Imagine 100 acres of crumbling asphalt, vacant factories and ground tinged with chemicals.  If you live in Broome County, it’s a wasteland in your hometown, and nobody can seem to do much about it.

  Year after year, vacant and polluted industrial sites, known as brownfields, molder in the county’s urban core.  There is no formal list that comprehensively itemizes the properties, but an informal tally in Broome County quickly exceeds 100 acres in dozens of locations.

  Thousands of such sites around the state have been vacant for decades because no one knows what kind of pollution—and how much of it—was dumped into the ground, or how much it could cost to clean them up.

  In Broome County, sites range fro the 27-acre span of industrial ruins in Johnson City that represent the rise and fall of the Endicott Johnson shoe empire to an abandoned dry cleaner tucked among single-family homes and apartments on Walnut Street in Binghamton.

  “For me, it’s very frustrating to watch, to see the promise they have and nothing happening,” said Robert Murphy, former corporation counsel for the City of Binghamton and a Binghamton

lawyer who specializes in brownfield development.

  For decades, environmentalists and industrialists have been citing the promise of Brownfields.  They talk about how these urban sites can be cleaned and redeveloped.  They cite tax incentives and cheap utilities.  They point to advantages that include ready water, sewer and other utilities suited for manufacturing.  They are in urban areas with plentiful labor and thoroughfares and bus routes that transport materials and personnel quickly and efficiently.

  If successfully developed,

Brownfields discourage suburban sprawl and prevent urban decay.

  If.

  But the word “failure” comes up repeatedly during conversations with Murphy and other economic develop-pers and environmentalists

describing the reality of the brownfield program on a statewide basis.

  In Broome County, for example, sites such as Anitec in the city’s First Ward, and Endicott Johnson’s ruins in Johnson City remain

WHERE ARE SOME OF THE AREA’S BROWNFIELDS?

  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, brownfields are abandoned, idled or under-used industrial facilities where development is complicated by real or perceived environmental problems.

  Examples of local brownfields:

·        93 Main St., Binghamton.  At this one-acre site of a former pesticide maker, buildings have been demolished but cleanup has not begun

·        Union Forging, North Street, Endicott.  At this seven-acre site of a former forgery, buildings have been demolished.  It’s up for sale.

·        Anitec, First Ward, Binghamton.  Buildings are slated for demolition at this 33-acre site of a former film manufacturer.

·        Endicott Johnson Paracord Factory, Johnson City.  Scientists are testing the pollution at this 27-acre site of a former shoe factory.

problem”—if the price tag is reasonable, said Murphy, who is also part of the brownfield subcommittee working with the environmental management council.

  “They will go for a $200,000

cleanup plan to make the site safe and workable, but they are not going to go for a $1.2 million plan to make it pristine when they are going to cover it with a factory anyway,” he said.

  By demanding more, environmentalists are essentially defeating their own cause by chasing developers to greenfield sites, Murphy said.

  “A lot of the environmental cry is for smart growth,” he added.  “I agree with smart growth—you want to build where the infrastructure is.  But environmentalists are encouraging bad growth.”

Divisive issue

  Some environmentalists are starting to recognize brownfield redevelopment is failing because developers are discouraged by unworkable environmental restrictions, said Washington, of Environmental Advocates.

  The situation has prompted the advocacy group to shift its position, said Washington, who is supporting proposed legislation that would make it easier for developers to open up businesses on Brownfields.

  The proposed legislation does not ease environmental standards, she said.  But it would help developers by allowing them to assess risks associated with the site up front, rather than wading through a quagmire of regulations and contingencies.  These agreements with the state help sites qualify for state support, but they could also open up the doors to unforeseen risks later.

  Although Environmental Advocates is supporting the proposal, many of its constituents are angry about it, Washington said.

  “Once you ask, ‘What does a developer need to clean up a site?’ you are not an environmentalist anymore.  You are sleeping with the enemy,” she said.

undeveloped while the county makes plans to extend water and sewer lines to the Binghamton Regional Airport.  Environmentalists are opposed to developing the airport corridor because it would sacrifice unpolluted countryside, trees and fields for industrial development.

  “It’s a dilemma we have as environmentalists,” said Val

Washington, director of Environmental Advocates, a

environmental group in Albany.  “These sites really have to be cleaned up, and it’s not happening.  They feed urban blight.  They feed suburban sprawl.’

  Washington, Murphy and others said there are two central reasons brownfields aren’t being cleaned up.

  First, developers say the state programs that govern cleaning and redeveloping brownfields offer too little incentive and too much red tap to encourage developers to assume the responsibility.

  Second, it is easier to build on undeveloped and unpolluted sites in the country, known as greenfields, than tackle the costly environmental challenges of Brownfields.

Urban Blight

  Stan Lombard lives about a block away from the former

Endicott Johnson ruins, which are next to a park and the storied Fountain Pavilion, a landmark emblematic of the industrial golden age that brought prosperity to generations of residents.

  Like most citizens, he is not an expert on brownfields.

   But he doesn’t have to be an expert to know the industrial ruins mar the community.

  “They’re lousy,” he said. 

“They are a blight.”

  Like other community members, Lombard has seen the industrial legacy that once provided sustenance become a threat to public health and economic vitality.

  But he said he is convinced that developers will see the

value of the land, directly off an exit of Route 17, which is soon to become Interstate 86.

  Someday, he said, the land will be restored.

  “It will happen,” he said.  “It would be an improvement to the area.  It will create jobs and be a boon to the tax rolls.”

Setting an example

  Whether Broome County, with its share of dilapidated industrial sites in the triple cities areas, will be able to become a role model for other areas may rest with an initiative county officials are launching through the Broome County Environmental Management Council, a citizens environmental advisory board.

  The brownfield issue brings together an unlikely coalition of allies on the council—corporate lawyers and economic developers, taking seats next to grass-roots environmentalists.  Industrialists and environmental advocates have traditionally gotten along as well as the gingham dog and calico cat of storybook lore.

  They agree something must be done.  But they can’t seem to reconcile their methods or priorities.  For industrialists, it has to be affordable and, ultimately, profitable.  Profit is the least concern for environmentalists.  They want the sites cleaned to the most stringent possible specifications regardless of cost.

Opposing views

  With the intention of tackling the brownfield issue in Broome County, County Executive Geoffrey Kraham appointed a lawyer who works for one of the most active developers in the region to the Broome County Environmental Management Council.  His name is Kenneth Kamlet, and he is a lawyer for the Newman family, developers of the Town Square Mall and Parkway Plaza in Vestal, and many other retail sites in the county.

  “This group of people we have assembled… is the most knowledgeable group on brownfields that have been

 assembled in Broome County,” Kamlet said.  “We have to look at what’s out there, and what’s feasible….  Everybody is optimistic and enthusiastic that we are going to accomplish some good things.”

  The committee is still working out its initiatives.  So far they include a proposal to list the most important brownfield sites in the county and figure out how to revive them.

  But it is unclear how a blue-ribbon panel of economic development experts will meld with a citizens advisory group that has traditionally dealt with issues such as bike routes and riverbank cleanups.

  Kraham said he appointed Kamlet, who once served as director of pollution and toxic substances for the National Wildlife Federation, because he was impressed after seeing his work with the county on various development projects for Newman.

  “He is someone working in the field every day, who maybe can offer a different perspective” to the environmental council, Kraham said.  “With economic development, there’s going to be a real push to develop brownfield sites.”

  Stacy Merola, director of the Environmental Management Council, said the citizens group is eager to help address environmental concerns.  But Brownfields as an economic development initiative may be outside the scope of the council.

  “We can assist in data collection and hard data,” Merola said.  “But if it’s leaning toward economic development, then it might be best housed there.”

Red-tape barriers

  Environmentalists and economic developers interviewed for this article said state programs to encourage brownfield development have been largely ineffective.  It is simply easier for developers to head for greener territory than deal with the state’s complex environmental rules governing Brownfields.

  “A lot of businesses are wiling to come in and deal with an environmental