Effects of Deed Restrictions

[Don Zweifel <zweifel@chapman.edu>]

Let's use Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, Ca. as a case in point.

This base has several landfills that are suspected of containing hazardous
waste chemicals. The Dept. of the Navy's (DON) SW Naval Facilities
Engineering Command has the responsibility of overseeing all clean-up
and/or restoration at this installation. The DON proposes that landfill
sites three and five be capped and monitored. They don't want to spend
$7.6 million to excavate and haul it to a class one and two landfill.
They'd rather spend $2 million less and just pave it over. There are
unfortunate repercussions if we're going to choose this "remediation"
method.

How could this be considered a presumptive remedy? The DON regards it as a
prescriptive solution. We believe capping usually should be proscribed 
or not a viable option for the following reasons:

One of the most paramount problems revolves around the specter of deed
restrictions. Few lenders will want to loan funds to develop property to
be built on top of a landfill unless it is discounted significantly. Could
one blame them? Why should a lender make a risk-based assessment that may
have potentially detremental consequences without some major allowance?

Why should any RAB and/or LRA (Local Redevelopment Authority) put their
stamp of approval on landfills to be capped when they will be encumbered
with deed restrictions? In essence, it translates into receiving land to
be transferred with greatly diminished value, land suitable only for
limited reuse. Is this what the people in your communities expect to
inherit? 

When any proposals regarding the above come your way one should feel that
it is incumbent upon them to inform their congressperson post haste...
These representatives are supposed to be our watchdogs but they can't know
every nuance about a closing military base. 

This factor will probably place the ball in your court...

 Don Zweifel