RE: FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

["Joe Schilling" <jms33@vt.edu>]

I would have to say this has been a fascinating experience tracking the
e-mail train/discussion. You all have covered the gamut of perspectives from
hard core economics to politics to social equity.  Too bad there is not the
opportunity to have this discussion face-to-face.  I wonder if there are any
open or available "market place of ideas" slots at the BFs 2006 conference
to further engage in this dialogue.  Perhaps we can all meet over lunch.

The generic issue of subsidies certainly touches the nerves of many folks
these day, however, as this discussion illustrates, there is much more than
catchy phrases and sound bites.  Unfortunately, it seems that policymaking
these days is rarely done with thoughtful and extensive evaluations and
policy analysis/discussion of what has worked and what could be done to make
things work better. 

After all, it seems that everyone in this discussion does have a common
interest--they want BFS to be redeveloped--the debate is over how and what
types of incentives make sense.

Joe Schilling, Professor in Practice
Associate Director, Green Regions
Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute www.mi.vt.edu 
1021 Prince Street, Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
PH-703-706-8102  FAX-703-518-8009
e-mail: jms33@vt.edu
 

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Trilling, Barry
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:08 PM
To: lsiegel@cpeo.org; Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: RE: FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies

Lenny:  Like Peter, you appear to take for granted that the historical
precedence of "claw backs" did not inhibit further development. These
are not, as you characterize them, "new impediments," but vestiges of
retrograde policy. Rather, policy should encourage responsible
development with minimal post-subsidy restraints within the realm of
that which is ethically acceptable and politically achievable.
Protection against irresponsible subsidies should begin with a diligent
screening process of both the developer and the project and the setting
of criteria for an award that meet appropriate goals.  Once through that
process, if a project fails to meet its goals then the screening process
or the criteria should be adjusted. This not mean we should ignore fraud
and blatant mismanagement, which should always be open for review and
remedy. The ability to take back what was promised short of the
recipient's fraud and mismanagement, however, does not recognize the
realities of a competitive market where even responsible developers
will, all other things being equal, take the path of least resistance;
of equal importance, "claw backs" provide short shrift to brownfields
development.  Barry

-----Original Message-----
From: brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
[mailto:brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org] On Behalf Of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:44 PM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: Re: FW: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies


I like Peter's "clawback" proposal.

Unlike some of the private sector representatives on the list, I don't 
see such conditions as the imposition of new impediments to development.

Development has always been supported by a wide range of "carrots" and 
limited by a wide range of "sticks." Many of those are taken for granted

because they have been in state and federal tax code for a long time. 
Peter's proposal would refocus such carrots and sticks, not introduce 
them for the first time.

Lenny

-- 
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields


**********************************************************************
This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may
constitute a confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not clear
that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this transmittal in error; any review, copying or distribution or
dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received
this transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana immediately at
203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender and delete the transmittal
and any attachments.
Neither this message nor the documents attached to this message are
encrypted.
**********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields


_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields