Brownfields: Risk, property, and community value

Abstract

Brownfields have been the subject of intense interest across the United States. This paper attempts to look at some of the conceptual goal-oriented aspects of brownfields through the lens of risk to determine if it could serve as another way of exploring property use and community value. As such the paper is focused not on developing a theoretical framework to apply risk assessment techniques but rather on exploration of concepts. The context of brownfields is examined from several viewpoints: urban policy, federal/state government, city, property owner, redeveloper, community and individual. It is not a complete story but each viewpoint adds another dimension to the portrait of overall risk, which is composed of economic, environmental, social, health and political aspects.

Notes

1. These are representative, not comprehensive. Some are quantifiable; others are not. All are subject to uncertainty which adds to an inherent level of imprecision.

2. ‘Infill’ denotes developing on vacant land within an urban area.

3. See the American Planning Association, <http://www.planning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm>.

4. NIMBY has been used as a term to capture the ‘not in my backyard’ reaction to certain developments.

5. In some cases sellers indemnify purchasers to account for unforeseen/unknown/undiscovered contamination.

6. When real estate agents and financial institutions partner to provide incentives to buyers, the incentive to disclose risks may be limited; this may become further obfuscated when a group of loans is subsequently sold to the secondary market.