|From:||Peter Strauss <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:49:53 -0800 (PST)|
|Subject:||Re: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA|
The discussion at the conference was very interesting (an
entertaining), but not totally on point. The issue of voluntary
cleanup vs, superfund type cleanup, as was the original issue at
Gowanus, was only touched upon briefly. But it was in this
discussion that developers along the canal stated that they would back
out of development projects if Gowanus was named a Superfund site.
The debate shifted to disclosure requirements, and to some extent, whether property transactions should be protected at the cost of public health protection. These are important issues, to say the least. In my opinion the proponents of more stringent disclosure requirements (Larry and Lenny) were essentially turning the concept of due diligence on its head: that is, instead of due diligence on the buyers side, proponents would have stiffer requirements for due care and disclosure on the part of owners and responsible parties. In my opinion, proponents are seeking a substantial cultural/value change. I am not opposed to it. On the other hand, the proponent of the protection of the market-driven system (Barry) made some important points that can't be overlooked. That is, if money dries up for transactions at Brownfield sites, they will sit idle, as they did once before.
So the real problem is how can we develop a policy that has two goals in mind: 1) to not unduly burden property owners (economically and legally), and 2) protecting public health to the fullest extent practical. The way that I see it now, neither goal is being fully met. (I recognize that I have simplified a complex legal, economic, and environmental issue, and I apologize to the panelists if I've misrepresented their positions.) I am hoping that this dialogue continues.
Peter Strauss On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Lenny Siegel wrote:
Yesterday, at the Brownfields conference in New Orleans, we had a lively panel discussion that addressed, among other things, state requirements for public disclosure and involvement under voluntary cleanup programs? When (if ever) do members of the public - particularly site neighbors - learn about releases of hazardous substances? Are regulatory requirements met?Tell the list what happens in your state. Lenny -- Lenny Siegel Executive Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight a project of the Pacific Studies Center 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.cpeo.org _______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
_______________________________________________ Brownfields mailing list Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Vapor testing in Mountain Top, Pennsylvania|
Next by Date: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] Public disclosure and involvement, state by state|
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA