A Cleanup That's Easier Legislated Than Done - New York Times
The New York Times
December 4, 2005
A Cleanup That's Easier Legislated Than Done
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Two years ago, the New York State Legislature passed what it called the most significant environmental legislation in recent memory, the culmination of a seven-year effort to turn many long-abandoned industrial sites into usable properties.
The law, hailed by an unlikely coalition of environmentalists, government officials and real estate interests, seemed to set the stage for economic revitalization in neighborhoods blighted by such sites - in no small part because of tax incentives offered to developers willing to clean up the sites.
In New York City, where many former manufacturing neighborhoods were recently rezoned to allow for residential construction, there was hope that the legislation, known formally as the Brownfield Cleanup Program, would pave the way for badly needed housing.
But two years after the legislation passed, only slightly more than 100 of the state's thousands of industrial sites have been approved for the program. As well, scores of developers, confused about the program's regulations, still have no idea whether they qualify to participate.
Indeed, many private nonprofit organizations hoping to use the legislation to develop housing and other projects in low-income neighborhoods complain that the program excludes smaller, less contaminated sites - like a dump filled with car parts or construction materials - and may prevent new economic development in the communities that were supposed to benefit most from the legislation.
"This law was a very good idea," said Richard G. Leland, an environmental lawyer and chairman of the environmental law committee Real Estate Board of New York's environmental law committee. "But it is flawed in its execution."
Officials at the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is overseeing the program, say many applications have been filed with the state and that they are encouraged by the response from developers and others.
They contend that any new program of this size can be expected to encounter some snags.
"The Brownfield Cleanup Program has made substantial progress since its creation just over two years ago with more than 240 applications submitted to the program in that short period of time," said Dale Desnoyers, the department's official in charge of the program.
But some developers and community groups say the environmental agency, while well-intentioned, is too understaffed to deal with the paperwork and other aspects of a sprawling new program.
In many ways, some legislators and development experts say, the experience of the brownfield cleanup program is emblematic of New York's way of doing business: later and more strangely than any other state in the union. New York was the last former manufacturing center to pass a brownfield law, and it structured its incentive program in a way that seems to favor large developers.
In fact, many of the program's problems, these people say, stem from the Legislature's decision to give tax credits up to 22 percent of the total cost of a project on a brownfield. Most states offer tax credits based only on the cleanup cost, rather than the project's total cost.
If developers here do not spend all their credit, they are eligible for a check for the difference. Participants get protection from lawsuits and a letter when they have completed their work declaring the site clean, which can be useful in attracting investors.
But the generous tax benefits set off a stampede of developers - many of whom were already planning to build before being offered the incentives - that has overwhelmed the environmental agency and led to long delays. The New York Times Company, in fact, sought a brownfield tax credit for its new headquarters in Midtown, but was rejected.
"It is going more slowly than people had hoped," said Michael B. Gerrard, an environmental lawyer with the Arnold and Porter firm.
Some of the most acute frustration with the state has been felt by nonprofit organizations interested in building low- and moderate-income housing. They say their applications - for cleaning up and building on smaller, less toxic sites - have been rejected because those sites are not contaminated enough.
Mathy Stanislaus, a director of New Partners for Community Revitalization, a nonprofit group that develops projects on brownfields in low-income neighborhoods, said the environmental agency had basically decreed that sites available for development had to have been the scene of major toxic spills.
Mr. Stanislaus is not alone in his frustration.
"There are swaths of areas around the Bronx River, in many cases in low- or moderate-income neighborhoods, where those sites are not eligible as defined by D.E.C.," said Linda Shaw, legal chairwoman of the National Brownfield Association, which represents developers who want to develop brownfields.
Mr. Desnoyers of the D.E.C. insisted that all projects get the same consideration, no matter their size or what will ultimately go on them.
Tension has also continued between environmental groups - who generally believe that the most important thing is to clean up hazardous sites, no matter what their ultimate use - and economic development interests that generally believe that a cleanup without a development goal is a wasted opportunity.
"In order to solve a problem you have to agree on what the problem is," said Mark A. Izeman, a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And when it comes to brownfields, there is no agreement on what the problem is. Every person you speak to has a different reason for why sites are not being cleaned up."
Lawyers and developers point to New Jersey and Pennsylvania as states with easier-to-navigate programs. Those programs, which offer more modest tax breaks than New York's, have produced hundreds of cleaned-up properties since their inception a decade ago. "Pennsylvania is a very streamlined program," said Kenneth J. Warren, an environmental lawyer in Philadelphia.
Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state assemblyman who was instrumental in getting the law passed, acknowledged that New York's program needed work. "It is a very ambitious program with a lot of detail attached to it," Mr. DiNapoli said. "It would have been nice if it had been done faster but it would rather have it done right. As we monitor things, we are open to things being tweaked here and there."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link to Article Source
December 4, 2005
A Cleanup That's Easier Legislated Than Done
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Two years ago, the New York State Legislature passed what it called the most significant environmental legislation in recent memory, the culmination of a seven-year effort to turn many long-abandoned industrial sites into usable properties.
The law, hailed by an unlikely coalition of environmentalists, government officials and real estate interests, seemed to set the stage for economic revitalization in neighborhoods blighted by such sites - in no small part because of tax incentives offered to developers willing to clean up the sites.
In New York City, where many former manufacturing neighborhoods were recently rezoned to allow for residential construction, there was hope that the legislation, known formally as the Brownfield Cleanup Program, would pave the way for badly needed housing.
But two years after the legislation passed, only slightly more than 100 of the state's thousands of industrial sites have been approved for the program. As well, scores of developers, confused about the program's regulations, still have no idea whether they qualify to participate.
Indeed, many private nonprofit organizations hoping to use the legislation to develop housing and other projects in low-income neighborhoods complain that the program excludes smaller, less contaminated sites - like a dump filled with car parts or construction materials - and may prevent new economic development in the communities that were supposed to benefit most from the legislation.
"This law was a very good idea," said Richard G. Leland, an environmental lawyer and chairman of the environmental law committee Real Estate Board of New York's environmental law committee. "But it is flawed in its execution."
Officials at the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is overseeing the program, say many applications have been filed with the state and that they are encouraged by the response from developers and others.
They contend that any new program of this size can be expected to encounter some snags.
"The Brownfield Cleanup Program has made substantial progress since its creation just over two years ago with more than 240 applications submitted to the program in that short period of time," said Dale Desnoyers, the department's official in charge of the program.
But some developers and community groups say the environmental agency, while well-intentioned, is too understaffed to deal with the paperwork and other aspects of a sprawling new program.
In many ways, some legislators and development experts say, the experience of the brownfield cleanup program is emblematic of New York's way of doing business: later and more strangely than any other state in the union. New York was the last former manufacturing center to pass a brownfield law, and it structured its incentive program in a way that seems to favor large developers.
In fact, many of the program's problems, these people say, stem from the Legislature's decision to give tax credits up to 22 percent of the total cost of a project on a brownfield. Most states offer tax credits based only on the cleanup cost, rather than the project's total cost.
If developers here do not spend all their credit, they are eligible for a check for the difference. Participants get protection from lawsuits and a letter when they have completed their work declaring the site clean, which can be useful in attracting investors.
But the generous tax benefits set off a stampede of developers - many of whom were already planning to build before being offered the incentives - that has overwhelmed the environmental agency and led to long delays. The New York Times Company, in fact, sought a brownfield tax credit for its new headquarters in Midtown, but was rejected.
"It is going more slowly than people had hoped," said Michael B. Gerrard, an environmental lawyer with the Arnold and Porter firm.
Some of the most acute frustration with the state has been felt by nonprofit organizations interested in building low- and moderate-income housing. They say their applications - for cleaning up and building on smaller, less toxic sites - have been rejected because those sites are not contaminated enough.
Mathy Stanislaus, a director of New Partners for Community Revitalization, a nonprofit group that develops projects on brownfields in low-income neighborhoods, said the environmental agency had basically decreed that sites available for development had to have been the scene of major toxic spills.
Mr. Stanislaus is not alone in his frustration.
"There are swaths of areas around the Bronx River, in many cases in low- or moderate-income neighborhoods, where those sites are not eligible as defined by D.E.C.," said Linda Shaw, legal chairwoman of the National Brownfield Association, which represents developers who want to develop brownfields.
Mr. Desnoyers of the D.E.C. insisted that all projects get the same consideration, no matter their size or what will ultimately go on them.
Tension has also continued between environmental groups - who generally believe that the most important thing is to clean up hazardous sites, no matter what their ultimate use - and economic development interests that generally believe that a cleanup without a development goal is a wasted opportunity.
"In order to solve a problem you have to agree on what the problem is," said Mark A. Izeman, a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And when it comes to brownfields, there is no agreement on what the problem is. Every person you speak to has a different reason for why sites are not being cleaned up."
Lawyers and developers point to New Jersey and Pennsylvania as states with easier-to-navigate programs. Those programs, which offer more modest tax breaks than New York's, have produced hundreds of cleaned-up properties since their inception a decade ago. "Pennsylvania is a very streamlined program," said Kenneth J. Warren, an environmental lawyer in Philadelphia.
Thomas P. DiNapoli, the state assemblyman who was instrumental in getting the law passed, acknowledged that New York's program needed work. "It is a very ambitious program with a lot of detail attached to it," Mr. DiNapoli said. "It would have been nice if it had been done faster but it would rather have it done right. As we monitor things, we are open to things being tweaked here and there."
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link to Article Source
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 05, 2005 at 14:03.
