<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=932362812-27102006><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode"
color=#800080>Apologies for the spelling typo's: I wrote that last message
on my Blackberry while on a train, but I think the meaning nonetheless came through. BJT</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org [mailto:brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Trilling, Barry<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, October 27, 2006
8:03 AM<BR><B>To:</B> pbmeyer@louisville.edu;
brownfields@list.cpeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CPEO-BIF]
Subsidies<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Peter Meyer and I actually agree more than we disagree
except with regard to the efficiency and wisdom of claw backs. I
object to a non-market oriented approach that has no upside and that is subject to post-hoc second guessing that may result in discouraging optimum
participation in the brownfield develoment process. Rather than
clawbacks, why not borrow a page from the private sector and use a "risk sharing" approach to inventivize goal attainment, followed bt program
evaluation and adjustment? For example, the public entity could award an
amount to the developer for an amount with a clearly articulated and
quantifiable negotiated goal which, if not met, requires some refund, and if
exceeded, requires some bonus to the developer. That would be a rational
arms length process that would encourage participation and disincentivise poor
performance. Barry<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org
<brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org><BR>To: 'Brownfields Internet Forum'
<brownfields@list.cpeo.org><BR>Sent: Fri Oct 27 02:20:12
2006<BR>Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Subsidies<BR><BR>Having worked in local economic development for some 30 years and<BR>brownfields for over a decade, I
have to agree fully with Barry Trilling<BR>on the ideal for determining what
subsidies are appropriate. But I still<BR>disagree with him completely on the
real possibility of the calculation<BR>being seriously undertaken at the local
level. Thus some sort of ex-post<BR>monitoring, holding recipients responsible
for what they promise, is needed.<BR><BR>Sharon Barr accurately points out
that, "... it is very hard to come up<BR>with a perfect formula that also works in the dirty nitty-gritty world<BR>of political influence and
decisionmaking. One cannot underestimate the<BR>role of politics in this arena
..." This is the reality. Her<BR>observations echo academic research and
informal narratives about<BR>economic development practice that have been around for decades. The<BR>public sector generally has to rely on the
applicants for financial<BR>support for the data it needs to assess their applications ... and it is<BR>not realistic to assume that there will be no
distortion of the<BR>information provided in order to increase the chance of
getitng funding.<BR><BR>The political pressures on local officials are
actually more acute in<BR>the case of brownfields than in 'normal' economic
development. Efforts<BR>to influence decisions come not merely from developers
interested in<BR>potential profits from brownfields, but also from
neighborhoods and<BR>community based organizations concerned for pollution
abate and human<BR>and environmental health risk reduction.<BR><BR>The
possibility of deriving a single allocation formula for brownfield<BR>support
is further confounded relative to the grant of support for<BR>traditional economic development efforts due to multiple objectives As<BR>Sharon
noted, traditional economic development has focused on jobs,<BR>incomes, and
property value increases, while brownfield redevelopment<BR>efforts include
additional objectives, including housing provision,<BR>protection of human
health, preservation of environmental conditions.<BR><BR>In light of these
concerns, it is inappropriate for public policy to be<BR>grounded wholly in a
belief in the possibility of objectivity in subsidy<BR>provision, or in calculations of public rates of return. Barry, and<BR>others who have agrred
with him, are correct that any retrospective look<BR>back and imposition of
accountability might discourage some developers<BR>from engaging in some brownfield projects.<BR><BR>However, the increased efficiency and
effectiveness of public spending<BR>on brownfields that such accountability
could generate must also be<BR>considered. Any subsidy funds provided that are
not needed to make a<BR>project economically viable are funds not available
for other possible<BR>subsidies that could actually increase the number of
brownfields<BR>redeveloped. The issue is not one of "subsidize or not" but
rather of<BR>the allocation of public funds to maximize attainment of
public<BR>objectives through that spending.<BR><BR>We can all agree that we
want to see the limited brownfield funds<BR>available have the greatest possible impact on the rate of site<BR>mitigation and redevelopment. We may
all also agree that we would prefer<BR>to see more public funds available. To
the extent that additional<BR>appropriations depend on demonstrated
effectiveness in utilization of<BR>current funds, increased accountability can
lead directly to future<BR>expansion of public funding for the reclamation of
contaminated lands,<BR><BR>Peter
Meyer<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Brownfields
mailing list<BR>Brownfields@list.cpeo.org<BR><A
href="http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields">http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields</A><BR></FONT></P><FONT
size=1><BR><BR>**********************************************************************<BR>This
transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may constitute a
confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not clear that you are
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
transmittal in error; any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is
strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this transmittal in
error, please notify Wiggin and Dana immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email,
reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments.<BR>Neither
this message nor the documents attached to this message are
encrypted.<BR>**********************************************************************<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT SIZE=1><BR>
<BR>
**********************************************************************<BR>
This transmittal is intended for a particular addressee(s). It may constitute a confidential attorney-client communication. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error; any review, copying or distribution or dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you suspect that you have received this transmittal in error, please notify Wiggin and Dana immediately at 203-498-4400, or by email, reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments.<BR>
Neither this message nor the documents attached to this message are encrypted.<BR>
**********************************************************************<BR>
</FONT>
</BODY></HTML>