Comments on: Meeting Watch: A2 Brownfield (13 Oct 2008) http://annarborchronicle.com/2008/10/14/meeting-watch-a2-brownfield-13-oct-2008/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=meeting-watch-a2-brownfield-13-oct-2008 it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Steve Bean http://annarborchronicle.com/2008/10/14/meeting-watch-a2-brownfield-13-oct-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-544 Steve Bean Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:31:56 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=5772#comment-544 Actually, John, these days _everyone_ expects the city to step in when it comes to brownfields. Did you live in Michigan in the 1980′s when the (ahem, Republican-controlled) state government decided that the “polluter pays” concept was bad for business and so the rest of us should cover those costs through our taxes?

Given current state law, it does “make sense” to subsidize brownfield redevelopment in certain cases, such as when the community doesn’t want to wait around any longer for the “market” to work its inestimable magic and induce the redevelopment of a vacant site. The choice between leaving a potentially dangerous eyesore and paying to clean up someone else’s mess isn’t a pleasant one, but we don’t have the option of picking up the contaminated site and dumping it in some CEO’s office to get rid of it.

The 601 Forest site is a less problematic case, though, and the need for the subsidy is debatable.

]]> By: John Floyd http://annarborchronicle.com/2008/10/14/meeting-watch-a2-brownfield-13-oct-2008/comment-page-1/#comment-543 John Floyd Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:53:50 +0000 http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=5772#comment-543 If the land for these projects is impaired by pollution and requires clean-up, that should have been part of the purchase price negotiation. It’s like buying a house with a failing foundation – the cost of fixing the foundation is part of the price negotiation when buying the house. No one expects the city to step in and offer the money of other taxpayers to fix the foundation so that the seller does not have to accept a lower price. if the buyer did not perform due diligence when considering the property, or does not want to do the work of price negotiation, that is not the taxpayer’s problem. The seller has an asset that he allowed to become impaired. The rest of us have no responsibility for his problem, any more than for a neighbor who does not maintain his house, then discovers that lack of care has impaired the value of his home. It is not up to other city residents to hold businesses harmless for their own bad decisions.

Brownfield subsidies only make policy sense if land is so impaired that it’s sale price is zero – and no one wants it at that price. Then it may make sense to use pubic funds to restore land that is otherwise unusable. Either the land is impaired to zero price, or the seller can reduce the price enough to pay for the cost of clean up. it is not up to other city residents to hold businesses harmless for their own bad decisions.

]]>