out of her way to focus attention on the BC Plan and what the Greater Binghamton area has to offer, and to ensure we don't miss out on resources and assistance available through the federal government.

When she met with the Greater Binghamton Coalition on Jan. 25, Sen. Clinton promised a number of concrete steps to assist with implementing the BC Plan and promoting economic revival. She followed up by organizing meetings between local representatives and federal officials in Washington on March 31 and April 1. And she organized, along with AIG Environmental Management, a major conference on brownfields which will be held at Broome Community College on Monday.

Redevelopment and revitalization of the area's 80-plus brownfield sites is critical to our economic growth because, as the BC Plan noted, we have a shortage of developable land and most of the usable land available to new businesses consists of previously used ("brownfield") sites concentrated in the central business districts of Binghamton, Endicott and Johnson City.

Which brings me to a mild criticism of the Press. In referring to the upcoming Brownfields Conference, the paper has taken to using the phrase "polluted industrial sites" as a surrogate or synonym for "brownfields." This is unfortunate. Although some polluted industrial sites are brownfields, not all brownfields are polluted industrial sites.

Indeed, the term "brownfield" has been very deliberately defined in federal law and practice to include any real property with the "presence or potential presence" of contamination, or with "actual or perceived" contamination -- focusing on the stigma of contamination and the fear of liability that discourage the purchase and re-use of these properties.

The focus on "polluted industrial sites" is unhelpful in two ways.

First, focusing on the presumed pollution feeds the stigma that has inhibited their beneficial re-use. In reality, most polluted industrial sites are excluded from the "brownfield" definition.

Second, it conveys the counter-productive impression that brownfields are primarily an environmental issue rather than a real estate or economic development issue.

Successful brownfield revitalization programs have taken root only where it has been recognized that the cleanup and redevelopment of sites depends on the voluntary efforts of innocent business people who did nothing to cause the contamination that might be present.

In such cases, the conventional enforcement and remediation tools of federal and state "Superfund" programs are worse than useless. Cleanup volunteers will come forward only if they are convinced that a brownfield site is a good real estate investment with a potential return that exceeds the likely costs of environmental cleanup.

Policies that encourage volunteers will yield both environmental and economic benefits. Policies that are punitive and restrictive will inhibit volunteers and yield no benefits.

New York's brownfields program, established administratively in 1994, is an anachronism that needs to change with the times and follow the lead of nearly every other state and the federal government. We need legislation to set the framework for a meaningful voluntary cleanup program and scrap the archaic "command and control" mindset that seeks to treat brownfield sites the same as Superfund and oil spill sites.

There are some hopeful signs in Albany, where the senate has already passed a brownfields bill.

Kenneth S. Kamlet of Vestal is an environmental and land use attorney and director of legal affairs for Newman Development Group, LLC.

© 2003 Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin