Janesville focusing a new effort on brownfield sites
Photo
This building on Centerway and Jackson Street was once a dry cleaning facility. The building is a so-called brownfield site, where development can be hampered because there might be contamination. Janesville has applied for two grants that would help the city work with owners of buildings to try to find out if sites are contaminated.
Photo
A building on North Franklin Street are among so-called brownfield sites in the city of Janesville. The city is pursuing grants that would allow it to work with owners to test the sites for possible contamination.
Photo
A building on South River Street is among so-called brownfield sites in the city of Janesville. The city is pursuing grants that would allow it to work with owners to test the sites for possible contamination.
JANESVILLE — The former Robinson's Cleaners building on Centerway.
The vacant and decaying ammunitions factory on Franklin Street.
The shuttered GM plant.
The buildings hunker obstinately on Janesville's landscape. Many residents can't remember some of them ever being occupied. Mostly, people try to ignore them.
Such sites languish because of suspected or known contamination, city staff says. The properties often are located in older, inner city and commercial areas, places where development is needed the most.
The city is adopting a proactive approach to the so-called brownfield sites, where development is hampered because of the real or suspected contamination.
Brownfields can be large, industrial sites or small, abandoned gas stations.
The city has applied for two $200,000 federal grants.
Under the new approach, the city would use the money to work with property owners for initial phases of investigation to discover the extent of contamination.
That could mean taking soil samples and monitoring the groundwater, for instance.
City Manager Eric Levitt said it is important to do the initial work because the vitality of the central city is an important area of economic growth. But redevelopment on brownfield sites is more costly for developers.
"That creates the need for the city to be involved in that type of development," Levitt said.
Al Hulick, management analyst, said the degree of contamination varies. Sometimes, it's only an unconfirmed suspicion, but the perception alone is enough to stop development interest.
"People stay away," Hulick said. "They don't want to subject themselves to the potential liability and potential cost of remediating that site."
People often think contamination is caused by leaking drums of toxic chemicals, Hulick said. But years ago, employees at some businesses pitched contaminates out the back doors. Some sites have underground tanks that have leaked.
It's not always easy to determine the size of the problem.
"You just don't know until you get down in there," Hulick said.
In the past, the city got involved in brownfield sites only if it wanted to buy the property for redevelopment.
The grants would be the first step in a comprehensive brownfield program, Hulick said.
The city should know in spring if it is awarded any of the $400,000.
Officials aren't sure how many brownfield sites are in the city. Part of the plan is to create an inventory that includes the redevelopment potential of each site. Staff also would work with public health workers to monitor the health of people in neighborhoods with brownfields.
"In addition to impacting the city vitality on the whole, these areas create environmental justice concerns where human health and economic welfare may be disproportionately affecting neighborhood areas of older, affordable housing stock most appealing to low-income residents," the grant proposal reads.
The grant application covers four areas:
-- Downtown. Properties there include vacant and active industrial and commercial lots, including several on the riverfront. Hulick pointed to the building at 170 S. River St. as an example.
The area around the property is making some gains in redevelopment, but Hulick doesn't know if that property, one of the oldest industrial sites in the city, is contaminated.
-- The Traxler Park area. The 31-acre park is a focal point of the 1998 Riverfront Plan, which calls for expansion of the park and redevelopment along the periphery. While some success has been realized, "a number of sites with known contamination remain, discouraging new developers and limiting the positive impact that activity generated at the Traxler Park area can have on the downtown," Hulick said.
-- The Five Points area, especially to the south and west along the rail lines.
-- The General Motors plant area, which some suspect sits on a stew of contamination. The plant property is more than 200 acres, which represents about one-fourth of the city's industrial square footage. GM has it on standby.
"Much of this area was used for industry dating back even before GM, and many underutilized properties have suspected contamination issues that threaten to derail any redevelopment efforts," the grant application reads.
The city hopes to work with GM to gauge the extent of contamination, Levitt said.
The proactive approach would help current property owners make properties marketable and opens the door to funding to help the city clean up the sites, Hulick said.
"If we can increase that information, it only helps us as the city to make sites more usable and more marketable," Hulick said.
Dec 22, 2010 at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, I think that the current property owners should be made liable and have the properties tested for contamination (at their expense), if it is in anyway harmful to the citizens of Janesville. It SHOULD NOT be the responsibility of the city of Janesville or the taxpayers. You know if the current property owners do not want testing done, there is something there that could possibly be very harmful or deadly to the citizens of Janesville. It's either make the current owners test and clean up or face possible lawsuits down the line if citizens do start getting sick.
Dec 15, 2010 at 1:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
I hear your sincere pleas for my soul and I can assure you Janesvillean I am not embarrassed. Your harmonious support for this idea is not surprising. However there does not appear to be any major concerns of the property owners as they are not in tears begging for assistance from the city. Rather it is the city that has the problem. And if the city does not have competent counsel to work their little heinies to find the case law about mitigating liability I as a property owner would be highly unlikely to sign up eagerly. No it is not good the "neurotoxins were thrown out the back door" but you have to understand that properties have been owned by some parties before environmental concerns were at the front of the line. I suppose you believe the current owners should pay for the clean up prior to sale before this contamination becomes a major health concern, which you have no evidence of. So if the city cannot take care of the liability issue then what's the point? This would then render the discussion moot from a property owners standpoint. I know you don't get that but I don't expect you to because it is not your property or your money. But please...look at it from the perspective of the property owner. It is far cheaper to leave it rot then remediate the site. This is not good, I get it, but find a way to fund the clean up which a majority of the owners were not responsible for anyhow. Otherwise let's argue about the price of tea in China because nothing will happen.
Dec 15, 2010 at 12:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
legendre, if you will again, I beseech thee, read the comment, you will find that I did not call you names. I explained your system of social priorities. If you're embarrassed by that, it's your problem.
.
I think we agree (strangely, considering your hostility) that current owners need to have their liability mitigated in some fashion. As I do not make the policy or case law in this area, I have little control over the existing situation, but obviously if someone purchased a property and did not perform due diligence as to potential liability issues it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for them. At the same time the law needs to be careful about exempting responsible parties for the equivalent of tossing neurotoxins out the back door.
.
The problem for these property owners RIGHT NOW is that they have enormous obstacles to development and/or sale of their property. A program such as the city hopes to create would therefore be beneficial. If they do not take advantage of the program, their properties are still full of known or potential and unknown liability issues. In other words, they are stuck with the problem one way or the other.
.
I'm not sure exactly what has made you so angry. Do you honestly believe that we should just shrug our shoulders at potential contamination in a high-density part of the city? Do you honestly believe that property owners do not ALREADY have a target on their backs should any contamination result in litigation? I suppose the ostrich approach can work for a time, but ultimately the city -- all of us, all taxpayers -- will pay the price for the devalued property, assuming we don't pay the price in a more ominous way with our health. At what point does the property owner's need to escape a hefty cleanup responsibility -- funded or unfunded -- trump the rights of the rest of us? If bricks were falling off of Grafft's hotel, wouldn't the liability be obvious? Industrial chemicals from 50 or 100 years ago can be just as dangerous.
Dec 14, 2010 at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Who was the first to call names? You're the one that labeled me some bad person for being soooo insensitive to "victims." Gimmie a break. I did read your posts, "new owners" could be released from liability. You made the intellectual pie in the sky point that "mitigating liability can be complicated." Really, like we didn't know that. That little complication turns out to cost millions of dollars for clean up and possible lawsuits. Like I pointed out before you attacked me, if the program could guarantee current property owners release from liability and funds to remediate, then hey, no problem. Most of the current owners and future owners did not create the problems at these sites, but because of current regulation they are stuck with the clean up which is insanely expensive. So the result you get are empty buildings that nobody will touch that you refer to as blight. You are going to need WAY more that 400K for that. You still don't get the idea of how identifying these properties and owners puts a huge target on their backs but I doubt you would ever get that or care for that matter. Just one question. Have you ever dealt with the state and been subject to an environmental study or done any site preparation? I doubt it.
Dec 14, 2010 at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's too bad you can't make points without calling names, legendre. If you will re-read my original comment, I specifically mentioned a means by which property owners could be indemnified, so you're actually wrong to boot.
Dec 14, 2010 at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well given your lacking of any forethought into the implications for property owners and your previous posts being cheerleader to any government program that comes along, I may be overly concerned about property owners but at least I'm not a blind big government hack.
Dec 14, 2010 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well, legendre, we can see clearly that your primary concern is the property owners and not anyone potentially affected by the contamination. What a prince among men you are! Why should the families of victims have any rights, especially when a property developer's rights might potentially, maybe, down the road, if ever, be compromised? Who's important in legendre's ranking of society? It's pretty clear.
Dec 14, 2010 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reread my post...Do I have to put it in all caps?
Dec 14, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
legendre, do you care to elaborate on why that quote scares you so badly?
Dec 14, 2010 at 12:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
"In addition to impacting the city vitality on the whole, these areas create environmental justice concerns where human health and economic welfare may be disproportionately affecting neighborhood areas of older, affordable housing stock most appealing to low-income residents,"
Here's the foot in the door Janesvillean. This quote spreads more fear to owners than anything little ole me could type on gazettextra. I wouldn't let these people within 500 yards of any property.
Dec 14, 2010 at 12:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
The ONLY way this would be of any benefit would be if the CURRENT property owner was released of liability and grants were certain upon finding contamination. Please don't tout another government involvement into private business dealings until you have fully thought through possible unintended consequences for people who actually own properties.
Dec 13, 2010 at 10 p.m.
Suggest removal
legendre, by working with the city, they may be able to access grant monies directed at remediation. The question of liability and mitigating liability is a complex one, but in extreme cases it is possible for a new owner to be indemnified (more or less as I suggested, although I had in mind a different incentive mechanism). For instance, if the current owner of a property is not the entity responsible for contamination, the US EPA has a policy not to sue. Please don't spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about a program designed to eliminate it.
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/liab...
Dec 13, 2010 at 9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Give me one good reason why a property owner would want to allow the city to determine "the extent of contamination." Many of the "brownfield" sites have been empty for a long time and likely to stay that way. The owners are probably not in a hurry to be labeled contaminated because then it is more likely the city will compel them to remediate the property under the guise of danger to public health. What are you gonna do, force em to do it?
Dec 13, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a great step forward. Some of these sites have become real albatrosses and the Robinson's site, especially, is very visible. Not sure what can be done about GM's property while they still own it, but I guess GM would be as eligible as any other property owner to apply for remediation assistance.
.
I wonder if anyone (state, municipal) has ever approached the brownfield problem as an insurance program. That is, pay or help pay for an initial remediation, and then be guaranteed that any later surprises are also paid for by the program. I think that would go a long way to relieving the concerns that buyers might have.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.