Exhibit 1-1 Overview of Framework

Exhibit 3-1 Policy Document

Exhibit 3-2 Proposed Site Selection Criteria Brownfields Working Group - Louisville Empowerment Zone

Exhibit 3-3 Empowerment Zone Brownfields

Exhibit 3-4 City of Trenton Exhibit

3-5 Factors to Consider in Screening Brownfield Sites for Redevelopment

Exhibit 3-6 Map of Portland

Exhibit 3-7 Components of Successful Market-Driven Redevelopment

Exhibit 3-8 Types of Public Assistance Mechanisms for Successful Brownfield Site Redevelopment

Exhibit 4-1 Framework for Successful Brownfield Redevelopment

Exhibit 4-2: III. Screening Criteria for Identifying Sites that Are Highly Marketable

Exhibit 4-3: IV. Screening Criteria for Identifying Sites that Are Likely to Provide Substantial Community Benefits

Exhibit 4-4: V. Factors to Consider in Evaluating Potential Impacts of Redevelopment Alternatives

Back to Top

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Urban and Economic Development Division within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation is interested in understanding the roles that economic, environmental and social factors play in sustainable economic development of urban areas. Specifically, EPA is examining these factors with an eye toward setting priorities and developing strategies for successful redevelopment of potentially contaminated urban industrial sites ("brownfield sites"). The purpose of this study is to develop a general framework and criteria for identifying brownfield sites that are economically feasible to redevelop and provide economic, environmental and social benefits to urban communities. Using a case study approach, which examines brownfield redevelopment in three of EPA's Brownfields Pilot Grant cities, we develop a framework for evaluating sites on the basis of marketability and the ability to provide community benefits. This framework can be used by cities, state and federal governments, community groups, and other stakeholders for establishing priorities and developing strategies to enable and accelerate brownfield site redevelopment.

BACKGROUND ON BROWNFIELDS AND URBAN ISSUES

Brownfields and Urban Economic Decline

Metropolitan areas of the United States have been experiencing economic decline for some time. Both shifts in economic activity from urban areas to suburban locations, and inter-regional migration from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West have contributed to this decline. These demographic shifts, along with the overall trend away from heavy industry and other types of manufacturing, have left many old industrial areas idle, underutilized or completely abandoned (brownfield sites). Increases in crime and welfare dependence are also apparent in many of these areas. In an effort to remedy some of the problems associated with economic decline of cities, federal, state and local governments are examining policies affecting urban areas. As a part of these comprehensive efforts, they are examining barriers to and incentives for redevelopment of brownfield sites and developing strategies to address these impediments. Information on the costs and benefits of redeveloping brownfield sites is needed to set priorities and develop effective strategies that will ensure the success of brownfield redevelopment projects.

Back to Top

Role of Environmental Regulations in Impeding Brownfields Redevelopment

Hazardous waste regulations, both federal (CERCLA) and state, present barriers to economic redevelopment, particularly in older metropolitan centers, because of the financial uncertainties that developers and other associated parties (e.g., lenders) face due to potential Superfund liability.

It is difficult to determine the extent to which CERCLA, by itself, impedes development of brownfield sites. Other factors associated with urban economic decline are also likely to hinder brownfield development. Previous studies suggest that while liability concerns associated with CERCLA may impede development, they are unlikely to be the major cause of distressed real estate markets in old industrial areas. Other factors, such as proximity to skilled labor and major transportation routes, crime rates, and local tax structure, are likely to concern developers to an even greater extent. The factors that motivate land development are complex, and the contribution of each of these factors to the brownfield development problem is unknown and likely to vary from one property to another.

Brownfields and Urban Revitalization

Brownfields are viewed by many as opportunities for revitalizing urban communities. Redevelopment of brownfield sites may reduce health risks, create jobs, provide services, increase local tax revenues, and improve the overall livability of urban neighborhoods. Brownfield site redevelopment will likely affect communities in different ways, depending on the nature of the land use (e.g., industrial, commercial, residential) and the needs of the community. Left undeveloped, however, brownfield areas remain unproductive, generate little or no economic benefits, and are environmentally and socially detrimental to the surrounding communities.

As explained below, one purpose of this project is to better understand the types of economic, environmental and social benefits that may result from brownfield site redevelopment and the types of sites, neighborhoods and land end-uses that provide the greatest benefits.

Back to Top

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

The purpose of this project is to develop a general framework and criteria for identifying brownfield site redevelopment opportunities and developing strategies for successful brownfield redevelopment. As shown in Exhibit 1-1, the framework is intended to integrate economic, environmental and social factors, thus guiding brownfield redevelopment strategies in a way that achieves the multiple objectives of:

• Generating investment in urban areas which ultimately provides increased tax revenues and jobs,

• Reducing human health and environmental risk, and

• Benefiting low income and minority populations by revitalizing their neighborhoods.

Back to Top

Applying the framework will identify urban properties that have the most redevelopment potential and the greatest economic, environmental and social benefits. It will also identify the costs and benefits of brownfields redevelopment, as well as impediments to successful redevelopment from both the community and developer perspectives. In doing so, the general framework and criteria can be used as a tool to set priorities for redevelopment projects, target economic development incentives and programs, and develop strategies for brownfield site redevelopment.

The research conducted to develop the framework and criteria consisted of extensive literature review and interviews in three case study cities that have received EPA Brownfields Pilot Grants -- Louisville, Kentucky; Trenton, New Jersey; and Portland, Oregon. These cities have been subject to suburban sprawl and the concurrent disinvestment in the inner city areas. These cities recognize that they face stiff competition for economic and community development resources from greenfield sites. To attract investment to these cities, the assets and advantages of their urban sites need to be identified and evaluated. The framework and criteria developed from the case studies provides a tool for achieving this objective.

While the case studies focus on identifying site, neighborhood and land end-use characteristics that describe the types of properties with significant redevelopment potential and community benefits, they also provide information on the general processes that cities are using in their brownfield redevelopment initiatives, and their needs for tools that can aid strategic planning efforts. To some extent, we have considered this additional information in development of the framework.

Back to Top

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The general findings from the case studies and their implications for developing a framework for successful brownfield redevelopment are summarized below. Chapter 3 provides more detailed findings for each of the three case study cities.

• Many economic, environmental and social factors enter into targeting brownfield redevelopment efforts. While the relative importance of different factors varies somewhat for different stakeholders and different cities, the set of factors considered is very similar for all of the case study cities. We have incorporated these factors in criteria that accompany the general framework for successful brownfield redevelopment (Chapter 4).

• None of the cities studied employ a systematic approach for considering the various factors in setting redevelopment priorities. Because of the different values and objectives of different participants in the process (e.g., economic development agencies, community development organizations, developers), priority setting is a necessarily subjective process, and any systematic approach must be flexible enough to accommodate this subjectivity.

• All case study cities go through the following general steps in identifying and evaluating brownfield redevelopment opportunities
  
  -- Focus efforts in geographic areas with large concentrations of brownfield sites and redevelopment potential,
  
  -- Identify brownfield sites in targeted geographic areas, and
  
  -- Evaluate redevelopment potential based on a wide range of factors related to the marketability of sites and the potential redevelopment benefits for communities (economic, environmental and social benefits).

• There is a need for a more deliberate consideration of the wide range of factors involved in setting priorities and developing brownfield redevelopment strategies. A well defined approach can:
  
  -- Focus brownfield redevelopment efforts, thus improving efficiency,
  
  -- Ensure that all perspectives are understood and addressed, thus aiding the stakeholder involvement process, and
  
  -- Provide information necessary to the development of strategies for different types of sites (i.e., strategies that address roles of different participants, coordination of community involvement, and identification of funding sources).

Back to Top

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report presents findings from brownfield efforts in three case study cities and describes a framework that can be used by other cities to develop strategies for successful brownfield redevelopment that provides economic, environmental and social benefits to communities. Chapter 2 describes the approach we used to conduct interviews, collect other relevant information, and assimilate the information in development of the framework. Next, in Chapter 3, we summarize the findings from the case studies and their implications for developing a framework for successful brownfield site redevelopment. Finally, in Chapter 4, we present a general framework and criteria that can be used to identify brownfield sites that can be successfully redeveloped, and to provide information needed to develop strategies for their redevelopment. Appendix A contains a set of interview guides used in collecting information from a variety of stakeholders in the case study cities. Detailed summaries of each interview are provided in Appendices B, C, and D, for Louisville, Trenton, and Portland, respectively.

Back to Top

CHAPTER 2

APPROACH

In this chapter, we describe the approach used to gather information and conduct the case studies, as well as how we used the results to develop the framework. First, we present a brief summary of the initial literature review. Second, we explain how the three case study cities were selected and briefly describe brownfield efforts in each of these cities. Third, we describe how we gathered information for each of the case study cities through a series of interviews. Lastly, we explain how we processed the information from the case study cities and developed the framework for targeting successful brownfield redevelopment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

IEc conducted an initial literature review to obtain information related to developing criteria for brownfield sites with high redevelopment potential and community benefits. Overall, the findings from this review describe general impediments and concerns to communities and developers regarding brownfield site redevelopment, rather than providing site-specific criteria. Many articles address CERCLA and other environmental liabilities as key impediments to brownfields redevelopment. The liability issues garnering most attention concern obtaining releases from third-party and state liability. Impediments that are relevant to all urban development, regardless of contamination, include property characteristics such as infrastructure, labor force and tract sizes. Much less has been written about brownfields redevelopment as it relates to improving urban communities. The literature and other people contacted mentioned three basic community concerns: human health risk reduction, property value increases, and provision of services and open spaces. As we show in Chapter 3, brownfields redevelopment may provide a much broader spectrum of benefits.

Back to Top

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CASE STUDY CITIES

In selecting case study cities, our objective was to identify cities that have been at the forefront of brownfields redevelopment as part of an urban revitalization strategy and are integrating economic and environmental goals in long term, sustainable strategies. Cities that are involving multiple stakeholders in developing strategies for brownfields redevelopment are likely to employ this type of integrated approach to brownfields redevelopment. In addition, cities that involve a variety of stakeholders would be able to provide us with a more comprehensive information base for which to develop the framework.

To meet this objective, case study cities were selected on the basis of the five criteria listed below.

• The city is an EPA Brownfields Pilot Grant recipient.

• The city had done previous work on brownfields redevelopment.

• The city had demonstrated forethought on the integration of environmental and economic development goals.

• The city is taking a comprehensive approach to brownfields redevelopment that involves consideration of economic, environmental and social factors.

• The city has a working relationship with multiple stakeholders that are organized in a group that is working to frame the various aspects of brownfield redevelopment.

OPPE worked with the EPA Brownfields Team in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency response and EPA Regional Offices in making the final selection. Discussions with the Institute for Responsible Management also helped to identify the EPA Brownfields Pilot cities that best met the criteria above.

Back to Top

Cities Selected

On the basis of the process and criteria described above, the following three case study cities were selected: Louisville, Kentucky; Trenton, New Jersey; and Portland, Oregon. The history and characteristics of each city is very different and provides a well-balanced picture of brownfield redevelopment issues across the nation. The nature of the brownfield redevelopment efforts also varies remarkably across the cities. A brief summary of each of the cities and the focus of their brownfield redevelopment efforts is provided below.

• Louisville, Kentucky
  Louisville, a city of 270,000 people, is focusing its brownfield redevelopment efforts on its federally-designated Enterprise Community, where nearly one quarter of the land is vacant or severely underutilized and where almost 50 percent of the residents live in poverty. The main objectives of Louisville's brownfields redevelopment efforts are job creation and increased tax revenues through public-private partnerships in industrial and commercial development.

• Trenton, New Jersey
  Trenton, a city of 89,000 people located in central New Jersey along the Delaware River, was a thriving manufacturing and industrial center in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Since that time, the city has experienced decades of economic and social decline. Recently, community development organizations have become more active in developing affordable housing and community gardens. Overall, Trenton's brownfield redevelopment efforts focus on sustainable community development that actively involves residents in site selection and land-use planning.

• Portland, Oregon
  Portland, a city of approximately 800,000 people, is experiencing tremendous economic growth while maintaining a healthy environment. Since the 1980s, however, much of the job and population growth has been in suburban locations. The main objectives of Portland's brownfield redevelopment efforts are to protect greenfields in the outlying areas from development and to revitalize some of the neighborhoods in Portland where unemployment and poverty are most prevalent (Portland's Enterprise Community and Zone).

Back to Top

INFORMATION COLLECTION AT CASE STUDY CITIES

Information collection at the case study cities involved three basic components: (1) preliminary city-specific data gathering, (2) in-person interviews with a variety of stakeholders, and (3) review of literature on city efforts provided by interviewees and other follow-up activities.

1) Preliminary Data Gathering

Initial research for each case study city involved collecting and reviewing relevant background documents such as local newspaper articles, state environmental regulations, and the city's EPA Brownfields Pilot Grant Application. In addition, we conducted a conference call with the lead person involved with each city's Brownfield Pilot Project. This preliminary data gathering provided information that was useful for identifying appropriate participants to interview, focusing discussions during the in-person interviews, and identifying city- or state-specific issues that affect brownfield
redevelopment within each city.


2) Approach for Conducting In-Person Interviews

We conducted detailed in-person interviews with a variety of people involved in brownfield redevelopment in the three case study cities. To ensure consistency in the issues addressed in the interviews, we sent interview guides to the participants before the scheduled interviews. The guides provide a brief description of the project and a list of questions we planned to ask during the interviews. Copies of these interview guides are included in Appendix A. In each city, interviews were conducted with representatives from each of the following groups. The questions were tailored to these groups to elicit information from their areas of expertise.

Back to Top

• Developers -- community development corporations, private developers;

• Investors-- bankers, prospective purchasers;

• Local Government Agencies -- urban development agencies, environmental, health or transportation departments;

• State Agencies -- environmental and economic development offices; and

• Community Agencies -- environmental justice advocates, environmental groups, economic development groups.

At most of the interviews, at least two interviewers were present -- one to conduct the interview and one to record the findings and write a brief summary of the interview. We did not electronically record the interviews.

3) Additional Literature Review and Follow-up

Several of the interviewees also provided or suggested other relevant materials that we reviewed after the case study visits. In addition, we conducted follow-up phone calls with some interviewees for clarification of certain details and other important information. Some of the interviewees also provided us with names of additional contact people who we followed-up with, if the contact was likely to provide us with relevant information. After reviewing the additional information, we prepared written summaries of each interview and submitted copies of these summaries to the interviewees for their review. Where necessary, we revised the interview summaries to incorporate interviewees' comments.

Back to Top

ASSIMILATION OF INFORMATION

We summarized the information from each of the case study cities by first writing summaries of each interview, and then writing an overall case study summary. The case study summaries synthesize the information obtained from interviews and written materials and discuss the implications of the findings for shaping a framework for setting brownfield redevelopment priorities. Summaries of each case study and their implications for developing the framework were submitted to the primary contact at each case study city for their review. Their comments are incorporated in the case study summaries presented in Chapter 3.

We developed the framework presented in Chapter 4 by synthesizing the information from the interviews, city-specific documents, and other brownfields literature. While the framework and criteria are primarily based on information from the case studies, they represent a combination of observation, information from the literature, and our ideas about what would be a useful process for focusing brownfield redevelopment efforts.

Back to Top

CHAPTER 3

CASE STUDIES

In this chapter, we summarize the results from the interviews conducted in the three case study cities -- Louisville, Kentucky; Trenton, New Jersey; and Portland, Oregon -- and explain the implications of these results for developing a framework for successful brownfield redevelopment. For each case study city, we first present background information on the brownfield redevelopment initiatives in the city and then present our findings. The findings are grouped into three main sections corresponding to the organization of the interview questions: (1) impediments to redevelopment, (2) community benefits of brownfields redevelopment, and (3) site selection. Finally, we discuss the implications of the case study results for setting redevelopment priorities.

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

Background on Louisville's Brownfield Program

Louisville's Brownfields Program evolved from the Environmental Practitioners Group that was involved with environmental issues, including brownfields, for the Empowerment Zone (EZ) in Louisville. (1) This group re-formed in September 1994 to pursue EZ environmental strategies, and later, to apply for EPA assistance to develop a Brownfield Demonstration Pilot. In March 1995, Louisville submitted its Brownfield Pilot proposal which expressed its objective to "bring about environmental cleanups which will not occur otherwise and to catalyze a measurable increase in the rate and volume of older industrial land recycled to productive use through public and private investment." Louisville was awarded an EPA brownfield pilot project grant in July 1995.

By September 1995, the Brownfields Working Group was formed with members from the EZ Environmental Practitioners Group and other stakeholders, including developers, bankers, community residents, environmentalists, and city and county government officials. Other members included those that could offer technical support. Identifying individuals who would serve on the Brownfields Working Group was a multi-stage process. As needs arose, more members were invited to join the group. For example, as the Working Group began planning for pilot redevelopment projects, the members realized that they needed people with practical experience. To meet this need, they invited an environmental attorney who represents private businesses and two developers to join the Working Group. Recently, two additional members were added to the Working Group; these individuals are from Louisville's Housing and Urban Development Department, which contains the Land Bank Authority, a non-profit entity comprised of all local taxing districts -- state, county, city and school-board. The Land Bank Authority acquires, through mass foreclosure, abandoned and derelict property on which taxes are owed, clears the title, and then provides the land to developers at fair market value.

Back to Top

Several interviewees emphasized that the partnership formed between groups with similar objectives but different perspectives is essential to achieving economic and environmental goals. The Working Group has worked through several issues and has established a common set of objectives. These objectives are shown in Exhibit 3-1.

The Working Group uses a subcommittee structure to accomplish various tasks. To date, eight subcommittees have been formed; they are:

• "Big Picture" (2)

• Community Outreach and Public Education

• GIS/LOJIC Database

• Site Management and Selection

• Grant Administration

• Legislative

• Project Administration

Back to Top

Louisville Case Study Findings
This section presents the findings of the Louisville case study research and interviews. The findings related to the three main topics discussed -- impediments to redevelopment, community benefits, and site selection and preparation -- are summarized below.

Impediments to Redevelopment

To develop effective policies that address brownfields redevelopment, the Working Group must continually address a fundamental question: What factors currently impede redevelopment of brownfield sites? Not surprisingly, these factors include both environmental and non-environmental issues that impede development of brownfield sites in Louisville. The extent to which environmental contamination inhibits the sale and redevelopment of brownfields is difficult to gauge because development decisions are extremely site-specific. For one site that is strategically located, environmental contamination may be the key factor impeding development. For another site, however, non-environmental issues such as
zoning or locational factors may be the primary deterrents.

Environmental Issues

The environmental impediments mentioned most frequently by the interviewees were uncertain cleanup standards and costs, and liability-related concerns. The complex and lengthy assessment process was also identified as a major obstacle in property sales and development planning. While the initial (Phase I) environmental assessment does not generally pose a significant barrier for large or medium size companies, the cost of a Phase I assessment (approximately $2,500) can be significant for small businesses. Small businesses are also hurt more by the lending community's practices associated with brownfield sites. While banks are becoming more sophisticated in this area of lending, the key element in most lenders' policies is that they will not lend money for contaminated property. Thus, only those individuals who can afford cleanup costs and liability exposure are able to consider developing brownfield sites.

In addition to environmental issues related to on-site contamination, air quality regulations also affect development in Louisville. Because Jefferson County is an ozone non-attainment area and has limited credits for VOC emissions, industries with VOC emissions cannot easily locate in this area.

Back to Top

Non-Environmental Factors

Interviewees also commented on several non-environmental factors that impede development of brownfield sites in Louisville. Some of the most frequently mentioned issues were inappropriate zoning, small land tract size, and outdated facilities. Interviewees explained that outdated buildings with multistory configurations impede development because manufacturers prefer large single story buildings with high ceilings. In addition, if development requires demolition of an existing structure, this translates into higher development costs. While zoning can be changed and assembling land tracts of sufficient size is possible, these undertakings require time, which translates into higher costs from a developer's perspective. Along with these issues, urban industrial areas may be perceived as high crime and vandalism areas; they may offer less desirable working conditions, forcing employers to compensate accordingly; and they may pose risks to business owners (risks that are not present in other areas such as "greenfields"). Interestingly, availability of labor is not a problem in Louisville, although training and other support for the unemployed or underemployed may be needed.

One interviewee noted that the movement of residential and commercial activities from urban to suburban areas began long before environmental regulations began to restrict redevelopment of brownfield sites. As people and businesses moved out to undeveloped "greenfield" areas, the city and county provided these areas with utilities and roads. Thus, the "flight from the cities" occurred, in part, because there was no disincentive to moving out to the greenfields.(3) While incentives currently exist for companies wanting to locate in the older industrial areas of Louisville through the State Enterprise Zone program(4), these incentives generally are not substantial enough, and greenfields remain more desirable than brownfields.

Community Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment

If the impediments to redevelopment can be reduced, then realizing social, economic, and human health benefits is possible. Interviewees described several benefits that will accrue to the immediate community and outlying areas as brownfields are cleaned up and returned to productive use.

Job creation was the benefit of brownfields redevelopment that was most frequently reported by Louisville interviewees. Quite a few interviewees also explained that job creation will benefit the community only if the jobs are provided specifically to EZ residents, and that this may require job training programs targeted at community residents. Neighborhood-based businesses would also shorten commuting times for EZ residents, making it easier for residents to hold down jobs and also lessening the child care burden. Reversal of neighborhood deterioration was the second most frequently mentioned neighborhood benefit. Improvements in the area, including reduced crime, surface cleanups, and increased property values, are potential benefits of brownfields redevelopment. Increased local tax revenues are another potential benefit to communities, because they allow for better schools, roads, and libraries to be constructed. However, one of the interviewees pointed out that tax revenues may be most beneficial for the community if they are specifically earmarked for such purposes. (5)

Interestingly, only a couple of the interviewees mentioned improved environmental quality and the associated reduction in health risks and environmental justice as major benefits of brownfields redevelopment. Perhaps this issue was not emphasized because it is such an obvious benefit. On the other hand, residents may be more concerned with other more visible and immediate concerns such as crime, heavy traffic and noise, than with the longer-term health effects of environmental contamination. In addition, several respondents indicated that the types of sites they are targeting for brownfield redevelopment in Louisville are not highly contaminated and therefore do not pose high health risks that would be significantly reduced if the sites were cleaned up. This approach of targeting sites that are only mildly contaminated is likely to yield more social and economic benefits than environmental benefits. As several interviewees noted, however, it is important to consider the land end use when determining net environmental benefits.

Back to Top

Back to Top

In Louisville, redevelopment of brownfield sites also has the potential to provide regional environmental benefits. By providing city residents with jobs in their neighborhoods, mobile source emissions (ozone) would be reduced from decreased vehicle use for commuting to work. In addition, development of greenfield sites would be lessened, improving the aesthetics and quality of life in these outlying areas.

Site Selection and Preparation

While there are many economic, social, and environmental benefits to be gained from brownfields redevelopment, the process of targeting and preparing sites for redevelopment is not a straightforward task. Balancing the concerns of developers and the community, along with addressing information needs is the challenge that the Louisville Brownfields Working Group faces. As an initial step in this balancing process, the Working Group developed a set of criteria for selecting pilot brownfield development sites. These criteria, ranked in order of importance, are presented in Exhibit 3-2 above and are based on the Empowerment Zone strategy. The first criterion is that pilot sites have a probable end user. To date, the Louisville Brownfields Working Group has identified two pilot sites. Both were identified through the Office of Economic Development and its connections with local businesses. In each case, the office was approached by end users interested in expanding their businesses to an adjacent brownfield property. One brownfields pilot project is a property on Garfield Avenue in the Portland neighborhood where a metal-plating business was once located. The city of Louisville acquired the property through a public auction in May 1995. Adjacent to this site is Clemco Fabricators Inc., a business that makes steel bins, silos, hoppers and other equipment. Clemco wants to expand its business onto the old metal-plating site next door. The city has a commitment from the business to try to hire neighborhood residents to fill the new jobs created when the expansion is completed. Another brownfield pilot site is a privately owned industrial property. Similar to the Garfield Avenue project, the business next door wanted to redevelop the brownfield site.

Back to Top

As indicated by the second criterion, Louisville's brownfield pilot projects are limited to sites located within the city's Empowerment Zone. A map of Louisville's Brownfields is provided in Exhibit 3-3. Primarily in western Louisville, the Empowerment Zone covers 5,401 acres of land and is home to 49,080 residents. At least twenty-five percent of the land is vacant or severely underutilized and almost 70 percent of Louisville's brownfields are located within the EZ. The EZ has the highest concentration of minority residents, with an African-American population of 74.6 percent. In addition, an average of 48 percent of EZ residents live at or below the federal poverty level. Focusing on brownfield site redevelopment in these areas can therefore further environmental justice and economic development goals.

As indicated by the third criteria, the primary goal of economic development is to create jobs for Louisville residents. The remaining criteria listed in Exhibit 3-2 relate to ensuring that environmental and regulatory obstacles are surmountable and the lessons learned from the pilot projects are applicable to future projects.

While the site selection approach used for the first two brownfield pilot projects were initiated by the developers, Louisville Brownfields Working Group members have proposed other, more proactive, approaches that could be employed for targeting additional brownfield pilot sites. One approach involves assembling marketable land into larger parcels with uniform and suitable zoning. These sites can be marketed to developers, possibly after a Phase I environmental site assessment is conducted. Another approach would involve targeting sites located in the most economically depressed areas with potential for substantial community benefits. Development projects for these areas would most likely be publicly-funded projects, such as housing, recreational space, or job training centers. Finally, an approach that might be useful for advancing the goals of the first two approaches, involves the use of the GIS/LOJIC system to identify characteristics of brownfield sites.

Back to Top

(print map for detail)

Back to Top

Implications for Setting Brownfield Redevelopment Priorities

Several interviewees indicated that it would be very useful to have a model or framework for targeting specific brownfield redevelopment sites and also explained that they wanted to develop an approach that is more proactive than the one they are currently using. In this section, we describe how the information from the Louisville interviews can be used and expanded upon to develop a general approach for setting brownfield redevelopment priorities in other cities, as well as key factors that are important to incorporate in this more explicit framework. Below we present a preliminary framework that could be used to screen sites based on the availability of end users, marketability of sites, and community benefits and costs.. It involves the following five steps.

1) Target areas of city where community benefits from brownfields redevelopment are likely to be the greatest based on socioeconomic factors (e.g., Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Communities).

2) Identify potential brownfield sites in those areas. While a GIS database is a useful tool for accomplishing this step, unavailable data are a potential obstacle. For example, data on site contamination and properties that are abandoned or underutilized may not be readily available.

3) Screen potential brownfield sites based on marketability and availability of suitable end users. Key factors that concern developers include:

-- Extent and level of contamination
-- Regulatory/legal barriers
-- Availability of financing
-- Zoning
-- Land tract size
-- Configuration of existing buildings

Back to Top

4) Evaluate potential community benefits and costs associated with redevelopment of screened sites. These benefits and costs depend on the site location, type and extent of contamination, and end land-use. (6)

-- Jobs
-- Tax revenues
-- Aesthetic improvements
-- Increased property values
-- Community services
-- Human health impacts (7)

5) Select sites or groups of sites that are attractive to developers, for which there are probable end users, and that achieve community, environmental and economic objectives.

Louisville's Brownfields Program has addressed step one of this framework, as they are limiting their pilot projects to those sites located in the Empowerment Zone. For step two, the Working Group is in the process of developing the GIS system and has done a preliminary screen to identify brownfield sites, however additional data are needed to better characterize the sites. Finally, for steps three through five, members of the Working Group generally consider these issues but indicated that they want to develop methods for systematically evaluating the marketability of sites and the social costs and benefits, in order to be more proactive in promoting brownfield redevelopment. The steps outlined above provide only a general framework; evaluation of community benefits and costs will depend on the values and goals of the specific community.

Back to Top

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY

Background on Trenton's Brownfield Redevelopment Efforts

Brownfield site redevelopment efforts in Trenton are multifaceted and began several years before the EPA Pilot Grant was issued to Trenton in 1995. In 1992, the city developed an inventory of industrial sites in the city's Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) to better understand the extent and nature of the contamination problem as it relates to industrial redevelopment of this area. Within the UEZ, approximately 40 percent of the land area, where 120 industrial facilities are located, can be classified as brownfield sites.

In 1993, the city of Trenton expanded its brownfield redevelopment efforts to areas of the city outside the UEZ. At the same time, under the direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and Isles, a non-profit community development organization based in Trenton, another brownfield effort was taking place. The purpose of this effort was to develop a strategy to involve surrounding neighborhoods in cleanup and future land-use plans for brownfield sites in Trenton, through a pilot site redevelopment effort. In a related effort, the city formed a discussion group in August 1994 with the help of NJDEP to create a demonstration eco-industrial park model. In July 1995, the city of Trenton was awarded an EPA Brownfield Demonstration Pilot Grant. The city plans to use this grant to build a community context for the city's site reclamation program and to develop a comprehensive strategy for site reuse. One aspect of the pilot project involves establishing an advisory board, known as the Brownfields Environmental Solutions for Trenton (BEST) Advisory Board, to guide the remediation and redevelopment process.

As part of the pilot effort, the city has selected four focus brownfield sites, for cleanup and redevelopment, one in each of the city's four wards. (See Exhibit 3-4.) These brownfield sites are described below.

Back to Top

• Magic Marker Site. This 7.5 acre site was used at various points in time for pottery, lead battery and felt tip pen manufacturing operations. The site is located in the middle of a residential community, abutted by a privately owned vacant lot on the west side, an elementary school across the street, and single family houses on the two other sides. Cleanup plans for this site are underway; potential uses include residential, open space and/or retail services.

• Champale Brewery Site. This site is a prime real estate property because it is located along the waterfront. Redevelopment of this site will likely be mixed-use, including restaurants and apartments. A marketing study will help evaluate potential redevelopment options and interested parties.

• Thropp Brothers Site. This two acre site has been used by various manufacturing businesses, including a tool and die facility and a machine manufacturer. The site is near the city's largest elementary school. Redevelopment plans for the site are community-based and may include a playground for the nearby school and residential development. The extent of the contamination and cost of cleanup are unknown.

• Crane Site. This property is a large land parcel (approximately nine acres) with no buildings, used at one time by the Crane porcelain company in the manufacture of toilets, sinks and bath tubs. It is bordered by a poor neighborhood and nearby school. The Crane site is located in Trenton's Route One Industrial Corridor and is the largest vacant industrial site available for redevelopment in the city.
  

Overall, the city's focus is to promote sustainable community development that actively involves residents in site selection and land-use planning. The types of brownfield redevelopment most likely to provide sustainable community improvement in Trenton are residential, parks and open-space uses, neighborhood services, and limited commercial and industrial uses.

Back to Top

(print map for detail)

Trenton Case Study Findings

This section presents the findings of the Trenton case study research and interviews. The findings related to the three main topics discussed -- impediments to redevelopment, community benefits, and site selection and preparation -- are summarized below.

Impediments To Redevelopment

Impediments to redevelopment of brownfield sites in Trenton can be grouped into four general categories: general trends affecting urban economies, economic factors, regulatory impediments, and social issues. Trenton interviewees explained that contamination is not the primary impediment to most brownfield redevelopment but that other economic and social issues are more problematic. Interestingly, the availability of financing, while once a major deterrent to redevelopment, is now a lesser problem. New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act limits lender liability. (8) In addition, bankers in New Jersey have gained experience and better understand contamination issues through working with NJDEP.

General Trends Affecting Urban Economies

Interviewees explained that one of the reasons brownfield sites are left vacant or underutilized in Trenton is due to overall urban economic decline. Urban economic decline is the result of many factors, including the overall shift away from manufacturing to the service sector, the movement of industries from the Northeast and the Midwest to the South and West, and the demographic shift in residential and economic communities from cities to the suburbs. In Trenton, the city's industrial base began to decline after World War II, as steel, porcelain, ceramics and rubber manufacturing companies closed their operations. More recently, as real estate development has shifted toward office parks, suburban properties are simply more attractive, due to the larger land parcels (for parking lots and campus-like settings) and pleasant surroundings (lawns and plantings). Along with these shifts in private activity, Trenton has also been affected by public sector downsizing, since it is the capital of New Jersey. These economic trends could be dealt with, in part, by identifying other businesses that may be suitable for siting in Trenton.

Back to Top

Economic Factors

Several interviewees explained that Trenton cannot attract industry to redevelop brownfield sites simply because it is not economical. Land costs (approximately $85,000 per acre) together with site evaluation and cleanup costs cannot compete with greenfield site costs. Many brownfield sites may also have such low value that regardless of contamination problems, developers still may not want to purchase these sites. In addition, the cost of doing business in Trenton is also higher than alternative locations because of:

-- Higher taxes, limited economic incentive packages and poor marketing campaigns compared to other states,

-- High utility costs in New Jersey,

-- Stringent worker compensation requirements,

-- Lack of qualified labor, and

-- Presence of organized labor (higher wage rates).

Regulatory Impediments

During the 1980s, while the real estate market was prospering in the suburban areas of New Jersey, property transactions in Trenton, like many other New Jersey cities, were at a standstill. This problem was due in part to New Jersey's 1983 Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA), which required environmental audits and cleanup prior to the sale of certain industrial properties. While ECRA was enacted to promote cleanup of contaminated sites, ECRA actually resulted in additional landbanking of brownfield sites because the law placed the burden of performing remedial activities on sellers.

To address this unintended impact of ECRA, New Jersey passed the Industrial Site Remediation Act (ISRA) in 1993. ISRA streamlines environmental assessments and cleanups, allows for risk-based cleanups, protects government entities that acquire property from cleanup liability under certain conditions, and provides loans and funding for site assessments and cleanup. (9) Several interviewees noted that ISRA has enabled more brownfield cleanup and redevelopment activities to occur in Trenton as cleanup costs and liability uncertainties have been reduced.

Back to Top

Social Issues

Social problems, such as crime, drug use, poor education and lack of skills, are also impediments to brownfields redevelopment in Trenton. These factors effectively increase the cost of doing business in Trenton, due to vandalism; the need for increased security, employee training and education; and increased drug use in the area. In addition, they pose problems in finding reliable and effective employees.

Other Impediments

One interviewee explained that lack of knowledge about, communication with, and understanding of, government institutions also impedes brownfield site redevelopment. These factors are important because as residents learn how the city government operates, they are more willing and able to get involved with brownfields efforts and identify solutions to the problems.

Community Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment

Brownfield site redevelopment in Trenton will likely yield social, environmental and economic benefits. Overall, interviewees emphasized that less tangible social benefits, are especially important in Trenton. These types of benefits include:

-- Higher level of citizen awareness and sensitivity about individual and community conditions,

-- Sense of control and empowerment from being part of the decision making process,

-- Reduced crime and restored safety and security,

-- Sense of hope, and

-- Sense of pride.

Interviewees acknowledge that brownfields redevelopment by itself will not necessarily provide the social benefits described above. Rather, the process as well as the redevelopment outcomes will provide these positive changes in the surrounding communities. As these changes occur, neighborhoods will be more likely to continue to recognize problems and develop solutions related to other community issues. For example, the Northwest Community Improvement Association (NCIA), which organized around the redevelopment of the Magic Marker site, has become a catalyst for working out other neighborhood issues (e.g., protesting against a liquor store/check cashing enterprise with questionable reputation wanting to locate in the community).

Back to Top

Environmental benefits of brownfields redevelopment are also likely, both in the immediate vicinity of redeveloped brownfield sites and in wider regional areas, as greenfield redevelopment is avoided. Human health risks to nearby residents will be reduced as a result of site remediation and redevelopment (e.g. exposures to airborne and soil contaminants). Interviewees also noted that reduction in greenfield site development reduces car emissions, protects water supplies from damage, reduces chance of flooding, and limits pollution from non-point sources.(10)

The economic benefits of brownfields redevelopment noted by Trenton interviewees include job creation, increased tax revenues, increased property values, and spin-off redevelopment activities. These benefits may result directly from the redevelopment project, or may be the outcome of the overall social and environmental improvements in the city. For example, as areas in Trenton are beautified, businesses may be more willing to locate in the city, which will result in job creation. In addition, interviewees believe that an improved environment can provide sustainable economic benefits because a cleaner environment will make New Jersey more attractive and will subsequently attract more tourists and other economic activity.

Site Selection

The city of Trenton targets two broad types of brownfield sites for redevelopment. The first type of brownfield site is property that significantly impacts the surrounding community due to the high visibility and/or close proximity of the site to residential neighborhoods, such as the Magic Marker Site. While this type of property may not be desirable from a developer's perspective, the large potential community benefits of cleanup and redevelopment activities at this type of site makes such efforts worthwhile for the city to pursue. The second type of brownfield site is property with high market value and thus attractive for private development. For example, the Champale Brewery site, located along the waterfront, is valuable for both industrial and commercial redevelopment projects. For this type of site, public involvement focuses on site acquisition and economic issues, such as job creation and financing considerations. City officials explained that the availability of funds for cleanup is also an important consideration, in selecting both types of sites.

Back to Top

Sites that Significantly Impact the Surrounding Neighborhood
For brownfield sites with low market value but large potential community benefits, neighborhood involvement is a critical component of redevelopment. As part of the site selection process, the potential for organized and constructive neighborhood involvement should be considered. Several interviewees suggested that community involvement is most effective when an active community group already exists in the local area, because creating such groups requires time for building relationships and establishing trust with city officials. In addition, interviewees explained that a community with a good work ethic and some stability is an important consideration in ensuring the success of this type of brownfield redevelopment effort. To a large extent, the strength of community involvement in the process can be built up, but existing community organizations that support brownfield redevelopment will accelerate the process. Information that is needed to evaluate the potential for strong community involvement include: the number and nature of civic, social, and religious groups in the community; identification of community leaders; and other ongoing development projects.

The potential land uses for these types of redevelopment projects (i.e., low market-value sites) include housing, open space (such as parks), and shopping or other community-based services. In such situations it is critical that residents be included in land use planning to ensure successful development. For the Magic Marker site, the community was invited to provide suggestions for land uses. Most of the adults wanted retail services while the area children wanted green-space. Through open dialog, the area residents and city officials came to a mutual understanding of the issues involved in determining end land uses. The interviewees believe that involving the community in such planning activities is preferable to a "top-down" planning approach.

Higher-Value Sites with Developer Interest

The second type of site the city targets is one with high market value and potential for private development. Both the existence of an end-user and the value of redevelopment to the community are important considerations. For example, job creation and provision of services, such as retail stores, are benefits to the community. A few interviewees explained that such sites may require public assistance for cleanup and redevelopment to attract developers, because the cost of purchase plus the cost of cleanup may exceed the cost of alternative sites. The city hopes to use proceeds from the sale of profitable sites to establish a revolving fund for cleanup of additional sites that require substantial public funding for cleanup and redevelopment.

Back to Top

New Jersey's Economic Development Authority (EDA) often gets involved in redevelopment activities for this type of high value site. The EDA is a self-supporting independent entity that serves as the state's development bank. EDA offers financial services (bond financing, loans, financing guarantees, equity investments) to encourage business development in New Jersey. While many of EDA's project financing decisions are not market driven and require public funds, all are evaluated on the basis of economic feasibility and their ability to make an adequate return on the investment. Factors that play a role in the feasibility analysis include project costs and projected revenues, permitting schedule, and the availability of other funds. EDA also considers the ability of projects to generate tax revenues and jobs, and the environmental impacts of projects.

Preparation for Community Involvement in Redevelopment Activities

Community involvement is an important component of all brownfield site redevelopment efforts in Trenton. To promote a community-based, participatory process in brownfield site selection, cleanup and redevelopment, relevant stakeholder groups and local community leaders are identified. Interviewees believe that involving community leaders is especially important because they can motivate the residents and gain their support. These leaders may notnecessarily be part of the local government; leaders in churches or other community groups should also be identified. By engaging community leaders in site selection and the initial stages of redevelopment, potential conflicts are identified and can be addressed early on. In addition to enlisting support of the local community leaders, it is also critical to get the mayor's buy-in. The mayor can link site selection decisions with the city's priorities, streamline many procedural requirements of cleanup and redevelopment, and influence other state and city organizations. In the site selection and redevelopment process, it is also important to identify the groups of individuals who may try to block brownfield redevelopment efforts and address their concerns, thus reducing the risk of future problems.

Back to Top

Other relevant stakeholders involved in Trenton's site selection, cleanup and redevelopment efforts include:

-- State agencies, including the Office of State Planning, Department of Transportation, Labor Department, and Banking and Economic Development Office;

-- Business representatives;

-- Educational institutions;

-- Residents and neighborhood associations; and

-- The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissioners. (11)

Implications for Setting Brownfield Redevelopment Priorities

In this section, we describe how the information from the Trenton interviews can be used and expanded upon to develop a general framework for setting brownfield redevelopment priorities; we also highlight key factors that are important to incorporate in the framework. While Trenton does not explicitly consider tradeoffs of alternative brownfield site redevelopment plans, selection decisions are based upon two primary concerns: (1) development potential and the potential for the sale of redeveloped properties to generate funds for additional brownfield site cleanup; and (2) ability of redeveloped sites to provide community benefits such as neighborhood revitalization, improved aesthetics and job creation.

City officials explain that they are trying to develop a more systematic approach for selecting brownfield sites for redevelopment. They also indicated that a list of site selection criteria would be useful for targeting sites that would provide significant benefits to the community. The five steps described below provide the framework for a more systematic approach.

1. Identify brownfield sites that are owned by the city or could be owned by the city through tax foreclosure or other means. To date, a comprehensive brownfield site inventory identifying such sites has not been completed in Trenton.

2. Screen brownfield sites on the basis of development potential and expected community benefits. Exhibit 3-5 identifies site characteristics that are important to consider in evaluating these two issues.

Back to Top

Exhibit 3-5 FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN SCREENING BROWNFIELD SITES FOR REDEVELOPMENT Development Potential Size of land tract. Presence of other development activities in surrounding area. Water frontage. Highway or railway access. Proximity to markets (both customers and suppliers). Labor availability (with suitable skills). Cost of cleanup. Geology. Potential for Significant Community Benefits Existence of community leaders who can motivate local residents. Residential population of the area (number and age distribution of nearby residents). Presence of schools or playgrounds near site. Extent and nature of contamination and health risk. Potential for secondary development activities. Potential for redevelopment activity to generate city taxes. Job creation potential. Opportunities for environmental education.

Back to Top

3. Identify sites that are either highly marketable or have high potential for community benefits and neighborhood revitalization. Proceeds from the sale of highly marketable sites could be used to cleanup less marketable, but highly beneficial brownfield sites in Trenton.

4. Evaluate economic feasibility of highly marketable sites by analyzing the potential for them to generate an adequate return on investment. Public expenditures for each cleanup need to be considered, as well as the expected sale price of the site, tax revenues generated from the redevelopment, and other financial considerations. As is the case with many older cities, many of the brownfield sites in Trenton will need to be financed with public funds because responsible parties have gone bankrupt or cannot be identified.

5. Evaluate relative costs and benefits of sites with high potential for community benefits. Costs include cleanup and redevelopment costs. Benefits include environmental, social and economic benefits. Different communities are likely to value each of these types of benefits in unique ways. For example, residents in one community may be primarily concerned with job creation, whereas residents in another area may consider aesthetic improvements most valuable. Community input and involvement therefore is required to properly evaluate various benefits of brownfield site redevelopment.

PORTLAND, OREGON

Background on Portland's Brownfield Redevelopment Efforts

The nature of the brownfields issue in Portland is very different than the older industrial "rust-belt" cities. While the "rust-belt" cities of the Northeast and Midwest are in economic decline, Portland has been experiencing tremendous economic growth. The purpose of encouraging brownfield site redevelopment in Portland is primarily to curb urban and suburban sprawl, rather than to promote urban economic development as is the case with cities in the Northeast and Midwest. From 1970 to 1993, employment in Portland has been growing at over one percent annually for manufacturing jobs and at about three percent annually for non-manufacturing industries; real income has been growing at an impressive rate of 3.3 percent per year. (12) The challenge for Portland, therefore, is not to encourage more economic growth but to manage this growth in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.

Back to Top

One tool that is already in place to manage growth and development is the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Every city in Oregon is required under State Law to have an UGB. The UGB separates land that is or can be urbanized from farming, timber and rural land. The purpose of the UGB is to protect rural lands from development. In the 1995 State Legislative session, however, a new law was passed which requires that enough land be available inside the UGB to meet the expected demand for developable land during the next 20 years. According to a representative at Metro, (13) "available land" includes brownfield sites. However, this definition is currently being revised and is under review. (14)

Another purpose of brownfield site redevelopment in Portland is to revitalize communities in the more distressed areas of the city. While economic conditions in the Portland metropolitan area overall are good, some areas in Portland are less fortunate. These areas are primarily in North and Northeast Portland where the Enterprise Community and Enterprise Zone (EC/EZ) are located. Over 45 percent of the city's total minority population live in the EC/EZ. The area has both high poverty and high unemployment rates. Eleven of the 15 census tracts in this area have a poverty rate of 35 percent or more. (15) Unemployment rates in this area have increased from 7.6 percent in 1970 to 10.0 percent in 1990. (16) This trend is due in part to the fact that more jobs are being created outside the Portland area than in the city itself; between 1980 and 1990, over two-thirds of the region's new jobs were created outside Multnomah Country, where Portland lies. (17) In addition, average wages in the North/Northeast area average 32 percent lower than the rest of the region. (18)

To achieve growth management and community revitalization objectives, city officials believe that brownfield site redevelopment must take place. Portland has over 500 confirmed contaminated brownfield sites (40 of which are 10 acres or more) and over 600 sites with a suspected or threatened release of hazardous substances. (19) In addition, since the mid-1980s, every major redevelopment project in Portland has needed to address some type of environmental contamination. The city has been involved in each of these major redevelopment projects; several are discussed below:

Back to Top

• Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. This museum was developed on the former site of an electric power station. Remediation involved PCB river sediment dredging, waterfront restoration and enhancement, submarine containment capping, and upland soil remediation.

• South Waterfront Redevelopment Area. This redevelopment is a mile-long riverfront park and marina, which also includes housing, restaurants, retail space and a hotel. Remediation of this former industrial area included relocation and containment of contaminated soils, construction over soil containment areas, and institutional controls.

• Oregon Arena Project. This stadium is the new home of the Portland Trail Blazers. The site was a former automotive service and fueling center. Remediation included soil removal and bioremediation.

• Westside Light Rail. This project involves construction of a 16-mile rail transit system that connects downtown Portland to other urban areas. Since the rail corridor passes through a variety of commercial and industrial areas, various cleanup measures were required, including soil removal and containment, in-situ treatment of soil, ground water extraction and treatment, and decommissioning underground storage tanks.

• North Marine Drive. This $25 million project includes construction of a highway that connects Interstate 5 and Portland's Rivergate District, the only heavy industrial zone in Portland. Located at the confluence of the Columbia and Willamette Rivers, this area is attractive for industries that are heavily rail and boat dependent, because there is easy access to an international shipping terminal, as well as a major rail station. Since the new roadway was completed, providing access to underutilized land, seven businesses have located to the area, including a clothing distributor that relocated from a suburban location.

Back to Top

The focus of Portland's current efforts under its EPA Brownfield Pilot Grant involve process-oriented projects, rather than concentrating on a few select sites to redevelop. As explained in Portland's Application for the EPA Brownfield Pilot Grant, three projects are currently being pursued in Portland under this grant. First, the city will bring stakeholders together in roundtable discussion groups to: (1) gather financial, social and other technical data to assist in selecting brownfield sites for redevelopment, (2) reduce fear in the investment and business communities, and (3) identify additional sources of funding. Second, the city will develop an on-line information system containing lists of available undeveloped and underutilized sites; information on cleanup and development processes; and neighborhood, regulatory and other stakeholder contacts. Third, the city will implement a community outreach program to raise awareness and promote brownfields redevelopment through schools, civic organizations, and other community groups. Since Portland was just recently awarded the EPA grant, these efforts are in beginning stages of development.


Portland Case Study Findings

This section presents the findings of the Portland case study research and interviews. The findings related to the three main topics discussed -- impediments to redevelopment, community benefits, and site selection and preparation -- are summarized below.

Impediments to Redevelopment

Interviewees noted several impediments to redevelopment of brownfield sites, which can be grouped into three broad categories: a) contamination related issues, b) marketability factors, and c) other impediments that typically arise with development in urban areas. Interestingly, most of the impediments mentioned by interviewees were also accompanied with potential solutions and strategies for overcoming the impediments.

Back to Top

Impediments Associated with Site Contamination

With regard to the contamination issue, uncertain cleanup costs, uncertain liability, and regulatory complexities were the impediments most frequently mentioned by interviewees. Regulatory requirements such as acquiring permits, educating the parties involve, and conducting required public hearings are all very time consuming, effectively increasing the cost of redevelopment. An Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) representative acknowledged that limited staff and resources available to address remediation and development plans under the state's Voluntary Cleanup Program further slow brownfield site redevelopment.

Recent legislation in Oregon, however, may help reduce uncertainties and costs associated with cleanup standards and liability. In 1995, through House Bill 3352, Oregon's Environmental Cleanup Law was significantly amended by allowing for risk-based cleanup, new remedy selection policies, and prospective purchaser agreements. Several interviewees noted, however, that the DEQ is still involved in its rulemaking process and it remains unclear how implementation of the risk-based standards will actually affect cleanup costs and related uncertainties. In addition, while prospective purchaser agreements have the potential to remove liability barriers to brownfield redevelopment, one of the representatives from the Portland Development Commission explained that these agreements are difficult to get from DEQ, and they provide no guarantee against future liability due to the many reopeners in the agreements.

Uncertain cleanup costs and liability are directly related to the availability of financing for brownfield redevelopment. In general, banks will not provide loans for brownfield redevelopment until cleanup is complete or until a plan has been developed. In addition, because loans are not provided for site assessment or cleanup, development may be especially difficult for individuals or small business that do not have alternative sources of financing. (20) Representatives from Bank of America explained that one solution for dealing with this problem is to provide liability assurances from state and federal governments, such as "No Further Action Planned" statements. One developer noted that loan guarantee programs could also help with this problem. Risk needs to be reduced for this situation to change since banks must operate in a highly conservative, risk-averse manner due to regulatory and business constraints. A representative of the North/Northeast Economic Development Alliance, explained that financing is especially difficult to obtain for projects in the Enterprise Community, and that the Community Reinvestment Act is ineffective at addressing financing for brownfield sites in the area.

Back to Top

Marketability of Sites

Regardless of the contamination, some sites are simply not attractive for development due to site and other locational characteristics. An independent developer that we interviewed explained that marketability is affected by crime, proximity to markets and other environmental problems, such as asbestos and lead paint. Undeveloped brownfield sites may further contribute to poor neighborhoods conditions because unused and vacant land disrupt the continuity of neighborhoods, attract unsafe activities (such as drug dealing), and make infrastructure improvements more difficult to complete. Interviewees noted that infrastructure requirements include sufficient street lighting, sewer access, and proximity to transportation (rail, highways, waterways); properties that do not meet basic infrastructure requirements will not be highly marketable regardless of contamination levels.

Other Impediments Associated with Urban Redevelopment

Other impediments to brownfield site redevelopment include the many regulatory and structural arrangements that make greenfields less expensive than brownfields for development. For example, high payroll taxes (9.5 percent) and high property taxes in Portland make development in the city less attractive than in suburban locations with lower taxes. A few interviewees also noted that numerous design and development codes controlling development in Portland pose additional impediments to brownfield redevelopment within the city. For example, requirements related to design, height, view, setbacks, public space and transport constrain developers' plans. Complying with these requirements increases the time and cost involved in developing property, regardless of the contamination issue. (21) However, as land is used up in the suburban greenfield areas within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), greenfield land prices will increase, which may cause brownfield redevelopment to be more competitive with greenfield development.

Some of the community representatives explained that development in the North/Northeast Portland area has suffered due to the general lack of attention to this area by the city and investors. One of the community advocates explained that the city's efforts have been focused on the waterfront and downtown areas. Interviewees also explained that as developable land in the city becomes more scarce, attention will turn to the North/Northeast Portland area. However, several of the interviewees also expressed concern that increased economic attention to this area may result in gentrification.

Back to Top

Community Benefits of Brownfields Redevelopment

Many of the interviewees view brownfields in Portland as opportunities for tackling other social, environmental and economic problems. The types of benefits described by interviewees can be grouped into three broad categories: a) protection of greenfield areas and increased utilization of urban land (urban infill); b) provision of economic benefits; and c) revitalization of poor minority communities in Portland.

Benefits of Urban Infill

The benefits of brownfields redevelopment are similar to those of any urban infill project. Urban infill reduces urban sprawl and increases the utilization of urban land. Wise development planning can allow for increased density to serve urban residents by providing jobs and services in close proximity to residential areas. Urban infill provides:

• Increased utilization of land within the Urban Growth Boundary which protects greenfield sites for farming, timber and rural land and decreases the need to expand the boundary;

• Better use of existing infrastructure (transportation, power, water and other services), effectively increasing revenue from existing sources; and

• Reduction in commuting, thereby improving air quality and helping Portland progress toward attainment classification under the Clean Air Act.

Economic Benefits

Several interviewees noted that brownfield site redevelopment will provide economic benefits such as increased tax revenues, increased property values and job creation. The greatest increases in tax revenues are most likely to result from large commercial redevelopment such as the South Waterfront Redevelopment described above. Significant job creation benefits will likely result from industrial redevelopment and infrastructure improvements to industrial areas, such as the North Marine Drive project. Currently, 45 businesses are located in the Rivergate Industrial area, employing approximately 3,300 people. After full completion of the North Marine Drive, the area is expected to employ 9,000 people. Since the Rivergate District is adjacent to the Enterprise Community/Zone (EC/EZ), job creation in the Rivergate area may directly benefit the people in the EC/EZ. In addition, the types of jobs expected are high-wage manufacturing jobs; these are the types of jobs that have been decreasing in the EC/EZ and most significantly impacting the economic well-being of the EC/EZ area residents.

Back to Top

Many of the community representatives and advocates, however, expressed some concern that these types of economic benefits may not directly benefit residents in the disadvantaged areas. Since residents in Portland's Enterprise Community have witnessed economic growth in areas throughout the Portland area with the exception of their own neighborhoods, there is concern among residents that this trend may continue. For example, one interviewee pointed out that job creation in the Rivergate Industrial area will only benefit EC residents that have (1) the necessary training and/or job experience, (2) knowledge of job opportunities, and (3) transportation to the Rivergate area.

Several interviewees also noted that property value increases associated with economic redevelopment may actually hurt residents in the Enterprise Community. Property value increases will hurt property owners because taxes will increase beyond their means, thus forcing many property owners to move out of the area. Similarly, increasing property values will create hardships for renters as rents increase, forcing some to leave the area. Historically, the North/Northeast area of Portland has been an area where many African Americans reside and where there is a strong sense of community and pride. If planning is not done carefully, redevelopment may disrupt this community and lead to further gentrification of the area. Interviewees noted that displacement is one of the community's primary concerns. One community representative offered a potential solution to the displacement problem. He suggested that EC/EZ residents can be brought along at the same pace as development by providing jobs and affordable housing through brownfield redevelopment efforts, thereby enabling residents to afford the higher property taxes and rents.

Back to Top

Neighborhood Revitalization

One of the objectives of Portland's Brownfield Redevelopment efforts is to revitalize areas in Portland's Enterprise Community and Enterprise Zone. Interviewees explained that this objective may be realized both by redeveloping industrial and commercial property that surrounds these areas, as well as by educating communities and working with residents to determine the best land uses for redevelopment properties in the area. Community representatives that were interviewed explained that the types of land uses and benefits most important to the community include jobs, community centers, parks and retail services. The city is currently initiating an outreach program to bring neighborhood associations into the decision making process through a series of roundtable discussions.

Clearly, the type of redevelopment itself will affect the types of benefits provided to the community. Community representatives, including those from the Urban League and the North/Northeast Economic Development Alliance, explained that direct community benefits from brownfields redevelopment are more likely if the sites are redeveloped into parks, community centers, housing (affordable home ownership and rentals), or businesses that provide jobs for community residents. The Urban League parks coordinator explained that parks can provide a wide range of benefits to communities, including neighborhood beautification, job training (as residents get involved with site cleanup and park development), and crime and teenage pregnancy prevention (parks and associated recreation facilities and programs provide alternatives for leisure time).

Back to Top

Rural Brownfield Site Redevelopment

Redevelopment of brownfield sites outside the Portland area, such as former timber mill sites, will also provide benefits to those in the Portland area, albeit by indirect means. As redevelopment in these mill towns returns jobs to rural communities, commuting and pressure on greenfield development will be reduced. The Millsite Project manager explained that some former mill workers now commute more than 50 miles to work. Spending resources on mill site redevelopment may also serve to reduce the division and growing tension between people living in rural and urban areas in Oregon. Redevelopment of mill sites will also provide economic diversification for the targeted communities, thus stabilizing the economy and social framework of these areas in the years to come.

Site Selection

The city of Portland is targeting three types of areas where a significant number of brownfield sites are located and significant redevelopment benefits are likely to be realized:

• Former industrial areas along the Willamette River for downtown commercial redevelopment;
• Large land tracts along the Columbia River for industrial redevelopment; and

• Areas within the Enterprise Community and Enterprise Zone (EC/EZ).

Back to Top

Before the Brownfield EPA Pilot Grant was awarded, brownfield redevelopment was occurring primarily in the first two areas described above, due to the high concentration of brownfield sites within these areas and their attractiveness to developers and industries wanting to locate in the Portland area. Since brownfield site redevelopment in Portland is primarily market driven, redevelopment is occurring in areas where an adequate return-on-investment is expected. As can be seen in EPA's Region 10 Map shown in Exhibit 3-6, potentially contaminated sites are concentrated along the waterfront areas. This is due to the fact that most industrial areas were historically located along the waterfront for easy access to waterway transportation. Since Portland continues to serve as a major port for international shipping, the waterfront areas along the Columbia River remain zoned for heavy industrial use. Waterfront properties along the Willamette River, however, are in close proximity to downtown Portland, and commercial development is now planned for this area.

Exhibit 3-6: Map of Portland

(print map for detail)

Back to Top

For the third area, -- the EC/EZ -- it remains unclear whether the city's brownfield site redevelopment efforts will actually occur within this area, in the absence of market forces, or whether redevelopment in the first two areas will be planned in such a way that will provide direct benefits to residents of the EC/EZ. Since the waterfront areas also are in close proximity to the Enterprise Community zone, their redevelopment may provide benefits to the EC/EZ. In order to ensure that this occurs, the city plans to involve EC/EZ residents in the site selection process and redevelopment planning efforts through a series of roundtable discussions on brownfields redevelopment. The brownfield roundtables will take place in neighborhood meetings and workshops in the Enterprise Zone, the Enterprise Community, and the waterfront communities. The objectives of the roundtables are to:

• Educate citizens about brownfields issues,

• Identify common interests and alternative processes for cleanup and redevelopment, and

• Create neighborhood-specific partnership agreements and action plans between the city, DEQ, and other stakeholders.

The roundtables will also enable the identification and evaluation of relevant demographic, financial, social and other data from regulatory, industry and neighborhood sources. Analysis of these data will ensure that the multiple attributes of alternative redevelopment plans are considered in the decision making process, including explicit consideration of direct benefits to area residents.

Back to Top

Implications For Setting Brownfield Redevelopment Priorities

In this section, we describe how the information from the Portland interviews can be used and expanded upon to develop a general framework for setting brownfield redevelopment priorities; we also highlight key factors that are important to incorporate in the framework. While brownfield redevelopment in Portland is primarily market-driven, the city is actively involved in managing and assisting redevelopment efforts in order to preserve the Urban Growth Boundary and realize more community benefits from brownfield site redevelopment. While sites are not yet specifically targeted for redevelopment in the EC/EZ, use of the brownfield roundtables will enable economic, environmental and social concerns to be part of the site selection and redevelopment process. The basic process that is emerging from Portland's efforts involves the following phases:

1. Identify geographic areas that have large concentrations of brownfield sites and redevelopment potential (i.e., economic feasibility and community benefits).

-- Former industrial areas along the waterfront that are attractive for commercial redevelopment.

-- Large land tracks along Marine Drive that are zoned for industrial use and may be especially attractive for industrial redevelopment that relies on waterway and rail transportation.

-- Areas within the Enterprise Community and Enterprise Zone (EC/EZ) that are likely to provide substantial community benefits.

2. Improve infrastructure, streamline redevelopment process, and/or manage community involvement for sites that are highly marketable within these areas.

3. Involve community development organizations and residents from the North/Northeast area of Portland to select additional sites and develop land uses that are likely to directly benefit residents in disadvantaged areas. This phase will involve several components, including:

-- Outreach to community development organizations and neighborhood associations,

-- Education of area residents on brownfield issues, and

-- Empowerment of area residents, through provision of tools and resources to effectively bring relevant demographic, financial and social concerns to the stakeholder meetings.

Back to Top

Brownfield redevelopment in Portland involves both private market mechanisms and public assistance. Private redevelopment of brownfield sites is likely where economic feasibility criteria are met; these are listed in Exhibit 3-7. As indicated in steps two and three described above, public assistance in the form of staff time and/or funding may be necessary to accelerate and stimulate additional brownfield site redevelopment, and to ensure that redevelopment projects appropriately benefit the community. Several types of public assistance mechanisms, listed in Exhibit 3-8, are likely to increase the number of successful brownfield redevelopment projects.

This general framework can be used by cities, such as Portland, that are experiencing strong economic growth, for the purpose of enabling successful redevelopment that protects the environment and benefits communities.

Back to Top

Back to Top

BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents a general framework and criteria for setting brownfield redevelopment priorities and developing strategies to enable and accelerate successful site redevelopment. We first present the conceptual basis and identify potential users and applications of the framework. Then, we describe the major components of the framework and explain how it uses information on economic, environmental and social factors to aid in targeting sites and developing strategies for successful brownfield site redevelopment.

CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND APPLICATION

The framework incorporates economic, environmental and social factors in evaluation of the marketability and community benefits of brownfield site redevelopment. We identify site, neighborhood and land-use characteristics that describe the types of properties that may be successfully redeveloped. We also describe how these characteristics can be evaluated to provide information to develop strategies for their redevelopment.

We developed the framework based on information from interviews with a variety of people involved in brownfields redevelopment activities (including community representatives, environmental regulators, economic development officials, insurance industry representatives, and bankers) in the three case study cities, as well as on our growing understanding of brownfield issues acquired from recent literature. In each of the case study cities, we learned that there are many factors that enter into targeting sites for redevelopment, but no systematic approach is currently applied. Consequently, while the framework presented in this report is based on our synthesis of information from the case study interviews, it represents a combination of observation and our ideas about what would be a useful process for focusing brownfield redevelopment efforts.

Back to Top

The framework and criteria provide a tool that can be used by a variety of organizations and individuals involved in setting priorities and developing strategies for brownfield redevelopment. Potential users and their applications include:

• City managers can use the framework for targeting environmental and economic development resources.

• State and Federal governments can use the framework for targeting grants, loans, prospective purchaser agreements, and other incentives under brownfield redevelopment programs.

• Stakeholders can use the framework to demonstrate the benefits associated with brownfield site redevelopment in directing negotiations and developing strategies redeveloping sites. Stakeholders include:

  -- Community development organizations,
  -- Environmental justice advocates,
  -- Lenders,
  -- Developers and other private businesses,
  -- Environmental regulatory agencies, and
  -- Local economic development agencies.
  

The relative importance of economic, environmental and social factors in the framework varies for different stakeholders and cities. The stakeholders also represent a wide range of interests and have particular objectives for brownfield site redevelopment. For these reasons, the framework and criteria described below are flexible enough to accommodate this subjectivity.

Back to Top

COMPONENTS OF THE FRAMEWORK

The basic framework is outlined Exhibit 4-1. Essentially, the framework involves six steps to identify brownfield sites that can be successfully redeveloped and to provide information needed to develop a strategy for their redevelopment. While the flowchart offers a systematic approach for identifying and characterizing successful brownfield redevelopment opportunities, each "step" is broadly defined. As the framework is used by different cities, it will need to be refined to accommodate each cities' unique constraints and priorities. In addition, while the flowchart implies a linear process, in reality the process will be iterative and the steps may take place concurrently. The basic steps involve:

1. Targeting broad geographic areas;

2. Identifying brownfields within these areas;

3. Characterizing the sites based on their potential marketability;

4. Screening sites based on potential community benefits of site redevelopment;

5. Evaluating potential impacts of redevelopment; and

6. Developing a strategy for brownfield redevelopment activities.

Each of these steps is described below.

Back to Top

Back to Top

I. Target Geographic Areas

The purpose of targeting broad geographic areas is to limit the number of brownfield sites to identify and characterize. While brownfield sites may be scattered throughout a metropolitan area, limited resources may prevent a city or state from considering all such sites. One way of dealing with brownfield site redevelopment in a practical way is to focus attention on certain geographic areas where successful brownfield redevelopment is most likely. In the case study cities examined, brownfield redevelopment efforts are focused in three general geographic areas:

A. Mixed use areas with highly exposed, low income, minority populations;

B. Industrial areas with large land tracts and significant job creation potential; and

C. Waterfront/downtown areas that are attractive to businesses.

These locational characteristics influence the objectives likely to be achieved by brownfield redevelopment efforts. For example, redevelopment in mixed use areas with highly exposed, low income, minority populations will address environmental justice issues and revitalize residential neighborhoods that have deteriorated with the abandonment of old industrial properties. Redevelopment of industrial areas with large land tracts will provide employment and the potential for higher wage jobs. Lastly, redevelopment of brownfields in desirable waterfront and downtown areas will have significant economic redevelopment benefits associated with increased tax revenues.

Depending on the cities' objectives and resource constraints, cities may choose to focus efforts in one, two, or all three types of geographic areas. For example, the City of Louisville is targeting its brownfield redevelopment efforts in one type of geographic area -- mixed use areas with highly exposed, low income, minority populations -- with the primary goals of addressing environmental justice issues and providing jobs in these areas. Portland, on the other hand, is working on brownfield redevelopment in all three general geographic areas of the city to simultaneously achieve multiple objectives.

Back to Top

II. Identify Brownfield Sites in Each Area

The purpose of identifying brownfield sites in each area is to recognize where redevelopment opportunities exist and to ensure that sites with potential for providing substantial community benefits are not overlooked. In addition, identification of brownfield sites and information on characteristics of these properties is a useful tool for developers because site location and planning costs are reduced, making urban redevelopment potentially more attractive than greenfield site development.

Identification of brownfield sites is not a straightforward task; it involves coordination among a variety of city and state agencies. For example, zoning, parcel size, and lot and block data may be available from the local planning office or the economic development office. Property ownership information, on the other hand, is typically found in the assessor's office. Environmental data, a critical component for brownfield site redevelopment, is typically not available from economic development offices but might be available from city, state or federal environmental agencies. Establishing interoffice and interagency communication in identifying brownfield sites can also be helpful down the line in streamlining other aspects of brownfield redevelopment, such as facilitating the permitting process or changing zoning designations.

In all three case study cities, no comprehensive list of brownfield sites exist. Rather, information is gathered from a variety of sources, including:

• Local knowledge and land use surveys;

• Local economic development offices' lists and aerial maps;

• Community development organizations;

• Information related to urban planning activities;

• Federal and state environmental databases; and

• GIS systems which may incorporate a variety of data sources.

Back to Top

In Louisville, the two pilot project brownfield sites were identified through the Louisville Office of Economic Development and its connections with local businesses. Louisville is also developing a GIS to identify other brownfield sites using property value assessment data, building permits files, municipal planning data, and information from a variety of environmental databases (CERCLIS, TRI and RCRIS). In Trenton, site identification has occurred primarily through local knowledge, in coordination with a local community development organization. City officials in Trenton also are working with the State of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) because it has an extensive database of contaminated sites. The New Jersey DEP is also collecting other useful non-environmental data to support brownfields redevelopment efforts, including zoning information from the Bureau of Planning and Systems, lot and block information from utility companies, and demographic data from the U.S. Census. Lastly, in Portland, sites are identified as a result of increasing demand, as land becomes increasingly scarce due to development restrictions outside the metropolitan area.

While developing a comprehensive list of brownfield sites is an important preliminary step in identifying those sites with the greatest redevelopment potential, some developers and economic development offices explained that placing properties on such a list could stigmatize these properties, further impeding their redevelopment. Creating a list of "available urban properties," regardless of potential contamination, may fulfill the need for a comprehensive "brownfields list," while avoiding the stigma that a "brownfields list" may create.

Back to Top

III. Characterize Brownfield Sites Based on Marketability

After brownfield sites have been identified, their marketability can be assessed. The purpose of this step is to better understand the level of public assistance likely to be required for successful site redevelopment. "Public assistance" may come in the form of a city helping with re-zoning or with streamlining the permitting processes. At a more involved level, "public assistance" may consist of providing tax incentives or funds for cleanup and/or redevelopment. Public assistance might also involve providing technical support and information on using a mixture of existing federal and state resources and incentives and coordinating these aspects of a redevelopment project. Assessing the marketability of identified brownfield sites will equip states and cities with information necessary to determine what type and level of public assistance is needed, and will enable cities to focus resources on sites that will not be redeveloped under private market forces alone.

To assess the marketability of brownfield sites, both site-specific and more general neighborhood characteristics are important. These characteristics are listed in Exhibit 4-2 (III. Screening Criteria for Identifying Sites that are Highly Marketable). Site marketability may change over time, as more site information becomes available, and as the general economic conditions of the area change and other business activities provide spin-off economic effects. For this reason, characterizing the marketability of sites may need to be revisited as information, market and social conditions change.

On the basis of the marketability, sites can be grouped into three broad categories to help develop a plan for successful redevelopment. Sites can be characterized as:

A. Low marketability sites, where public funding is necessary;

B. Sites that are marketable for specialized developers with experience in site remediation, and knowledge of and access to alternative funding sources; and

C. Highly marketable sites, such as waterfront or downtown areas for which traditional sources of development funding are likely to be available for redevelopment, but non-monetary assistance such as guidance pertaining to environmental issues or help with zoning or permitting may be necessary.

Back to Top

While sites will fall along a continuum of "marketability potential," these three groupings are useful for focusing a city's brownfields redevelopment efforts and resources.

Back to Top

For highly marketable sites, further screening is not necessary, because market forces will drive development. However, public assistance is necessary to coordinate the redevelopment process for these sites. For example, in Portland, the Portland Development Commission together with CH2M Hill, an environmental and development consulting firm, is assisting a land owner in coordinating with the Oregon DEQ and developing an integrated remediation/ development plan for the South Waterfront site. Low marketability sites and sites that are potentially marketable to specialized developers will require more extensive city involvement. For these sites, the city must identify sites with the greatest redevelopment potential and develop more proactive strategies for assisting their redevelopment. For example, in Trenton, the city is working closely with a local non-profit community development organization to manage the cleanup and redevelopment of the Magic Marker site, a low marketability site with potentially high community development benefits, where community participation is vital for the project's successful completion. Other sites might be attractive to specialized developers due to site characteristics that allow them to tap into alternative sources of funding (e.g., Community Block Grant Funds, Inter-Model Surface Transportation Efficiency Act funds). Public assistance may be needed in securing such funds.

IV. Screen Sites for High Potential Community Benefits

For sites in the first two categories described above -- sites with low marketability or sites marketable for specialized developers -- a greater degree of public assistance is required. The purpose of this step is to assess the potential community benefits associated with the remediation and redevelopment of each site, so that the city can focus its efforts accordingly. Criteria that can be used for screening sites with potential for significant community benefits are provided in Exhibit 4-3 (IV. Screening Criteria for Identifying Sites that are Likely to Provide Substantial Community Benefits). Screening criteria include site and neighborhood characteristics, as well as attributes of the redevelopment plan itself. Evaluating sites using these criteria will help to identify sites that are likely to provide substantial community benefits, and will identify obstacles that may hinder such benefits from being realized. For example, if redevelopment will create jobs but residents are not trained for the type of employment available, the job creation benefits will be realized instead by people outside the area, unless a job training program accompanies the redevelopment plan.

Back to Top

V. Evaluate Potential Impacts of Redevelopment Alternatives

For all types of brownfield sites, it is important to evaluate the wide range of impacts that will likely result from site redevelopment. A list of factors to consider in evaluating potential impacts is shown in Exhibit 4-4 (V. Factors to Consider in Evaluating Potential Impacts of Redevelopment Alternatives). This list is more detailed than the screening criteria applied in previous steps because it would be applied only to a subset high priority sites. The information obtained from this more detailed evaluation will serve two purposes. First, evaluating the impacts can serve as a tool for establishing priorities for public funding efforts and redevelopment projects. Comparing the potential impacts of alternative site redevelopment projects will allow cities to identify those sites likely to provide the greatest economic, environmental and social benefits. The second purpose of evaluating redevelopment impacts is to help identify site characteristics that qualify projects for alternative funding sources and to frame the rationale for tapping into those sources. For example, a redevelopment project with transportation benefits, such as construction of the light-rail system in Portland, may be able to obtain funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Back to Top

VI. Develop Strategy for Brownfield Redevelopment Activities

The information obtained from the steps described above helps in developing a strategy for successful brownfield site redevelopment by integrating consideration of factors that influence the achievement of economic, environmental and social goals. Evaluating sites on the basis of marketability and the ability to provide community benefits provides the basis for establishing priorities and tailoring assistance to enable and accelerate brownfield site redevelopment. Resulting strategies can achieve:

• More efficient use and leveraging of resources, increasing the number brownfield redevelopment projects successfully completed.

• Improved coordination among the variety of public and private, economic, environmental and social community groups essential to successful redevelopment.

• Establishment of partnerships between agencies with complementary objectives (e.g., environmental, transportation, economic development, and community development).

Different types of brownfield sites will clearly require different strategies and involve different participants. Sites that have relatively low marketability but are worth redeveloping because of potentially substantial community benefits will need the greatest degree of public assistance, both financially and in terms of process guidance and management. While the financial assistance for these sites will most likely come from public sources, nonprofit community development organizations that have established trust with the local residents and other stakeholder groups will play a central role in managing the redevelopment process. For sites that are marketable for specialized developers, funding is most likely to come from a variety of sources, private investment funds, including private foundation grants, and a variety of public sources. The strategy for these types of sites might require significant coordination between the private and public sectors in establishing priorities, developing remediation plans, and securing funds. Finally, for sites that are highly marketable, public support in coordinating with development and environmental agencies to market sites, streamlining the regulatory and development processes, and managing community involvement may be necessary for successful redevelopment.

Back to Top

Footnotes

1 Louisville's Empowerment Zone is a federally-funded Enterprise Community.Back to article

2 The "Big Picture" subcommittee provides communication links to the EZ Executive Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, the Jefferson County government, the Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet, and the University of Louisville through the Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development. One part of this group's work is the Cornerstone 2020 project, a community-based master planning project managed by the Jefferson County Department of Planning and Environmental Management and the Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce. Members of the Big Picture subcommittee participated in preparing the 2020 report, which includes a study of older industrial areas in Louisville. This report is in draft form and has not been made final.Back to article

3 Several factors account for the general urban decline in the U.S., including rising real incomes, the changing economic mix from manufacturing to the service sector, advances in technology, and other changes in the social structure in America. See Bradbury, Downs and Small, Urban Decline and the Future of American Cities, Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, 1983.Back to article

4 T he Louisville/Jefferson County Enterprise Zone, established in 1983 under the state program, is distinct from Louisville's federally-designated Enterprise Community (referred to as the Empowerment Zone).Back to article

5Another way to direct tax revenues back into the neighborhoods is to create and promote political representation in the EZ neighborhoods. Since all Louisville neighborhoods compete for general tax fund dollars, one way to secure a share of these funds is to build and strengthen lobbying efforts. One objective of the EZ strategy is to create a special community lobbying group for such purposes. Back to article

6 Site redevelopment with clean industry end uses may provide the greatest net benefits to communities since this type of development will provide jobs and other desirable benefits without sacrificing environmental quality. Back to article

7 Human health impacts include both the health protection achieved by site cleanup and any health risks posed by future use of the redeveloped property (e.g., increased emissions from a manufacturing facility). Back to article

8 Under New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act, the lender is shielded from liability for past releases as long as it did not actively participate in the management of the facility prior to foreclosing on it. Back to article

9 ISRA established a $50 million fund to provide grants and loans to municipalities and developers wishing to develop brownfield sites. Two million dollars per year are being given to municipalities for preliminary assessments and site investigations. Back to article

10 Development of greenfield areas harms the absorptive capacity of the land because impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots replace soil and vegetation. Protection of ground water is particularly important in New Jersey, because 50 percent of the drinking water comes from ground water sources. Back to article

11 New Jersey's municipal land-use rule mandates that every city develop a plan that jointly considers environmental and economic development goals. To facilitate this planning, cities may choose to appoint an environmental commissioner to head up these efforts. These environmental commissioners meet together as a group, called the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissioners (ANJEC). Back to article

12 Statistics from: Region 2040: Concepts for Growth, Metro, June 1994.Back to article

13 Metro is the directly elected regional government of Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties. Metro is responsible for managing the regional aspects of transportation and land use planning, regional parks and green spaces, solid waste management. Metro also provides technical assistance to local governments of the region.Back to article

14 If brownfields are not included as "available land," the UGB is more likely to be expanded over a larger area. Back to article

15 City of Portland, Oregon,"Application for Demonstration Pilot," Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative, November 1995. Back to article

16 Prosperous Portland, The City of Portland's Economic Development Policy, September 1994. Back to article

17 Ibid, page 8. Back to article

18 Ibid, page 8. The rest of the region includes Clackamas, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill counties. Back to article

19 As reported in Portland's EPA Brownfields Pilot Application; it is unclear how a "brownfield" is defined in these statistics. Back to article

20 If the development itself is part of the remedial action (e.g. foundation serves as soil cap), then loans may be used for the activity. Back to article

21 Unlike the other two case study cities, zoning does not appear to be an impediment to brownfield redevelopment in Portland. Back to article

REFERENCES

Allardice, D.R., et al., "Brownfield Redevelopment and Urban Economies," Chicago Fed Letter , No. 93, pp. 1-4, May 1995.

Barnette, C.H., "Revitalizing Brownfield Sites," Iron Age New Steel , Vol. 11, No. 6, p. 88, June 1995.

Been, Vicki. "Unpopular Neighbors: Are Dumps and Landfills Sited Equitably?" Resources , pp. 16-19. Spring 1994.

Bradbury, K.L. "Urban Decline and Distress: An Update." New England Economic Review , pp. 39-55. July/August 1984.

Bezer, S.L., and B.S. Phillips, "Contaminated Property Valuation Issues: An Overview," Industrial Development , Vol. 159, No. 3, pp. 1-2, June 1990.

Boyd, J., and M.K. Macauley, "The Impact of Environmental Liability on Industrial Real Estate Development," Resources for the Future , pp. 19-23, Winter 1994.

Bradbury, K.L., A. Downs and K.A. Small, Urban Decline and the Future of American Cities, Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, 1983.

"Brownfields: Contaminated Site Cleanups Solve Only Some Problems in Urban Areas," Hazardous Waste News , Business Publishers, Inc., May 1995.

Chalmers, J.A., and S.A. Roehr, "Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property," The Appraisal Journal , pp. 28-41, January 1993.

"City Brownfields are Economy's Toxic Shock," Crain's Chicago Business , p. 12, March 14, 1994.

City of Portland, Oregon, Application for Demonstration Pilot: Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative , November 1995.

City of Portland Mayor's Office, Prosperous Portland: The City of Portland's Economic Development Policy , September 1994.

Crown, J., "Indiana Brownfields Cleanup," Crain's Chicago Business , June 19, 1995.

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, "Brownfields Redevelopment Project Demonstration Site Process."

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, "Brownfields Reuse Strategies Working Group Report," July 13, 1993.

English, D., "City Brownfields Need to be Renewed as Usable Space," Business First of Buffalo , Vol. 11, No. 21, March 6, 1995.

"EPA's Brownfields Initiative Earns Approval from Investors," Environment Today , Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 17, March 1995.

Greenberg, Michael, "There Goes the Neighborhood," Planning, Volume 62, 1996.

Greenberg, Michael and Donna Schneider, "Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup and Neighborhood Redevelopment: An Opportunity to Address Multiple Socially Desirable Goals", Policy Studies Journal , Volume 23, No. 1, pp. 105-121, 1995.

Greenberg, Michael, Donna Schneider and Jennifer Martell, "Health Promotion Priorities of Economically Stressed Cities," Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995.

Greenberg, Michael, Donna Schneider and Jim Parry, "Brownfields, a Regional Incinerator and Resident Perception of Neighborhood Quality," Risk: Health, Safety and Environment , Vol. 6, Summer 1995.

Greenberg, Michael, and Donna Schneider, "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non-Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis , Vol. 15, No. 4, 1995.

Greenberg, Michael, Donna Schneider, and Jennifer Martell, "Hazardous Waste Sites, Stress, and Neighborhood Quality in USA," The Environmentalist , Vol. 14, No. 2, 1994.

Greenberg, Michael, and Donna Schneider, "Hazardous Waste Site Remediation, Neighborhood Change, and Neighborhood Quality," Environmental Health Perspectives , Vol. 102, No. 6-7, June-July 1994.

Greenberg, Michael, Dona Schneider, and Daiwoo Choi, "Neighborhood Quality," The Geographical Review , Vol. 84, No. 1, January 1994.

Grillo, A., "Brownfields Could Lead to Green for Engineering Firms," Business Journal , Milwaukee, Vol. 11, No. 49, September 10, 1994.

Gupta, S. et al., "Cleanup Decisions Under Superfund: Do Benefits and Costs Matter?" Resources for the Future , pp. 13-17, Spring 1993.

Jossi, F., "Minnesota's Superfund Shield," Planning , Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 22-23, June 1995.

Klodowski, H.F., Jr., "Redevelopment Under State Superfund Laws," Risk Management , Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 29-35, February 1995.

Lueck, T.J., "Developers Seek Profits in Polluted Land," The New York Times , September 6, 1994.

Marketplace Committee of Cornerstone 2020, Older Industrial and Commercial Area Reinvestment Strategy , Second Draft, January 1996.

McClelland, G.H., et al., "The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site," Risk Analysis , Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 485-497, 1990.

McMahan, J., "Environmental Hazards and Real Estate," Real Estate Issues , pp. 1-6, Spring/Summer 1989.

Metro, Growth Management Services Department, "Urban Growth Report, Forecasts for the Future," Discussion Draft, March 5, 1996.

Metro Region 2040: Concepts for Growth , June 1994.

Mooney, B., "Task Force Settles on Sites for Contamination Cleanups," Crain's Cleveland Business , Vol. 15, No. 26, June 27, 1994.

Mooney, B., "Brownfields Group to Air Cleanup Plan," Crain's Cleveland Business , p. 3, July 12, 1993.

New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Celebrating 20 Years of Creating Jobs and Building Business: 1994 Annual Report.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Brownfields Report, August 1995.

O'Reilly, J.T., "Environmental Racism, Site Cleanup and Inner City Jobs: Indiana's Urban In-Fill Incentives," The Yale Journal on Regulation , Vol. 11, No. 43, pp. 43-73, 1994.

Patchin, P.J., "Valuation of Contaminated Properties," The Appraisal Journal , pp. 7-16, January 1988.

Porter, M.E., "The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City," Harvard Business Review , pp.55-71, May-June 1995.

Portland State University, Portland Today , 1996.

Powers, C., Memorandum to Crane Harris and Ted Smith, Institute for Responsible Management, Inc., Boston, MA, March 1995.

Powers, C., "Brownfields: Redeveloping Contaminated Lands, Oregon Insider, Issue 119, pp. 1-4, January 1, 1995.

Reath, V., "States Likely to Take Lead in Brownfields Redevelopment," Environment Week , Vol. 8, No. 13, March 30, 1995.

Shanoff, B., "Federal and State Programs Create Cleanup Incentives," World Wastes , Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 26-28, July 1995.

Sit, M., "Making Hazardous-Waste Sites Saleable," The Boston Globe , p. 43, November 26, 1994.

Trenton Department of Housing and Development., Trenton, New Jersey Brownfields Demonstration Pilot Program , February 28, 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative , March 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, State of the States on Brownfields: Programs for Cleanup and Reuse of Contaminated Sites , OTA-BP-ETI-153, June 1995.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Indirect Effects of Superfund Liability on Lenders, Environmental Site Assessors, and Waste Generators , March 1994.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Waste Policy Branch, Issue/Options Analysis: CERCLA and Economic Redevelopment , NACEPT , August 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office, Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment , June 1996.

Vuono, M., and Hallenbeck. R.P., "Redeveloping Contaminated Properties," Risk Management , Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 58-64, April 1995.

Wesolowski, T. and Antol, S.M., "Brownfields Initiatives Offer Few Incentives for Prospective Developers, Purchasers," Environmental Solutions , p. 32, July 1995.

Whitman, I.L., "Cleaning and Reusing Old Industrial Property," prepared for The Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition Forum, The Whitman Companies, Inc. , Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.

Yaussy, D., "Brownfield Initiatives Sweep Across the Country," Environmental Compliance and Litigation Strategy , Vol. 10, No. 11, April 1995.

Webmaster: info@smartgrowth.org