In my previous post, I wrote about the ponzi scheme that
most municipalities fall into by investing public dollars for infrastructure
improvements so that developers can build strip malls and big-box stores on
greenfields and that ultimately fail in the long term to return on the public’s
investment in them. I said that there
are typically two factors that work symbiotically to discourage brownfield
development in favor of greenfield development.
They are: haste to start building; and inflexible, outdated zoning and
land development ordinances. Here is how
this dysfunction happens.
(photo credit: London [Ontario] Free Press) |
(photo credit: http://www.sonorannews.com)
|
(photo credit: http://www.capturelehighvalley.com) |
Brownfield development is nothing new. By now, I suppose that most states have cleanup
laws that were written specifically to grant environmental liability protection
to entities that purchase a contaminated property and cleans it up. My own state of Pennsylvania was one of the
leaders in developing a realistic regulatory framework to help get
environmentally compromised properties back on the tax rolls and employing
people.
Sites do not have to be cleaned up to pristine conditions;
their owners simply have to eliminate any contaminant pathways to human or
ecological receptors. After delineating
the bounds of the contamination in the soil, sometimes installing a simple concrete
or asphalt cap on the soil is sufficient to prevent humans from coming into
contact with the residual contaminants and to prevent rainwater from leaching
the contaminants down into the groundwater.
And sometimes the closure process is nothing more than collecting enough
samples to prove that there are no contaminants present at concentrations above
their cleanup standards for soil or groundwater. Usually it’s just environmental science, not
rocket science.
I should also say that I’m not completely opposed to
government subsidies for development projects.
If the cost-benefit analysis shows an acceptable return on the
taxpayers’ investment, why not? However,
I think you’re more likely to see a reasonable return on investment from
updating existing utilities or infrastructure to facilitate redevelopment of a
brownfield than you would building new utilities or infrastructure to
accommodate building on a greenfield.
You can teach an old dog new tricks. When Bethlehem Steel shuttered operations at their flagship plant in Bethlehem, PA, in the mid-1990s, the city rallied to create a renaissance at the dilapidated, 100+ year old industrial property. (photo credit: http://kgurban.com/new/beth.html) |
The brownfields are there, and they already have utilities. They already have roads in front
of them with people driving past them. Many already have rail lines adjacent to them to move either freight or commuters in and out. Let’s use the infrastructure that we already have in place and let the greenfields alone to continue to recycle our carbon dioxide into oxygen. Building a new big box with a 4-acre parking lot on top of a fallow farm field does not do a thing to mitigate our carbon footprint. But it does create a need to extend utilities and roads that taxpayers will have to start maintaining in 10 years when the developer is long gone.
Concertgoers gather for a show at
the base of the former Bethlehem Steel blast furnaces in the heart of the new
SteelStacks arts and cultural center in Bethlehem, PA. (photo credit: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/publications/cascade/81/03_keys-to-success-for-small-industrial-cities.cfm)
|
The former Bethlehem Steel blast furnaces were retained as an historical and cultural monument in the heart of the new SteelStacks arts and cultural center in Bethlehem, PA. (photo credit: http://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/publications/cascade/81/03_keys-to-success-for-small-industrial-cities.cfm) |
It is quite interesting that Northampton County would consider a centralized Human Services facility in the Bethlehem Township. This facility should be located close to those that need those services the most. This is an example of Government promoting green development over brown.
ReplyDeleteOn another topic, it does say something about the state of affairs when a "monument" such as the Lehigh Valley Dairy property seated at the Gateway to Allentown does not have the POLITICAL winds to get Federal or State funding to make that site shovel ready. This property is within ¼ mile of 18,000 residents and is close to Lehigh Valley busiest intersection of Route 22 and Route 145, arguably the western Gateway to the Lehigh Valley. It has been vacant/under-utilized for 22+ years.
Core communities should not be defined by municipal designations or municipal boundaries on a map.
-PG from Lehigh County
On January 27, 1989, the Lehigh County Dairy shutter its doors at N 7th Street at the border between Whitehall and Allentown. At that time, it provided family sustaining jobs to 270 employees. That is a hell of a lot of walkable jobs and not a penny of Stimulus dollars were available to make this site shovel ready. Tomorrow, January 27 marks 24 years since the Dairy's doors were shuttered.
ReplyDeletePG from Lehigh County