Estate Redevelopment Program of Brownfield Site in US - Essay Example

 Economic Development Through statistical data taken recently, the Government Accountability Office estimates that Brownfield’s sites range from four hundred and fifty thousand to one million in the United States of America. Brownfield’s are sites or locations that are perceived to be contaminated or hazardous. They are idled, abandoned, underutilized industrial or commercial properties where perceived or real environmental pollution or contamination hinders redevelopment or productive expansion. There is existence of federal and state incentive programs that have the ability to redevelop and purchase a Brownfield site and make it a good investment or economic opportunity for many businesses. The existence of these incentives programs is made possible by the sole fact that the Brownfield program can help in boosting tax revenue, creating jobs, reducing environmental hazards, promoting general economic health and cleaning up neighborhood eyesores. Without a doubt, real estate redevelopment in any country is a complex undertaking. It doesn’t matter whether the land in question is either clean or contaminated, bottom line is that the processes of assembling land, financing and planning of redevelopment encounters many challenges. There have been different responses to the reuse of contaminated property due to political, cultural and economic differences. Each nation has a different approach to Brownfield since it shaped by the degree to which it is burdened by properties which are contaminated, as well as other factors such as population density, land availability, historic preservation objectives and other governmental priorities. But given the diversity of American States and towns, these tools and approaches- to be modified as needed- may provide new ideas to practitioners within the United States. The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative is a key competitive grant program that HUD uses to promote community development as well as economic development. Like I clearly and precisely stated before it should be noted that BEDI’s main task is to be of assistance to cities with the redevelopment of idled, underused industrial, abandoned and commercial facilities where expansion and redevelopment is burdened by real or potential environmental contamination. BEDI grant funds are emphasized on a particular use and primarily targeted for use on the redevelopment of Brownfields sites in economic development projects and the increase of economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons as part of the creation or retention of businesses, jobs and increases in the local tax base. The stimulus for private sector parties and local governments to go on and foresee the redevelopment is the BEDI funds. They as well as continue phased redevelopment on brownfield sites where either potential or actual environment conditions are known and there is existence of redevelopment plans. There is an emphasis by the HUD on the use of BEDI and the section 108 loan guarantee funds to finance activities and projects that have the ability to produce results after a short while and bring about economic benefits. Applications on whose scope is limited to factors such as site acquisition, no immediately planned redevelopment or remediation are not encouraged by the HUD. Through the BEDI funds, enhancement of security and improvement of the viability of a project especially if it is financed with a new section 108 guaranteed loan commitments. The BEDI program is seen as possible way to spur the return of brownfields to productive economic use through financial assistance to public entities in the redevelopment of brownfields. It as well enhances the security and improvement of the viability of a project which has the financing of section 108 guaranteed loan authorities. Hence, due to this, the BEDI grants must be used in conjunction with a new section 108 guaranteed loan commitment. Section 108 is the loan guarantee provision of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. It is through the BEDI funds that the minimization of potential loss of future CDBG allocations is enabled. BEDI grant funds and Section 108 loan proceeds are made available by HUD to public entities that have the approval to be assisted Although such public entities have the power and ability to re-loan the section 108 loan proceeds and allocate the BEDI funds to a business or other entity to carry out an approved economic development project or on the hand it may decide to carry out the potential project itself. BEDI project must increase the availability of economic opportunities for persons whose income is regarded as low or moderate and stimulate and retain jobs and businesses that lead to economic revitalization. The US General Services Administration was a founding member of the Brownsfields National Partnerships and it encompasses twenty eight organizations which includes more than fifteen federal agencies. Its commitment to the brownfield redevelopment is shown a number of ways which include: identifying properties which are vacant or underused and or of federal and whose reuse or remediation has the ability to bolster community revitalization efforts. GSA understands the transactions that go through the real estate and the key players in the development, insurance and finance industries. It saves tax dollars when it sells or disposes of underused or vacant federal properties and it as well as represents the federal government as a good neighbor to the location of these buildings. The GSA knows federal disposal authorities as well as the regulations. The Brownfield program receives a great deal of support from local communities because it serves as a catalyst for development projects to provide jobs, promote economic development, enhances public spaces and contributes to the local tax base. It also makes efficient use of existing infrastructure and at the same time providing an alternative to developing green fields of open space and contributing to suburban sprawl. It was once a theory and now the revitalization of brownfields is now an industry. This industry, however, is not yet mature. Twenty years ago congress attempted to give prospective purchasers of real estate a defense to liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and a little more than a decade since the majority of states began to embrace voluntary cleanup programs for abandoned or under used sites. At present time, Brownfields remediation and reuse is seen as a done deal, in other words a major environmental success story. There are high profile stories of successful conversions of neglected sites to profitable reuse and many are quick to comment on cleanup programs that have changed thousands of sites successfully. But little has been done to empirically assess whether state and federal borwnfield processes have been an unqualified success. Getting their value requires among other things such as the number of cases handled, accounting for the wide variety in state program features and the types and numbers of results. Not forgetting to look longitudinally at a statistically significant sample of site so that we can be able to assess whether environmental problems develop or persist after a period of years. The optimism about brownfields is enhanced by the fact that it rests on a foundation of specific expectations, their cleanup and reuse, and assumptions about the typical site and the typical developer. Due to these expectations, they relate to the nature of brownfield properties: the expectations and behavior of public and private parties involved in the development, environmental and financial risks: the importance of subsidies: and the investment climate of host communities. I suggest there should be a more detailed analysis of this project after a decade of experience with brownfields remediation and reuse. I would also request as a consequence, a re-examination of whether the brownfields programs meet their original goals and whether those goals were the right ones. Those who are involved in the project, pin many hopes on the project. They spend their time trying to discover sites that have been neglected, try to reverse the decay of urban cores. It has also been seen in some cases that they try to link up with some smart growth strategies by slowing the march of development to suburban and exurban America. But I say that the parcel by parcel approach to brownfields remediation reuse cannot possibly guarantee all that. There are thousands of brownfields site and all of them offer or give a different experience. I say that, each redevelopment project can trigger a variety of concerns related to the long term vision of a community, threats to public health and nature, public participation, social equity and economic livelihood. The paradox of brownfields program is that they may have considerable legitimacy when one looks at the success stories behind it, but as a whole, the policies may or may not be contributing measurably to the long-term health of communities throughout the nation. The assumptions made about the brownfields should make us decide whether they are substantiated in practice. It is high time to come to a decision or foresee how nascent state programs could best promote a comprehensive approach to urban redevelopment. I am not in any way suggesting that brownfields revitalization needs to end, but it should be noted that the brownfeilds story is partly incorrect, and I say this in regards to part of the summary that says, “ Many of the premises[of brownfields policies] may have a factual base, while others may be rooted in unsubstantiated assertions of mixed quality or outright misunderstandings” due to this partial presentation of the story I think it is time for a reorientation of brownfields law and policy that moves it toward a development-centered approach to brownfields, not one that specifically caters to developers. Brownfields policies in the state of New Jersey interests me and so I will look into it and in the process give my opinions on how to make the approach of brownfields revitalization more development centered and less developer centered. I have my reasons for choosing New Jersey and one of them is because it has processed a large number of sites, in that the number of sites that are traced to brownfield sum up to approximately ten thousand sites, though not all of them have commercial potential and another reason is that a number o developers used the state Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Cleanups. In the states Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), a party who thinks they have the ability and power to remediate a site enters into an MOA with the state’s environmental agency, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). As is typical in other states, the MOA establishes the scope of assessment and remediation activities which includes anything from remedial actions and reuse of the site to preliminary assessment of the site. The New Jersey program is a typical one that enables all the sites to enter into the VCP, but also has elements which are specifically tailored to brownfields, including a statewide taskforce. New Jersey is considering using the second generation approaches to improve the relationship of brownfields cleanups and urban redevelopment, most probably the Brownfields Development Area (BDA). This implies that the Brownfields program is maturing and growing, and well worth the analytical look. In regards to the explanation I have given above which is merely a description look of New Jersey, I will discuss two specific developments, which are the BDA initiative and the Grace Period Rule, that apparently changed some aspects of the program. I would say that my aim is modest than a full-scale re-evaluation of all brownfields programs; instead I look at the experience of one program and that in this setting is of New Jersey and assess whether there is movement toward the development-centered approach. In my research I find that some developments in New Jersey are positive, notably the BDA’s approach to addressing multiple brownfield sites concurrently in the same location while on the other hand, the Grace Period Rule introduces the prospect for additional delay in cleanups that is unwarranted given the current program structure. REFERENCES Read More