|
GUEST COLUMN |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
CONTACT: Bill Thomas |
State Rep. Eugene DePasquale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATTENTION EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR: Please consider publishing the following guest column by state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York, on the OP-ED or Guest Column page of your newspaper. Please use the contact information above for questions or confirmation. Thank you for your consideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Brownfield redevelopment: are the right incentives being provided?
By state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York
A number of innovative techniques have been employed in recent years to promote the redevelopment of Pennsylvania's brownfields, mostly in the form of economic and financial incentives. The question is whether or not these financial incentives are working to encourage developers to reinvest in brownfield properties, and to take the economic risk associated with reclaiming contaminated lands. My answer would be a resounding "yes."
In 1995, the state created the Land Recycling Program or what is commonly referred to as Act 2. Since the development of this state program and the financial assistance initiatives that accompany it, more than 2,300 sites have been revitalized statewide and more than 40,000 jobs have been created or retained.
One highly effective financial incentive program, the Growing Greener initiative, has provided millions of dollars in state funding to various entities to preserve farmland and protect open space, rehabilitate state parks, clean up abandoned mines and restore watersheds, and provide new and upgraded water and sewer systems. It has played a major role in reclaiming land that was once left unattended and rendered useless.
In addition, the state developed the Industrial Sites Reuse Program which provides loans and grants to municipalities and private entities for site assessment and remediation; the Infrastructure Development Program, which provides public and private developers with grants and loans for site remediation, clearance and new construction; and the Key Sites Initiative, which creates partnerships between local economic development agencies or municipalities and the Department of Environmental Protection, and uses state-funded contractors to conduct environmental site assessments and prepare remediation plans to encourage and facilitate the voluntary cleanup and reuse of abandoned industrial properties in primary locations.
Here in York, we have been directly impacted by funding appropriated through these state programs. We are currently rehabilitating the Codorus Creek Boat Basin; we built the Susquehanna Commerce Center; and the Buchart-Horn headquarters was the state’s first revitalization site.
These are only a small handful of incentive programs that are working here in Pennsylvania to encourage developers to invest in brownfield lands and to offset some of the financial risks associated with revitalizing these properties. Thanks to these programs, the state has been successful in bridging the gap between growing our economy and protecting our environment.
Now, some may say that financial incentives are not enough. Although overwhelmingly productive and successful, I agree that providing funding alone is not the answer.
Oftentimes, developers and investors face time constraints, and with government’s reputation for adding a lot of “red tape,” many are turned off by the possible delay in approval. The state has recognized this problem and has created the Brownfield Action Team, which is designed to streamline the revitalization of Pennsylvania’s brownfield sites.
BAT enhances the interaction between DEP and local communities by designating a single point of contact within the agency for locally designated priority brownfield or abandoned mine land redevelopment projects. BAT represents an evolution of the Land Recycling Program and acts as an arm to the financial incentives offered through the program by providing an enhanced management process for community revitalization.
For developers, time is of the essence, and the state is doing all it can to make sure the turnaround time is conducive to the investment.
However, we must be prudent in this regard. A current situation in Selinsgrove is a sobering reminder of this. Are we willing to supersede the regulatory process, or expedite it to the point where evaluations of the potential hazards of lands are overlooked?
Protecting our citizens from the potential dangers of remediation and redevelopment of brownfield lands is an incentive worth its weight in time and money.
In the end, we can move our economy forward, clean our environment and protect the public. That is the formula working in Pennsylvania.
###