Because of its history as the first industrial state in the United States (U.S.), New Jersey has been left with a rich legacy of contaminated properties (23,000) of which
Environmental Protection, 2011). This is a significant number considering the relatively small size of the state although this represents only 2 % of the approximately 450,000 brownfield sites in the U.S. Under the state’s Industrial Site Recovery Act of 1993, (ISRA) about 12,000 of these properties are being remediated (NJDEP, 2007). Inclusive of these 12,000 properties that are being remediated are brownfields. In Passaic County there are 300 identified brownfield sites (See Table 2-2). This Act was implemented as part of the amendment of thewidely unpopularEnvironmental Cleanup Responsibility Act of 1983 (ECRA). ECRA was heavily criticized as being an obstacle to cleanup activities and further economic development of the sites. This Act (ECRA) allowed the transfer of non remediated industrial brownfields to a new owner on condition that it is used for the same industrial purpose and contaminant exposure levels are within the standard set for that of industrial use. OtherNew Jerseystatutes governing brownfields’ cleanup and redevelopment include the Spill Compensation and Control Act ; Site Remediation Reform Act and Executive Order # 140 (2009) under which is the Licensed Site Remediation Professional Program. The Spill Compensation and Control Act require a responsible party to remediate a contaminated site. The Site Remediation Reform Act and Executive Order #140 reforms the process of site remediation to ensure that sites will be remediated within an appropriate and acceptable period. The rule also stipulates that new cases for remediation utilize the services of a Licensed Site Remediation
Professional (LSRP) to perform remediation services. It came into full effect on May 7, 2012. The LSRP program gives the LSRP authority to oversee the remediation activities pertaining to the contaminated site. This will enable the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) staff to focus more on enforcement activities and on highly complex contaminated sites. LSRPs speed up the remediation process but are subject to NJDEP’s oversight and audit. The Act also mandates the provision of Technical Assistant Grants (TAGS) for nonprofit groups to hire a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) as a technical advisor to heighten community awareness and understanding about the environmental concerns and the remediation issues and actions at a site that is
contaminated. The maximum amount administered for one site is $10,000 for the remedial assessment and a maximum amount of $100, 000 for the remedial action. An important consideration for eligibility for TAGS is the level of community involvement. Another prerequisite for eligibility is that one or more of the community group members must be an area resident in the neighborhood that houses the site. This is to ensure representation for the affected citizens. (NJDEP, 2011)
2.1.2. Brownfields and Economic Development.
The principles of the real estate market undergird brownfields redevelopment. Therefore, the program seeks to align its goals with those of economic development as well as the social goals for community development. Two assessment criteria, among others, for determining the feasibility for development, are the extent of the public benefits to be derived and the economic needs and objectives of the community. Therefore, of primary concern to Economic Development Authorities (EDA) and the developer, whether public or private, are the financial and market feasibility of the project. However, an exception to the matter of market feasibility is the case when the redevelopment project is for low- income housing. In addition, how this project affects the community’s fiscal health and
its citizens is important. This refers to the how the project will economically affect the neighborhood and is determined through a fiscal impact assessment. A fiscal impact analysis seeks to ensure that the costs to the public in terms of the demands to be placed on the community’s infrastructure (such as sewerage system, school carrying capacity among others), be not greater than the revenues that will accrue to the municipality from the project. This research found that infrastructural redevelopment impacts were a major concern for some survey respondents in Clifton in their assessment of the redevelopment project’s impact. (See Chapter 5) However, in considering a proposed redevelopment initiative, this fiscal impact analysis results may be of less importance to the economic authorities than that of job creation and the ability to attract additional development (International Economic Development Council, 2012). Here it must be mentioned that in the first stage (pre development phase) of the real estate redevelopment process which include the feasibility assessments and environmental review, there is a role for the community. This is the political feasibility in terms of the community’s attitude towards the proposed project.
It was aforementioned that although brownfields redevelopment is inclusive of social and public health goals as derivatives, it is primarily a real estate market driven program and concerned with ‘recycling of land’. However, because of the issue of possible water and land contamination and their associated public and ecological implications, the achievement of both environmental and economic goals is essential to successful brownfields redevelopment. However, brownfields officials mostly use the economic impacts as a metric to gauge the success of the projects. Two of the reasons are
first, the importance that decision makers and legislators ascribe to these economic criteria is for public policy direction, and secondly and significantly, economic impacts are easier measured and quantified than environmental and public health impacts. The International Economic Development Council (2012: 79, citing Bartsch’s February, 2000: 20) gives some common indicators by which economic impacts are assessed. They
include the number of jobs and businesses created, leveraging of private sector funding, development of housing units, tax revenues gained by the municipality, and the “number
of sites that entered the state Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) and subsequently
completed it”. The research results will later show that in keeping with the norm, some of
these indicators were of primary importance to municipal officials in gauging the projects’ successes.
The Passaic County Economic Development Authority website states there is a place for community outreach and notification in the county’s Brownfields Assessment Program. It identified some organized committees in the county namely The Passaic County Smart Growth Committee, Comprehensive Economic Development Strategic Committee, and Open Space Farmlands Preservation Committee as all part of this venture. The Committee members include NGO representatives, industry and commerce representatives and local residents (Passaic County Brownfields Assessment Program, 2010). It further states that high priority is given to sites recommended by local residents and based on the sites proximity to sensitive populations such as the school population and community facilities. In the light of the reportedly high value placed on citizens’ site recommendations, this research therefore reinforces its argument that the affected citizens
must be involved in evaluation of brownfields redevelopment successes. This is equally important as well as the economic evaluations. Furthermore, maintaining community relations is part of a remediated brownfield’s long-term property management. This will facilitate sustainable reuse of the property both in the present and future.
2. 2. Status regarding the presence of brownfields in Passaic County and the municipalities being studied.