Superfund (Photo credit: …-Wink-…)
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.”–Matthew 13:44 NIV
Introduction
Hidden treasures are fun to find. People are willing to spend money in order to buy gadgets like metal detectors or binoculars in order to make finding these treasures possible. At first, these gadgets may seem a bit pricey, however, talk to anyone who has ever found something of value and they’ll tell you, the investment was worth it. Brownfields are perfect examples of hidden treasures that require investment yet yield great fruits.
“…Hidden in a field…” Background Information
Brownfields are properties whose expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence of or perceived presence of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Typically, brownfields take the form of abandoned industrial sites such as old factories, power plants, mills, etc. The Cabot Koppers Superfund Site in Gainesville, FL is a perfect example of a brownfield. This site housed a pine tar and charcoal production industry since 1916. Due to the site’s use which included treating wood for use in public lighting, chemicals such as creosote and pentachlorophenol are present in its soil. Since the Kooper site is located near water ponds and lagoons the concern is that pollution from the already polluted soil may leach into the nearby waters which could potentially further infiltrate Florida’s aquifers (Alachua County, 2012)
English: Cameron, LA, January 11, 2006 – A worker for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sorting and organizing barrels of hazardous waste materials collected in Cameron and delivered to this site. Robert Kaufmann/FEMA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Brownfields have a negative impact on its context (mainly in property value) due to several factors. The first factor tends to be obvious; with pollutants present in most of these sites, the possibility for contamination of neighboring sites is high. Pollution can occur via leakage into nearby water sources as exemplified by the Koper’s site in Gainesville, FL, they can also occur via off-gas emissions like the Houston Gas Work Plant in Houston, TX, or even ground pollution like the Mills Ruin Park in Minneapolis, IL. With such pollution risks and proliferation, site clean ups are costly and burdensome to the property owners.
The second factor can be equally as obvious; brownfields tend to be unattractive. In the case of the Gas Works park in Houston Texas the previous brownfield was originally a compilation of rusted pipes and empty gas tanks looming over an empty lot of mismatched small dwelling huts and weed covered grounds. A person would definitely not want this in their backyard or for that matter anywhere near their residential dwelling. Such blight serves as a very effective barrier towards any form of development creating a depreciating cycle of land value.
The third factor is not as obvious as the first two which is the psychological aspect. In a study conducted by Brigham Young University, it was found that clean smells had a direct causal relationship to moral behavior (Brigham Young University, 2009). In other words, where a place smelled clean people behaved better. This shows a strong relationship between the effect of the perception of clean and the behavior of people. Another study this time done by The Keep America Beautiful Organization found that “One of the strongest contributors to littering is the prevalence of existing litter. Consistently in our results, we find that litter begets litter. Individuals are much more likely to litter into littered environments (as seen in the observational studies), and they are less likely to report littering into beautified environments” (Keep America Beautiful, 2009. 56). Therefore, according to these studies, the environment plays a huge role into the way we behave. If we apply these findings to brownfields the impact becomes obvious. Brownfields are basically oversized litter in the context of the built environment. Moreover, the odor from these environments seldom smells like clean. If litter begets litter and bad odor promotes violence or a less moral behavior then it’s safe to say that brownfields impact human psyche in such a way where humans are more prone to create litter and behave less morally.
“…when a man found it, He hid it again…” The Problem
Given the effects of brownfields it’s understandable that government would want to create enforcement protocols so that these brownfields would be cleaned up and created into something less abrasive to the environment and to development. The government’s enforcement tool came into existence in the 80s under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) also known as “Superfund” (Harnik and Donahue, 2011). However, CERCLA followed a “’strict, retroactive, joint and several’ liability system” (Ibid, 2011) which placed strict cleaning requirements and penalties to developers to the point that only sites with extremely good economic potential were cleaned up. Those sites that lacked such potential were left empty and blighted. In other words, the potentials that developers saw in these brownfields were hid by the strictness of governmental enforcement to the point where it was more beneficial for the developers to not develop the land, then to deal with all the fees and regulations imposed by the government.
CERCLA labeled brownfields under three tiers based on the level of contamination and repair needed. In order for a property to fall under the first tier (Tier I) the facility’s total aboveground oil storage capacity had to be 10,000 gallons or less within three years prior to the plan certification date, or since becoming subject to the SPCC rule if in operation for less than three years. The facility could not have had a single discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines exceeding 1,000 gallons, or two discharges of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines each exceeding 42 gallons within any 12-month period. The facility also could not have any above ground oil containers greater than 5000 gallons. Under the second tier (Tier II), all of the requirements of tier I had to be met with the difference being that tier II properties had containers above ground greater than 5000 gallons. Tier III includes both Tier I and II and anything that goes beyond these requirements. The Tier III definition is vague mainly to encompass the vast differences in brownfield properties (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). CERCLA’s intention with the Tier labels was to respond to negative environmental impacts and to force cleanups. Yet, the opposite happened.
“…in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.” Solution and Investment
In the 90s a desire for downtown revitalization grew. With this desire came criticism by private developers concerning strict
English: Logo of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Español: Logo de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental. El EPA dirige las ciencias ambientales de los Estados Unidos. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
restrictions and laws from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This caused EPA to revise their “financial framework, moving more hard to-remedy Tier II and Tier III properties towards productive uses” (Harnik and Donahue, 2011). In order to do this the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1994 created the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative (BEDI). BEDI is a competitive grant that facilitates brownfield redevelopment by awarding funds to projects that “spur the return of brownfields to productive economic use “(HUD, 2012). Further assistance came in 2002 with the creation of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act also known as the “Brownfield law”. This law was passed by President George W. Bush in order to assess and restore brownfields. It also “clarified CERCLA liability protections; and provided funds to enhance state and tribal response programs” (Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Through this law, EPA has given more than $80 million through 1,895 assessment grants, 279 revolving loan funds, and 752 restorative grants (Harnik and Donahue, 2011).
States have also stepped in to create programs and ordinances that facilitate the action of cleaning and restoring brownfields. Such programs include voluntary cleanup programs based on the proposed site use. For example, in 1998 Florida created the Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credit (VCTC). Under the VCTC, private and public entities are eligible for the credit which uses certificates awarded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection amounting to an annual $5 million authorization. Moreover these certificates are valid against Florida Corporate Income Tax. (Florida, 2012) In South Carolina, they have a Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) which “allows a non-responsible party to acquire a contaminated property with State Superfund liability protection for existing contamination by agreeing to perform an environmental assessment and/or remediation”(South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2012).
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure…” The Outcome and Benefits
These actions by the government and stated are stimulating redevelopment efforts. The results can be felt in many cities around the US via redeveloped brownfield sites such as Gas Works in Seattle, Discovery Green in Houston, Mill Ruins Park in Minneapolis, Riverbank Park in New Jersey, etc. As an example of the kind of impact possible through these sites, let’s take a look at Discovery Green Park.
The Discovery Green Park in Houston Texas is a 12 acre park created by a public-private partnership between the City and the Discovery Green Conservancy. Architect Larry Speck led the design of the park’s architecture, creating a model of sustainability and design (Speck, 2008). This site in which Discovery Green now resides used to be an undeveloped concrete parking lot adjacent to an open grass field. In the first three years of its inauguration, the park has attracted over three million visitors and has hosted over 800 public and private events (Discovery Green, 2012). Due to its redevelopment, Discovery Green has transformed development in the city by reinvigorating growth. For example, Thirteen months after the opening of the park, luxury apartments in One Park Place started renting out again. A 28,000 square foot grocery store has also opened in the vicinity creating more pedestrian traffic and presence in the downtown area.
The cost to redevelop Discovery Green was $182 million. However, it is estimated that Discovery Green has created $500 million of private development in its vicinity. This is more than double the initial investment (Harnick and Donohue, 2011).
“…In his joy…” The Public Interest
Brownfields are one of the few urban items that have a consistent reaction from the people no matter where their located. This reaction is of course a bad one. Planners could probably get away without public participation for the sake of determining whether a brownfield is wanted by the people. The answer is no (there, you have saved thousands of dollars just by reading this paper). Unfortunately, is not quite that simple. The public’s reaction must be documented for leverage and assurance. However, any planner would be hard pressed to find a community who is absolutely enamored with their polluted blight. The question is not, however; whether communities are enamored with their brownfields. Rather the question is what exactly the community wants to do with their brownfield. Some argue that the best redeveloped use for these sites is commercial or even more industrial uses like another factory. When parks and greenery are suggested, many people question the wisdom found in such a proposals. In order to determine what the desires of the community are, public meetings and workshops are a must. Moreover, if the public is to be educated as to the positive potential of brownfield redevelopment such as the Discovery Green Park, it’s imperative that these meetings take place. If a careful observation is done on the brownfields that have already been established, common trends can be seen. The first trend is that development near the redeveloped field increases (or in some cases begins). Another observation is that these fields tend to become new places for people to come together whether to recreate as in the case of Gas Works or to be entertained as in the case of Discovery Green. The last trend is the mitigation of pollution to the environment caused by these abandoned polluted sites (if they are polluted, remember some are not polluted, they just give the impression that they are (Iannone, 1995)) which is always in some way, form, or fashion beneficial for all.
“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.”-Matthew 13:44 NIV
Conclusion
The principals associated with brownfields are not new. Like this 2000 year old book demonstrates, brownfields have and are hidden treasures that some are willing and able to see. With the treasure they find in mind, some sell everything and invest everything they have into these fields knowing that they will reap a greater reward. Brownfields are hidden treasures with the potential to influence everything around them for the better. With the government and cities’ help these diamonds in the rough can be made to shine as some are shinning now. Hopefully, the trend will continue.
References
Alachua County Florida (2010), Cabot Koppers Superfund, Retrieved April 21, 2012 retrieved
from:http://www.alachuacounty.us/Depts/EPD/Pollution/Pages/CabotKoppersSuperfund.
Aspx.
Brigham Young University (2009, October 25). Clean Smells Promote Moral Behavior, Study
Suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/10/091025091148.htm
Discovery Green, Mission and History, Retrieved April 21, 2012 retrieved from:
http://www.discoverygreen.com/mission-history/
Environmental Protection Agency (2011, October), Brownfields Definition, Retrieved April 21,
2012 retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm.
Environmental Protection Agency (2011, October 4). Laws and Statutes, Retrieved April 21,
2012 retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/index.htm
Environmental Protection Agency (2011, October), Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: Qualified Facilities Applicability, Retrieved: April 21, 2012 retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/spcc/qf_app_guidance.pdf
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2011, November 30), Voluntary Cleanup Tax
Credit, Retrieved April 21, 2012 retrieved from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us
/waste/categories/vctc/default.htm
Harnick, Peter and Donahue, Ryan (2011, December). Turning Brownfields into Parks.
Planning, 13-17.
Iannone, Donald T. (1995). Redeveloping Urban Brownfields. Land Lines, Vol. 7(6), Retrieved
April 21, 2012 retrieved from: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/533 _Redeveloping-Urban-Brownfields.
Keep America Beautiful (2009, January), Littering Behavior in America: Results of a National
Study, Retrieved April 20, 2012 retrieved from: http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/
KAB_Report_Final_2.pdf?docID=4581
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Land and Waste
Management, Retrieved April 21, 2012 retrieved from: http://www.scdhec.gov
/environment/lwm/html/brownfields.htm
Speck, Larry (2008). Discovery Green, Retrieved April 21, 2012 retrieved from:
http://larryspeck.com /building/discovery-green/.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Brownfields Economic Development
Initiative (BEDI). Retrieved: April 21, 2012 retrieved from: http://portal.hud.gov
/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/BEDI
Faces of Urban Regional Planning and Design 