-------
Additional copies of this document can be obtained from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office Of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Outreach and Special Projects Staff
401MSt.SW(MC5101)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202-260-4039
You can view or download the document at the following Internet address:
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields
-------
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background -. - 1
II. Overall Findings 5
III. Findings by Question 9
IV. Conclusions 23
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Case Study Methodology A-l
Appendix B: Pilot Case Studies B-l
Camden B-3
Charlotte B-l 1
Chicago B-19
Detroit B-27
Lawrence B-35
Miami B-41
Miami-Dade County B-47
in
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
-------
By December 1998, Camden, NJ; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL; Detroit, MI; Lawrence, MA; and
the City of Miami/Miami-Dade County, FL had been chosen as the case study Pilots based on the
previously proposed criteria:
• Study Pool. EPA's 227 Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots. Since
106 of these Pilots had just been announced in the spring and summer of 1998,
they would not have had significant redevelopment activity at the time of the
study. The pool was narrowed to 121.
• Information Availability. The Pilot should have a good history of meeting
quarterly reporting requirements. This was to ensure the availability and currency
of Pilot data.
• Demographics. The racial composition, as well as the size of the municipality
were considered in the identification process. The Pilot should have a minimum
10 percent minority rate to ensure the validity of any Title VI complaint. To
examine a cross-section of populations, two Pilots were chosen within each of the
following population brackets: under 100,000; 100,000 to 500,000; and over
1,000,000.
• Sites Identified. The Pilot should have two or more locations identified for
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment purposes.
• Permit Data. The Pilot should have at least one project for which some type of
Federal and/or State environmental permit is required or which has the potential
for a reuse that requires permitting. EPA also examined cities for permits already
existing in the area.
After the cities were chosen and contacted, appropriate stakeholder group representatives were
identified. The types of stakeholder groups were determined based on their perceived ability to
answer the core case study questions. Since the studies would examine Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot sites, EPA determined that it would be appropriate to review existing
information for each Pilot, create a potential list of individual stakeholders based on stated and
active Pilot partners, and confirm this list with the Pilot contacts to capture the breadth of opinion
necessary for the validity of the study. The types of stakeholders identified were Pilot contacts;
community and environmental justice groups; community development corporations (CDCs) and
other business associations; lenders and developers; environmental groups; and local, State and
Federal government contacts. The Pilot contacts would provide the most accurate and up-to-date
information on the status of brownfields activities and the active and inactive players.
Community and environmental justice groups would provide input on the level and timeline of
community involvement, as well as provide a context for the demographics of the area. CDCs
and other business associations would give a balanced view of the business and community
aspects of redevelopment and community involvement. Lenders and developers would provide
feedback on the barriers to brownfields redevelopment, and how community involvement was
viewed in the process. Environmental groups would provide information on whether the
-------
activities and influences of "outside" groups may play a role in complaints filed. Local
government contacts would provide an objective history of the brownfields area, including past
use and redevelopment activities as well as activism in the area. State government contacts
would provide information on permitting and enforcement issues. Finally, other Federal contacts
would provide a non-EPA perspective on the activities and partnerships involved in the Pilot
project.
The case studies were underway by January 1999. It should be noted that the responses received
in the course of these case studies may not be representative of all of EPA's Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilots, and that references in this document to "Pilot" activities and
experiences reflect only the information received from the seven case study Pilots.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
II. OVERALL FINDINGS
This section presents the general findings and overall themes of the seven case studies as they
relate to the four primary questions addressed in the study effort:
• What is happening around EPA Brownfields Pilot sites in terms of what types of
redevelopments are planned, who is involved, and what types of cooperative efforts exist?
• Does the Title VI process hinder redevelopment?
• How and why does this occur? Describe and define the impediments.
• Are there solutions? Lessons learned?
Brownfields Pilot Redevelopment Requires Few Environmental Permits
At all of the Pilot sites studied, redevelopment activities are either underway or planned. Sites
range in size from less than 2,000 square feet to more than 40 acres. At three sites, the
redevelopment projects are complete, including a stamping press operation, a plastic rack
manufacturer and a construction company. Of the 20 targeted sites identified in the case study
effort, all but three sites have at least tentative redevelopment plans, examples of which include
concrete manufacturing, container-making, parking, residential, retail and office buildings, flex
space and road and bridge improvements. The majority of sites are either planned for service or
light-industrial types of reuse. Although the original documentation used in selecting Pilot cities
for the case studies indicated that permits would likely be required at many of the targeted sites,
the case study effort has revealed that in fact very few, if any, of the planned reuses (e.g.,
concrete manufacturing, container manufacturing) at these sites may require environmental
permits. The low number of emissions permits required lessens the chance of formal Title VI
complaints being an issue in the future.
A Wide Variety of Governmental, Community and Business Stakeholders Are Involved in
Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment Decision-Making Across Pilots
At every Pilot studied, multiple municipal agencies—including environmental and economic
development departments—are involved in Pilot activities and decision-making, as are a variety
of community and business group stakeholders. While each Pilot had a different stakeholder mix
and a unique approach to communicating with and educating stakeholders, each of the seven
Pilots had formalized relationships with members of the business community, citizen groups, and
local and State government agency representatives. In all cases, stakeholders help guide Pilot
activities, although levels of decision-making responsibility provided to community residents
vary widely. For example, in Charlotte, community members are voting members of the Pilot's
site-selection committee, while in Lawrence, community groups function more as observers since
Pilot activities are being conducted in an almost exclusively industrial part of town.
The most common model for community involvement and decision-making across the Pilots is a
working or advisory group comprised of community, municipal, business, real estate, and lender
representatives. Five of the Pilot cities studied—Charlotte, Chicago, Camden, Miami and
Miami-Dade County (the City of Miami case study was expanded to Miami-Dade County)—used
some sort of public/private/community advisory or working group as their primary means for
making decisions. Charlotte and Detroit focused on developing outreach materials and
-------
conducting outreach activities. Charlotte targeted community groups with materials and
meetings, while Detroit produced a Pilot toolkit discussing the City's brownfields and explaining
to stakeholders how to get involved in Detroit's Pilot. In addition, the City of Lawrence's effort
is largely private-sector driven, with a Brownfields Advisory Committee that includes..
brownfields business owners, City and State representatives, and other large businesses making
redevelopment decisions. Meetings are open to the public, but have been poorly attended. All
Lawrence stakeholders interviewed believe this is because there are virtually no residential areas
near the brownfields redevelopment area, and because redevelopment activities are transportation
improvements which are much desired in the community.
Across the board, interviewees were appreciative of the Pilots' efforts to educate and involve
stakeholders in Pilot activities, and acknowledged that the coordination of so many groups is a
difficult job. At the same time, Pilot Managers, municipal employees, and both active and non-
active community groups offered many suggestions about how to improve community
involvement activities at their Pilot, including: providing materials in local foreign languages;
soliciting involvement from and coordinating with State regulatory agencies; making meetings
more accessible by speaking in "plain" English (i.e., no technological jargon) and providing a
scientific interpreter when necessary; and maintaining contact throughout the redevelopment
process.
Brownfields Pilots Coordinate with Other Community Efforts Where Appropriate, but
Participants Agree that More Coordination Would Be Beneficial
Two Pilots reported coordinating their activities with other community development or
revitalization projects. The Lawrence Pilot coordinates cleanup and redevelopment plans with
the Merrimack Corridor Enhancement Project (MCEP). The MCEP serves an umbrella function
and helps to facilitate and prioritize brownfields activities with two additional projects:
Massachusetts Highway Department transportation improvements, and National Park Service
Groundworks Trust open-space protection and planning efforts. Public planning and visioning
meetings have been held jointly, and many of the same individuals sit on more than one of these
community committees. As a result of the coordination, Lawrence has been able to leverage
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding for three transportation
projects (intersection/road improvements and a bridge) on brownfields sites.
The Miami-Dade County Pilot is coordinating with a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Model City. These entities sit on each other's working groups and share
information across projects. Both the Pilot and Model City representatives agreed that
coordination is beneficial, although sometimes challenging, and that more opportunities to share
information and discuss priorities are needed.
Title VI Issues Have Had Little Effect at Brownfields Pilots
According to more than 50 interviews at the seven case study Pilots, Title VI concerns have not
slowed down, blocked or otherwise negatively impacted redevelopment activities to date at these
Pilots. There have been no Title VI complaints filed relating to any Pilot's activities. While in-
depth information was only gathered at seven of more than 200 active Pilots, these Pilots were
chosen for their high potential for Title VI complaints (e.g., double digit minority rates, active
-------
redevelopment and relatively high rate of existing permits). It is logical to assume that if Title VI
complaints were not negatively impacting progress at sites chosen for their high likelihood of
conflict, remaining sites are not likely to be more impacted than those in this study.
Fear of Title VI Complaints Does Not Appear to Discourage Developers at Brownfields Sites
To begin to understand whether fear of Title VI complaints was having a "chilling effect" on
developers and investors, causing them to shy away from considering brownfields properties at
these seven Pilots, case study participants were asked what the major barriers were to conducting
redevelopment projects. Neither Title VI nor fear of environmental justice complaints were
mentioned as obstacles. As has been borne out in a recent HUD/EPA study titled The Effects of
Environmental Hazards and Regulations on Urban Redevelopment, such issues as financing,
construction season, and cleanup costs were mentioned as driving forces. Delays in cleanup and
redevelopment activities suffered at these seven Pilots were not related to Title VI or community
involvement issues, but were caused by waiting for liability protection agreements from States,
jurisdictional and ownership uncertainties, and prohibitive cleanup costs. Two interviewees did
mention that anything that has a capacity to delay a project (including Title VI complaints) could
have a chilling effect on redevelopment activity. While it is impossible to say whether fear of
Title VI complaints is creating hesitation in developers across the country or those not
experienced in brownfields redevelopment, the interviewees at the seven case study Pilots felt
that it was neither a driving nor impeding force in their redevelopment decisions or activities.
Lack of Title VI Complaints Is More Impressive in Context of Environmental Justice Activism
The lack of Title VI complaints at these Pilots should not be construed as apathy or lack of
understanding of EPA's Title VI Interim Guidance on the part of local environmental justice or
community groups or activists. In four of the Pilot cities (Chicago, Camden, Miami-Dade and
Lawrence), significant environmental justice activism and protests are a major concern of
stakeholders in the Pilot communities. In Chicago, two Title VI complaints have been filed by
community groups against incinerators in nearby South Cook County. In Lawrence, an organized
environmental justice group has managed to shut down two incinerators, one of which was a
medical waste incinerator located in the poorest part of the City. Participants in the Miami-Dade
Pilot are aware of a very contentious Title VI complaint ongoing in Broward County, Florida and
have had to work especially hard to build trust with stakeholders affected by those events. In
Camden, a class action lawsuit has been filed against the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection for disparate impact related to a sewage treatment plant. Furthermore,
active and contentious enforcement and land use issues also serve as a backdrop for brownfields
activities in the two of the Pilots. For example, the southwest Detroit community recently fought
a request by Allied Signal to renew an EPA permit to dispose of waste in underground injection
wells.
Environmental justice and community groups at these Pilots state that they are focusing their
limited resources on what they view as pressing problems, such as more traditional "dirty"
industries like incinerators and sewage treatment plants. It should be noted, however, that this
sophisticated education in environmental justice and understanding of the Title VI Interim
Guidance could potentially slow down or block actions in the future if community involvement
and decision-making methods break down, or if a group feels a proposed end use is unacceptable.
-------
In fact, one interviewee observed that, "When [community] groups don't feel like they have
gotten their fair share of the benefits, one way to remedy that is to stir up community activism
about the environmental contamination of the site." Examples such as these show that
community and environmental justice groups are aware of the rights afforded them under Title
VI, and have used them effectively, but that none feel that current brownfields-related activities
warrant a complaint.
Lessons Learned—Reasons Cited for Lack of Title VI and Environmental Justice Complaints
When interviewees were asked that if there had been an issue relating to environmental permits
and environmental justice, did they think the Pilot's stakeholder involvement efforts would be
adequate to resolve a problem, the predominant answer was "yes." Answers fell into three major
categories: 1) a relationship of trust has been developed among stakeholders, municipalities and
developers; 2) almost any development is an improvement over conditions of contamination and
blight, especially if it includes jobs for local community residents; and 3) the types of
redevelopment activities typically undertaken at brownfields sites are not pollution-heavy or
permit-intensive.
Trust has been developed in a variety of ways at the studied Pilot cities. In Miami, the local
developer went to the affected community and discussed new cement-making processes, which
allayed fears of pollution in the community. In Camden and Chicago, involving the community
allowed potential problems to be identified and solved from the beginning when stakes were
lower and design changes could more easily be made. Charlotte representatives noted that the
trust built between the community and the developer and the fact that involvement continued
throughout the project gave community organizations a sense of ownership in the project and
prevented opposition.
Another important component in reducing Title VI and other opposition to redevelopment
projects is the fact that brownfields areas tend to be abandoned, polluted or otherwise blighted
areas, thereby making redevelopment projects all the more welcome to neighboring, usually low-
income communities. For example, in Miami, it is believed by stakeholders interviewed that no
complaints will be filed on the new cement plant because the plant will be so large an
improvement over the current blight, crime and unemployment. Job creation is a big component
of these improvements, and community satisfaction was mentioned by representatives of five of
the seven Pilots as driving factors in community reaction to proposed developments. For
example, in Camden, job creation for local residents at the Liberty Concrete factory played a key
role in turning community opposition to approval.
Finally, as previously discussed, a majority of the redevelopment activity at the sites is not of the
type likely to cause an environmental justice complaint, as this activity is not the type to require
environmental permits.
-------
III. FINDINGS BY QUESTION
This section presents a detailed examination of stakeholder responses to EPA's case study
questions. These questions are:
• Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed? Was cleanup or
redevelopment slowed or blocked and why?
• Describe the stakeholder involvement at the Pilot site. Do stakeholders feel they
were involved in decision-making? Are the community and the developer
working together?
• What types of permitting issues (e.g., RCRA, CAA) exist at these sites and how
has the community reacted to the issues? Does the public, through the State
permitting process or other mechanisms, have an opportunity to affect the process
or provide input into the decision-making?
• Since no Title VI complaints were filed relating to any Pilot activities, what were
the factors present which ensured there would be no complaints?
• How is the municipality's environmental office working with its redevelopment
office? What other working relationships are in place in the Pilot municipality
(such as with the local civil rights office)?
* Has the presence of nearby Title VI complaints or environmental justice concerns
influenced the level of community environmental justice activity? What is the
effect of these activities on communities and the local economy?
• Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered at any of the Pilots? If so,
was it effective in preventing Title VI complaints?
• Are there examples or models of how Pilots can ensure sustained, meaningful
community involvement?
• How can the findings of this study be applied beyond Brownfields activities?
Findings from across the case study Pilots are presented in this section, and specific stakeholder
responses illustrate these findings.
1. Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed? Was cleanup or redevelopment
slowed or blocked and why?
Cleanup and redevelopment efforts are underway at most of the Pilot sites. Redevelopment of
three sites is complete. Cleanup activities at several sites was delayed by liability or ownership
issues.
Collectively, the seven Pilots have focused on 20 distinct sites ranging from 1,920 square feet
(Thomas Construction Site in Charlotte) to more than 40 acres (Knox Gelatin in Camden), with
multiple parcels requiring assessment and cleanup. All but three of the sites have entirely
completed the necessary Phase I and/or Phase n environmental assessments. Two of the
remaining three's assessment processes are nearly complete, but are suffering delay due to
jurisdictional and ownership issues. On three of the twenty sites assessed to date, no significant
contamination was found and redevelopment activities have progressed without the need for
-------
cleanup, while others have estimates of cleanup costs as high as $18 million. Examples of
contaminants that were found at these sites include petroleum hydrocarbons, lead, construction
debris, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), treated wood, industrial chemicals and diesel fuel.
Cleanup has been completed or is ongoing at 14 of the targeted sites identified in the case study
effort. Three sites in Charlotte suffered delays where cleanup or redevelopment activities were
postponed pending liability protection agreements under North Carolina's new brownfields law.
At both the ABC Barrel site in Camden and the Detroit Coke site, State-sponsored cleanup
activities at the sites were halted when previous owners redeemed the properties by paying back
taxes, creating ownership and jurisdictional uncertainty regarding who would pay for cleanup.
Finally, the intended developer at the 76th and Albany site in Chicago has not moved forward
with plans for a container-making plant due to the prohibitively expensive cleanup estimate ($18
million). The developer is investigating additional sources of cleanup funding.
Redevelopment activities are complete at three of the sites. The Burnside Steel Foundry site in
Chicago is now home to an expanded stamping press manufacturer that created 100 new jobs for
local residents. A plastic rack manufacturer (Perstorp Xytec) opened its doors in Detroit in the
summer of 1997, creating 30 new jobs with the potential for 70 more. Thomas Construction
renovated a building in Charlotte for its operations, and construction for a variety of retail and
design-related businesses is underway. Finally, all but three sites have at least tentative
redevelopment plans, examples of which include concrete manufacturing, black cable television,
container-making, parking, residential, administrative offices and flex space and road and bridge
improvements.
2. Describe the stakeholder involvement at the Pilot site. Do stakeholders feel they were
involved in decision-making? Are the community and the developer working together?
Stakeholder involvement approaches are as individual as the Pilots themselves. The level of
community involvement ranges from the experience in the City of Lawrence—where the "effort
is largely private-sector driven," with little direct citizen involvement as there are virtually no
residential areas near the redevelopment area—to the City of Charlotte, which received awards
for its outreach materials and approach.
Community groups/residents and developers are working together in some interesting ways
across the Pilot cities. For example, in Chicago, Charlotte and Detroit, interviewees mentioned
that it was common practice for developers to solicit support from community members before
they invested in a redevelopment project or redevelopment planning. These "up-front dialogues"
saved time and money for the developers and got the community in on the ground floor. In
Miami, the Pilot brought in a toxicologist to explain to concerned citizens the likely emissions
from a new type of cement processing. In the Camden Square project in Charlotte, developer
Tony Pressley lowered the height of some of his planned buildings to address community
concerns about light and tree health. Great trust has been achieved here and, in turn, community
groups wrote letters of support for Pressley, allowing him to get a State brownfields liability
protection agreement.
10
-------
In some cases, Pilot managers and cities often thought that they were doing a better job of
involving the community than the community representatives did. Although community
representatives were generally pleased with the Pilots' efforts—if not always the results—some
explained that even though they were involved, business interests or other more powerful groups
still held more decision-making power. Other community representatives felt that they should
have been brought in earlier in the process, and still others expressed that cultural or language
barriers prevented full participation from some community groups.
Three Pilots used a type of working group or forum to exchange information and make site-
selection and redevelopment decisions. Miami/Miami-Dade and Lawrence have Brownfields
Working Groups with representatives from the business communities, neighborhoods and local
governments. Holding meetings in the evenings, videotaping meetings, and assigning a liaison to
local communities were all strategies used to increase community involvement. The Chicago
Pilot conducted an evaluation of the City's Brownfields Forum, which operated in 1994 and 1995
and involved more than 130 people from businesses, banks, lenders and government agencies.
Through three public hearings and dozens of committee meetings, the Forum developed more
than 65 recommendations that influenced regional planning efforts and increased community
access to brownfields decision-making.
Charlotte and Detroit primarily focused on creating outreach materials and conducting outreach
activities. Charlotte involved community groups early by inviting them to assist with the
Brownfields application. The City received an award by the National City/County Marketing
Communications Association for their door hangers, mailings and flyers. Detroit focused its
effort on creating a Pilot toolkit and video targeted to business and community stakeholders
interested in brownfields cleanup and redevelopment.
Although the City of Lawrence has a Brownfields Working Group, the City's effort is largely
private-sector driven, with a Brownfields Advisory Committee that includes brownfields
business owners, City and State representatives, and other large businesses making
redevelopment decisions. Meetings are open to the public, but have been poorly attended. All
Lawrence stakeholders interviewed believe this is because there are virtually no residential areas
near the brownfields redevelopment area, and because the redevelopment activities are
transportation improvements which are much desired in the community.
3. What types of permitting issues (e.g, RCRA, CAA) exist at these sites and how has the
community reacted to the issues? Does the public, through the State permitting process or
other mechanisms, have an opportunity to affect the process or provide input into the
decision making?
The following examples largely indicate that communities are interested and involved in
permitting issues in their communities, and are carefully looking at trade-offs between potential
environmental issues and other community goals such as revitalization and job creation.
The types of redevelopment activities currently underway or planned at the Brownfields Pilots
comprising the case studies generally fall in the category of activities that will not require Federal
11
-------
or State emissions permits, such as retail shops, transportation improvements, parking, television
networks, storage, and administrative buildings (see table below for complete list of types of
planned redevelopment activities at the case study Pilots). For the few planned developments
where it is anticipated that permits will be required—such as a container manufacturer in
Chicago, and cement plants (air and water permits) in Miami and Camden—all interviewees
stated that they did not expect controversy over the permits to be an issue.
TYPES OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
UNDERWAY OR PLANNED AT CASE STUDY BROWNFDELDS SITES
construction company retail shops restaurants
architectural offices graphics production interior decorating
administrative offices flex space concrete manufacturing
parking spaces residential supermarket/food bank
tire distributor stamping press mfg. container making
television network plastic racks mfg. • cement storage silos
road improvements bridge open space/parks
While none of the stakeholders interviewed anticipated that permitting will be controversial,
concern for nuisance and pollution issues has been a part of several Pilot discussions. For
example, in Camden, the community was concerned about potentially unacceptable emissions
from a newly patented concrete plant. Citizens' fears were allayed when the developer, Liberty
Concrete, described the new, cleaner process it planned to employ and agreed to the community
request that an independent engineering firm conduct on-site monitoring. In Miami, concerns
were similarly mitigated by the technology involved in current cement processes, the fact that an
existing cement plant down the street has not had any complaints, and the scarcity of residents in
the area of production.
In southwest Detroit, community representatives felt that any proposed waste treatment facility
sitings were likely to run up against permitting issues because the area is already highly
industrialized and contains several waste treatment facilities that carry a large number of permits.
The sentiment of the surrounding community is summarized in a quote by one community
activist, "We are not saying 'not in my backyard,' we are saying, 'my backyard is full.' Now it is
our turn for clean jobs." The Pilot Manager echoed these sentiments and said that "they've got
plenty of permitted facilities; any permitted facility would have to greatly benefit the community
for them not to have opposition." With these concerns in mind, the most recent proposed
developments at the Detroit Pilot do not raise environmental issues because they are residential,
commercial or light industrial.
In Chicago, a developer was interested in spending $2 million to clean up and redevelop a site,
but could not get the necessary permits from the State because the site was located in a non-
attainment area. Since the developer was going to create jobs for local residents, the community
12
-------
became an advocate for the project and the developer was able to get an emissions credit from
3M, a company also located in the non-attainment area.
Some community groups were aware of how they could get involved in permitting decisions in
their states. For example, interviewees in Camden knew that there was a ten-day comment
period and a mandatory public meeting before the issuance of environmental permits. North
Carolina, according to those interviewed in Charlotte, has a 60-day public comment period under
which stakeholders can oppose a project under the State's new brownfields act. To date, no
projects in Charlotte have been canceled due to public opposition, possibly because the State
requires documentation of local community support before issuance of liability protection under
the law. However, in Lawrence, representatives were not aware of the State process for
permitting.
4. For sites in which no Title VI complaints were filed, what were the factors present which
ensured there would be no complaints?
For the seven case study Pilots, no Title VI complaints have been filed at any of the Pilot-targeted
sites. According to interviewees across Pilots, the two most common factors cited that have
prevented Title VI complaints to date at these sites are: 1) early and meaningful community
involvement; and 2) redevelopment that creates a benefit for the local community. Interviewees
across the board said that community outreach and involvement serve to prevent Title VI
complaints and other opposition to redevelopment projects in many ways. In Camden and the
City of Chicago, involving the community allowed potential problems to be identified and solved
from the beginning, when stakes were lower and design changes could more easily be made.
Charlotte representatives noted that the trust built between the community and the Camden
Square site developer, and the fact that involvement has continued throughout the project, gave
community organizations a sense of ownership in the project and prevented opposition.
Another important component in reducing the likelihood of Title VI complaints and other
opposition to redevelopment projects is that brownfields tend to be abandoned, polluted or
otherwise blighted, thereby making redevelopment projects all the more welcome to neighboring,
usually low-income communities. For example, in Miami, stakeholders interviewed believed
that in addition to the anticipated "green" production of the proposed cement plant, no
complaints will be filed because the plant will be such a big improvement over the current blight,
crime and unemployment. Further, the site is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood,
where the developer, who is Cuban-American, has promised to train local residents for jobs in
the plant. According to those interviewed, job creation is a big component of community
satisfaction, and was mentioned by stakeholders in five of the seven Pilots as key factors in the
community's reaction to proposed developments.
It should also be noted that most of the planned redevelopment activities are not the type of
activities that require environmental permits, but are generally non-controversial, non-industrial,
service or administrative functions.
13
-------
5. How is the municipality's environmental office working with its redevelopment office?
What other working relationships are in place in the Pilot municipality (such as with the
local civil rights office)?
The case study cities span the range of inter-governmental cooperation between the local
environmental and other departments and have a variety of working agreements. All of the case
study Pilots except Lawrence have some mechanism by which the municipality or State
environmental office is working with the redevelopment office or local community development
or business development organization. In the Miami-Dade Pilot, where multiple municipalities
and agencies are involved, an "interdepartmental agreement" will be put in place which outlines
roles and responsibilities for not only the departments with an environmental or economic focus,
but the police department, port, airport and public works departments as well. The
Redevelopment of Urban Sites (R.E.U.S.) Action Team in Detroit consists of the Pilot Manager,
representatives from the Detroit Department of Environmental Quality, EPA Region 5, the
Detroit Departments of Building Safety and Engineering, Water and Sewage, and Planning and
Development, and representatives from Detroit Edison. The team was formed to partner
regulators with the Detroit City offices that would be involved in the permitting process.
No Pilots reported specifically working with the local civil rights office.
While cooperation and collaboration is common, almost all Pilots felt they could do even better.
Stakeholder suggestions included:
• coordinate redevelopment discussions and activities between different areas of the
municipality (e.g., North and South Camden and Miami and Miami-Dade
County);
• establish effective relationships between the municipality and the State (e.g., in
Chicago, the Illinois EPA bureaucracy makes it difficult to complete permits and
get a "No Further Remediation Letter"; the Miami-Dade Pilot hopes to improve
the relationship between residents and the Office of Community and Economic
Development to ease community concerns over job creation); and
• ensure redevelopment activities have high-level, municipal buy-in and active
support (while Detroit cited this as key to its successful relationships, Lawrence
reported that its lack of leadership accounted for its low redevelopment activity).
6. Has the presence of nearby Title VI complaints or environmental justice concerns
influenced the level of community environmental justice activity? What is the effect of
these activities on communities and the local economy?
Title VI complaints and environmental justice complaints have been avoided at Pilot-
targeted sites. However, historical enforcement problems and Title VI complaints in nearby
areas have created a potentially volatile and distrustful atmosphere in some instances. For
example, in three of the Pilot cities (Camden, Lawrence, and Chicago) there are active Title VI
14
-------
complaints or environmental justice concerns. Outside the Pilot areas in Lawrence and Chicago,
there are environmental justice concerns and Title VI complaints, respectively, that focus on
incinerators. In Camden, community members have filed a class action lawsuit against the
County municipal authority and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) for disparate impact related to a sewage treatment plant.
Enforcement issues are also a major concern for community groups in Detroit, where EPA
Region 5 has recently reached an agreement with Detroit Coke owners/operators relating to
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act regarding underground injection wells, resulting in a
$15,500 fine. Several interviewees noted that there is a perception of uneven enforcement in
southwest Detroit. For example, one interviewee commented, "Enforcement is treated differently
in southwest Detroit than in the affluent suburbs...a violation in the suburbs would get the plant
shut down; in the City we are lucky to get a citation."
The atmosphere under which the Miami-Dade Pilot is operating is particularly distrustful.
Activists who are concerned about environmental issues in Tallahassee and incinerators in
Broward County, Florida are holding meetings in Miami-Dade County to raise awareness among
residents there. Issues at the incinerator sites have caused the residents nearby to question
whether complete environmental and health information is being disclosed to them. These
meetings, then, are raising the suspicions of residents and community groups in Miami-Dade
about disclosure closer to home. This has the potential to cause some problems for Pilot
activities when redevelopment choices are being made.
Generally speaking, due to quality community involvement, open decision-making and non-
controversial redevelopment projects, the heightened awareness and sophistication of community
groups relating to Title VI issues, interviewees stated that Title VI has not proven to be a
problem, but could potentially slow down or block progress in the future.
7. Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered at any of the Pilots? If so, was it
effective in preventing Title VI complaints?
None of the case study Pilots have used formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for Title VI,
environmental justice or any other conflicts. While no one interviewed noted the existence
of deal-breaking conflicts relating to Title VI, lesser conflicts with communities (e.g., regarding
nuisance related to noise and traffic, redevelopment design and job creation) all had the potential
to derail the projects regardless of the lack of formal Title VI issues.
Three of the Pilots (Camden, Miami and Miami-Dade) said that personal communication and
dialogues had been used between property owners and other stakeholders to resolve specific
disputes. For example, in Miami, residents' fears regarding traffic and dust were allayed through
conversations with the owner at the Wynwood site, negating the need for a more formal
dispute resolution process. In Camden, the non-profit group, Save our Waterfront, served as a
catalyst for better communication between the City and interested community stakeholders and
facilitated face-to-face discussions with the targeted site's redevelopment team. Finally, in
Charlotte, communication between local neighborhood associations and the Camden Square
15
-------
developer resulted in a compromise to lower building heights, a problem that could have caused
delay for the developer and resistance from the community if it had not been dealt with early in
the process.
8. Are there examples or models of how Pilots can ensure sustained, meaningful
community involvement?
Each Pilot has a unique community involvement approach or model, specifically designed
for its community's political, geographic and organizational structure. While it is clear that
models cannot simply be transplanted from one city to another, the case studies revealed
promising components of various Pilot activities that other Pilots can use to help ensure
sustained community involvement. These strategies include: 1) educating community
representatives and other stakeholders; 2) institutionalizing the brownfields decision-making
process; 3) facilitating timely and clear environmental decision-making with State officials; 4)
making meetings/information accessible; and 5) creating and promoting trust through the use of
neutral parties. These are discussed in more detail below.
Educate Community Representatives and Other Stakeholders
According to those interviewed, continuing education and outreach to stakeholders is critical to
maintaining trust and communication about brownfields redevelopment's technical aspects and
priorities. At the Camden Pilot, the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) is entering into a
contract with Save our Waterfront to provide training to residents on risk assessment, permit
issues, and community organization that has proven successful for other New Jersey community
groups. In Detroit, the Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) group carries out a
variety of community capacity-building activities, including pollution prevention projects with
small local businesses, and job training for local residents. SDEV has worked with a variety of
university students and partnered with other non-profits and city departments to collect a lot of
background information on various sites within the southwest neighborhood area, and uses
trained citizen volunteers to conduct Phase I assessments, environmental surveys and market
research for companies interested in relocating onto brownfields in their neighborhood.
According to SDEV representative Kathy Milberg, SDEV is "actively engaged in marketing
clean companies so that we don't have to be victims again."
Institutionalize the Brownfields Decision-Making Process
The examples illustrated below indicate that "institutionalizing" processes that have been
successful at involving the community can help ensure that the community stays involved.
Camden will institutionalize the monthly redevelopment team meetings; continuing to conduct
these meetings should help ensure sustained community involvement. In its role as coordinator
for the Knox site, the Pilot has helped forge working relationships that should allow the
community to more easily achieve results in future endeavors on this and other brownfields
projects. In Charlotte, both the Pilot Manager and representatives from community groups
expect to continue sharing in the decision-making process with regard to current and future
brownfields projects. Parties across the case study Pilots acknowledged that the key to continued
success is to maintain open dialogue and trust between the parties and to involve all concerned
from the beginning.
16
-------
Similarly, having an institutionalized stakeholder group like Camden's redevelopment team
appears to be effective in preventing disputes, or at least provides a forum for their resolution
outside of the courtroom. The NJIT community training model has been used in other New
Jersey cities as a way to empower community members to be credible participants in hrownfields
redevelopment. The Pilot Manager has indicated that the Pilot would like to use the same
approach for South Camden. In addition, NJDEP recently received a $100,000 Environmental
Justice grant from EPA to develop an "environmental equities" program. The agency intends to
work with several communities around the State and with the State Office of Alternative Dispute
Resolution "so that we don't have a lawsuit" at the end of the redevelopment pipeline. NJDEP
hopes that by involving all stakeholders from the beginning, like with the Knox redevelopment
team, the agency can prevent problems before they start and prevent those who decide not to
participate in the process from filing lawsuits after the process is complete.
Facilitate Timely and Clear Environmental Decision-Making with State Officials
Based on the experiences of the case study Pilots, the quality of the relationship between
municipal and State agencies can help or hinder the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields,
as illustrated below.
Chicago used part of its original Pilot funds to conduct an independent evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Brownfields Forum, and the City will implement suggestions from the
evaluation to develop a more coordinated process with the Illinois EPA (IEPA). According to
one respondent, the City and IEPA could work together to help prioritize activity on sites related
not only to environmental and public health needs, but on construction seasons and funding
cycles as well, as these are sometimes dependent upon "No Further Remediation" letters.
Currently, the IEPA is viewed by many developers as a barrier to brownfields redevelopment.
Regardless of a positive relationship between the community, the developer and the Pilot, it is
important to realize that community revitalization activities can be blocked due to a negative
relationship with State agencies. In Miami, it was expressed that developers feel that the Miami-
Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) requires too much testing and
data tracking, and as a result shy away from developing those properties because this process is
so costly and time-consuming. According to stakeholders interviewed for the Miami Pilot case
study, it seems important that Pilot efforts work at not only developing positive relationships
with the local community, but also at putting in place the necessary processes to ensure that
community redevelopment projects are not unnecessarily delayed by State or Federal agencies.
Make Meetings/Information Accessible
According to those interviewed, making meetings and other forums open and accessible to the
public can go a long way toward promoting and sustaining community involvement. The
Lawrence Pilot Managers learned that access to decision-making and public meetings does
not ensure meaningful community involvement. To that end, the Pilot is cooperating with the
Merrimack College Urban Resources Institute, through an EPA Environmental Justice grant, to
promote community involvement in neighborhood associations and minority areas. The
Resources Institute has been conducting surveys with Latino residents to determine if they have
17
-------
any environmental questions, health questions, or safety concerns. Future efforts may include
distributing Spanish-language pamphlets and using an interpreter at meetings.
It is also important to avoid technological jargon and other complicated approaches thatcould
alienate community members at these meetings. One respondent expressed frustrations about the
weaknesses in community involvement: "I'd like to see [the Brownfields Advisory Committee]
lay down their redevelopment plans in the simplest terms possible—tell me what is expected and
when, and how community groups can be involved in real decision making, not just feedback.
I'd like more specifics [at these meetings], more chances for community groups to make a
difference."
Create and Promote Trust through the Use of Neutral Parties
Use of neutral parties to interpret and explain technical information was a critical component to
success in several Pilots. In Miami, for example, one respondent explained that trust-building
activities such as bringing in a toxicologist to explain potential impacts goes a long way in
building community support. Several interviewees in Detroit remarked that the use of universities
and other non-profit groups to serve as neutral parties and capacity-building resources has made a
significant difference in the community's ability to be an effective stakeholder. Community
experts from the universities can provide outreach and education without the distrust sometimes
faced by State/City representatives. Further, these resources help build capacity within the
community, making them credible participants in the redevelopment dialogue.
9. How can the findings of this study be applied beyond Brownfields activities?
There are several areas in which the results of these case studies appear to be applicable
beyond Brownfields activities, as detailed in the sections below: 1) brownfields relationships
have other positive spin-offs; 2) State redevelopment incentives are impacting developers'
behavior; 3) overcoming bad history and skepticism; 4) alliances with non-profits show results
and add value; and 5) local/state/federal multi-agency task forces speed cleanup.
Brownfields Relationships Have Other Positive Spin-Offs
As illustrated by the examples that follow, relationships developed during brownfields
redevelopment can form the basis for future cooperation in other local efforts.
The Charlotte stakeholders have learned that developing trusting, mutually beneficial
relationships among communities, businesses and the City for brownfields redevelopment can
create other benefits. The Wilmore Neighborhood Association plans to leverage its strong
relationship with the City of Charlotte to build further partnerships with public and private
sectors to achieve such other community goals as job training and education, neighborhood
beautification, and crime reduction. As a result of the close relationship between
the Association and the developer for the Camden Square site, the developer is now helping to
support activities at the neighborhood's community center as well as conducting redevelopment
projects.
18
-------
Chicago Pilot stakeholders have learned that relationships built between the City and local
communities during the course of brownfields redevelopment can also be leveraged to help
address other community issues. For example, Alderman Michael Chandler of the 24th Ward
illustrated an example of how the City and the local community worked together to solve a
brownfields-related crime and blight issue. Illegal dumping at brownfields and other sites is a
large and expensive problem for the City of Chicago, with an annual average cleanup price tag of
$11.5 million. In the summer of 1995, the Chicago Department of Environment, the 11th Police
District and local residents began a cooperative enforcement program where residents were given
brochures in English, Spanish, and Polish that included a hotline to report illegal dumping.
According to Chandler, "we swarmed the 11th Police District for fly dumpers and caught many of
them."
Simultaneously, the City Council passed an ordinance "that gave teeth to a law against illegal
dumpers." Stricter punishment provisions for fly dumping now include: fines between $1,000
and $2,000 for first-time offenders; jail time of up to six months and community service up to
200 hours; impoundment of vehicles with up to $2,000 in fines; $100 rewards for citizen
information leading to conviction; and loss of City contracts and business licenses for those
convicted.
State Redevelopment Incentives are Impacting Developers' Behavior
In North Carolina, the impact that the State's new brownfields act has had on encouraging
developers to involve local communities in a meaningful way is showing early, but promising,
results. According to developers and business owners interviewed, protection from
environmental liability for pre-existing contamination is often critical to making a project viable
in Charlotte. To receive liability protection from the State, the community must provide letters
of support for the redevelopment project, adding an additional incentive for developers in
North Carolina to work with affected stakeholders.
Overcoming Bad History and Skepticism
As is evidenced by the examples which follow, despite a poor track record or a community's
skepticism concerning redevelopment, these obstacles can be overcome and results achieved.
Chicago's brownfields activities have shown that through dedication, long-term stakeholder
involvement, and education, the City was able to overcome initial skepticism, establishing a
solid track record of past performance for future projects. The broad-based, inclusive type of
decision-making evidenced in the Chicago Brownfields Forum is easily transferable to other
types of community decision-making processes that require multiple stakeholders, such as master
planning, park and greenway development, capital improvements, and stadium siting.
A lesson learned from this case study effort that can be applied to almost any public program is
that citizens' perceptions of past activities dramatically impact chances for success on new
initiatives. In Miami, for example, Ron Frasier of the Black Business Association believes that
most residents will be reluctant to get involved until they see development happening. With all
the promises that have been made in the past, residents are wary of getting their hopes up. Julian
Perez added that "programs create expectations," and that public servants need to be aware of
that going in and tailor their messages and activities accordingly.
19
-------
Alliances with Non-Profits Show Results and Add Value
As illustrated below, strategic alliances with non-profits can add value to a city's redevelopment
efforts.
The environmental knowledge and planning exhibited by Save Our Waterfront in Camden went a
long way toward realizing not only its redevelopment plan, but its power as an organized,
educated, and involved stakeholder group. Tom Knoche of Save Our Waterfront described the
planning process for a redevelopment plan for North Camden as "entirely community driven."
Development of the plan involved community meetings, meetings with businesses, churches,
residents, and social service agencies. Save Our Waterfront serves as the coordinating body
between several non-profits, private developers, and public agencies as the plan begins to be
implemented.
The Detroit Community Outreach Partnership Center (DOCP) is a collaboration between the
University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University to provide
outreach services for communities in Detroit. University students have aided SDEV in
gathering information on sites in southwest Detroit, and the use of university staff to serve as a
neutral party in environmental discussions has increased credibility and trust of redevelopment
efforts.
Local/State/Federal Multi-Agency Task Forces Speed Cleanup and Redevelopment
Finally, as evidenced by the following examples, task forces comprising local, State and Federal
agencies can result in quicker cleanup and redevelopment processes.
An innovative multi-agency task force (regulatory and environmental representatives from the
State and Region) created to address cleanup issues at the Oxford Paper site and adjacent
GenCorp property in Lawrence is showing promising results for speeding up environmental
cleanup activities. In addition to helping create the Brownfields Pilot proposal and sitting on the
Lawrence Brownfields Advisory Committee, GenCorp also invested $60,000 to create a task
force that includes environmental and regulatory representatives and decision-makers from the
State of Massachusetts, EPA Region 1 and the City. According to GenCorp representative
Robert Devany, "The first phase of environmental cleanup work [on the Oxford
Paper site] took 4 years; the second phase [after the creation of the task force] only took one year,
and it dealt with far more environmentally complicated issues." Getting all the decision-makers
around the same table, with the same information and making decisions in concert really sped up
the process.'
As stated earlier, the R.E.U.S. Team in Detroit consists of the Pilot Manager, representatives
from the Detroit Department of Environmental Quality, EPA Region 5, the Detroit Departments
of Building Safety and Engineering, Water and Sewage, and Planning and Development, and
representatives from Detroit Edison. Although there are no community members represented on
the team, it was formed to partner regulators with the Detroit city offices that would be involved
in the permitting process. In this way, the R.E.U.S. Team also serves as a "one-stop shop" for
community members, investors, or developers interested in learning more about the costs,
20
-------
concerns, and processes associated with the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of
brownfields.
21
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The findings of these seven case studies demonstrate that claims that EPA's Interim Title VI
Guidance would hinder brownfields redevelopment are largely unfounded. Although it-cannot be
stated that Title VI will never prove to be a deterrent to redevelopment of inner city brownfields
areas, the experience of these seven Pilot cities—chosen for this case study specifically because
of their likelihood to have Title VI issues—seems to indicate that Title VI has not been a major
factor in redevelopment decisions taken for Brownfields Pilot areas.
More than 50 interviews with various stakeholder groups, including developers, lenders,
community representatives, and public officials, reveal that one of the primary concerns in
redevelopment decision-making is community support for projects. Because of the scope of
community involvement at Brownfields Pilots, residents are not likely to oppose the
redevelopment projects in their communities. When opposition does occur related to
environmental justice, it is usually in protest to more "traditional" or "dirty" issues, such as
incinerators. Brownfields are usually redeveloped into commercial/retail or light-industrial uses,
further limiting the possibility that Title VI or environmental justice concerns would be raised.
When asked whether Title VI could hinder redevelopment, stakeholders interviewed
indicated that anything with the possibility to slow down or block redevelopment could serve as a
deterrent to planned redevelopment. However, in reality, Title VI has not proven to be an issue
or a deterrent at any of the case study Pilots, and there have been no Title VT complaints at any of
these Pilots' targeted areas.
'0s1
It is apparent from the interviews conducted for these case studies that while there are many
potential issues that can forestall redevelopment at brownfields sites, Title VI is not high on the
list of concerns. The quality and scope of community involvement conducted by the Pilots, as
well as the fact that brownfields are not usually redeveloped into heavy industrial or other uses
which would raise Title VI concerns, minimizes the likelihood that Title VI complaints would be
raised at brownfields sites and hinder redevelopment of these areas.
23
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
APPENDIX A
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
A-l
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Approach and Timeline
for Title VI & Brownfields Case Studies
December 22,1998
I. Purpose and Context of Case Studies
In February 1998, EPA issued the "Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits" for public comment. This guidance is intended to assist EPA's Office
of Civil Rights (OCR) in processing complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
alleging discriminatory intent or effect based on race, color, or national origin resulting from the issuance
of pollution control permits by state or local governmental agencies that receive EPA funding. The
guidance provides a time line and framework for the processing and investigation of complaints.
During the 90-day public comment period, local leaders, industry representatives, and national
organizations formally asserted that the guidance, as currently written, would stifle development in inner-
city areas where discriminatory effects could be alleged. Uncertainty and fear of a potentially lengthy
and costly Title VI investigation could deter potential developers from investment in these areas, stifling
progress made in recent years in redeveloping brownfields regardless of tax breaks in empowerment
zones, incentives for brownfields redevelopment, and other urban revitalization programs.
In order to test these assertions and determine the relationship between the Title VI Guidance and
Brownfields Pilot activities, EPA has chosen to begin its research by conducting case studies at six of its
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots. EPA will determine whether enforcement of the Interim
Guidance is impacting cleanup and redevelopment activities at Brownfields Pilots and whether these
activities are triggering Title VI complaints to OCR. These case studies will be provided to the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Title VI Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) Committee for consideration as it drafts the final Guidance on Title VI Permit
Complaints.
II. Choice of Pilots
In choosing Pilots for case studies, the contractor provided a cross-pilot analysis for the 227 Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilots. Of these 227, it was determined that the last two rounds of pilots were
recently awarded and, therefore, would not have sufficient information to support a case study effort. Of
the 121 that remained, the contractor prepared a matrix of information for each pilot containing the
following information: pilot city population, minority rate, information on community involvement
activities, information on activities with minority groups, number of sites targeted, reuse plans for the
site, information regarding the target area zoning (e.g., industry, residential), and environmental permit
concentration in the cities.
Using this information, six pilots were chosen by EPA in conjunction with a panel of stakeholders. So
that communities would have a reasonable chance of having Title VI issues, a preliminary list was
developed of pilots that had at least a two-digit minority percentage rate, had at least one site targeted
A-3
-------
with light- or heavy-industrial reuse plans, and were located in areas where permits already existed. The
final six were chosen from this group based on their high levels of involvement with community and
minority groups. To ensure a representation of experiences of large-, medium- and small-sized
communities, two pilots were chosen in each size group (under 100,000; 100,000 to 500,000; and over
1,000,000). The six pilots chosen are: Chicago, Detroit, Charlotte (NC), Miami, Lawrence (MA) and
Camden (NJ).
III. Conducting Case Studies
Step 1: Gathering Up-to-Date Information on Pilot Activities
The contractor will work with EPA to contact the Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA
pilot leads to confirm the appropriate local pilot contacts and gain insight into pilot activities,
difficulties and context.
Time frame: by December 31, 1998
Step 2: Interviews with Local Pilot Managers
After thoroughly reviewing available information on pilot activities, the contractor will conduct
initial information-gathering interviews with local Pilot Managers to gain information about
current pilot activities and accomplishments, parties that have been/are currently involved with
the pilot, parties that have been critical of pilot activities, and those that might naturally have
Title VI concerns.
Time frame: by January 15, 1998
The contractor will work with the local Pilot Managers to match stakeholder activities to specific
properties to determine stakeholder relationships and activities ongoing at the pilot. This
information will be reviewed by EPA to make decisions regarding what additional interviews (up
to eight) should be conducted.
The major groups of stakeholders that will be represented in the interviews will include:
community and environmental justice groups; community development corporations and
business associations; lenders and developers; local and state government contacts; and
environmental groups. To assure that any potential Title VI issues are adequately researched, the
interviewee pool will be weighted to include a higher percentage of (1) business, investment and
development interests and (2) environmental and community groups, key stakeholder groups that
are likely to be aware and concerned with Title VI. The interviewee sample will also be
weighted to include stakeholders that are not only supportive and active in the process, but that
also might have felt "disgruntled." Every attempt will be made to choose interviewees who are
knowledgeable about the brownfields activities and aware of Title Vl-type issues. If it is felt that
not enough is known about the pilot's activities after of the interview with the Pilot Manager, one
or two of the eight interviews will not be assigned at this time, but filled in as information is
gathered regarding the history and impact of brownfields activities.
Time frame: within 4 working days of interview with Pilot Manager
A-4
-------
Step 3: Conduct Interviews of Stakeholders in Pilot Community
The contractor will solicit assistance from the local Pilot Manager to organize an interview
schedule and protocol to conduct interviews in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
This may include phone calls, on-site visits or a combination of the above, depending upon
which is more expedient.
The contractor will develop tailored lists of interview questions for each of the interviewees
chosen based on site-specific information, the interviewees' history and activities with the pilot,
and their potential role as a participant in any Title VI complaints. Questions for each
stakeholder group will be based on general questions originally outlined for Charlotte, North
Carolina (see attachment). EPA will review questions, if practicable.
The contractor's team of senior level interviewers knowledgeable about Title VI issues and
brownfields will conduct the interviews.
Time frame: Interviews completed by January 22, 1999.*
Preliminary information on specific interviews will be prepared in bulleted form and delivered to
EPA on January 26, 1999.
* Please note that due to Pilot Managers' and stakeholders' holiday schedules, time
frames may need to be altered.
Step 4: Draft Case Studies
The contractor will draft 3- to 5-page case studies describing the relationship between
Brownfields Pilot activities and Title VI in each of the six communities. Key questions that will
be answered in the case studies include:
• What is happening around EPA Brownfields Pilot sites in terms of what types of
redevelopment are planned, who is involved, and what types of cooperative efforts exist?
• Does the Title VI process hinder redevelopment of brownfields properties?
• If so, how and why does this occur? Describe and define the impediments.
• What are the solutions to the impediments? What are the lessons learned from past efforts?
Time frame: January 25 - February 12, 1999
Step 5: Review and Revise Case Studies
The contractor will discuss and incorporate revisions suggested in the review by EPA and
provide copies for comment to local, state or federal stakeholders as requested. Groups to
consider for distribution include, but are not limited to: U.S. Conference of Mayors; National
Conference of Black Mayors; Title VIFACA; the Environmental Council of the States;
Association of State, and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials; National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; National Governors Association;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; National Black Chamber of Commerce; and
National Religious Partnership for the Environment. The contractor will discuss these
suggestions with EPA and perform formatting for the final version.
Time frame: February 15 - March 1, 1999
A-5
-------
Step 6: Roll Out Case Studies
In addition to materials being provided to the FACA committee, the contractor will work with
EPA to develop a strategy and materials to disseminate case studies to EPA, stakeholder groups,
participating communities, and the public. Options to disseminate case studies and information
on Title VI could include: distribution at NEJAC and/or other EJ meetings; distribution to local
newspapers in participating communities; distribution to all pilots and Brownfields partners via
broadcast fax; posting on EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and OSWER's Environmental
Justice and Brownfields web sites; conducting press releases; posting on EPA's Intranet; and
distribution to EPA's Office of Civil Rights.
Time frame: February 15 - ongoing
IV. Interview Protocol
The contractor has selected a pool of senior-level staff to conduct interviews for the case study pilot
stakeholders. Each of the six senior interviewers is paired with mid-level note takers/writers who
have an understanding of the case study purpose, brownfields and Title VI issues, and have created
pre-study materials. This protocol assures that the contractor's most experienced, knowledgeable
interviewers will be interacting with pilots and stakeholders, supported by writers and researchers
that are experts in brownfields and environmental justice. While six separate interviewers is not an
ideal study methodology, it is necessary to conduct these case studies in the time frame allotted.
A-6
-------
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Camden, New Jersey
Describe the demographics that exist in
Camden.
The City of Camden has a population of 87,500. Camden
is the fifth-largest city in New Jersey and is an
economically distressed area. Manufacturing and related
land uses account for one-third of Camden's nine square
miles, and brownfields constitute more than half of all
industrial sites in the City. Camden has a predominantly
minority population with high unemployment and poverty
rates. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) representative Jerry O'Donnell reported that
Camden is the fourth-poorest city in the country, and the
second-most dangerous. In 1983, Camden received a New
Jersey Enterprise Zone designation that offers tax benefits
for redevelopment.
North Camden, which is primarily residential and
commercial, is surrounded on three sides by water and
bordered on the fourth by a bridge and boulevard. Much
of North Camden has been designated a Federal
Empowerment Zone by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development and has also been recognized as
a redevelopment priority by the Governor's Urban
Coordinating Council. The waterfront area of South
Camden, on the other hand, has a long history of heavily
industrial activity, though much of this activity has ceased.
The original residents of South Camden worked in the
factories along the waterfront; they have long since moved
out of the area.
Demographics
Camden
Population:
Minority Rate:
Poverty Rate:
Unemployment Rate.-
Educational Attainment:*
North Camden
Population:
Minority Rate:
Black
Hispanic
87,500
87%
39.6%
16.3%
4.8%
8,727
42%
51%
Educational Attainment:* <4%.
'Percent of residents over25 wittva bachelor's
degree
Rather than directly funding environmental assessments, the City uses its Pilot (referring to the EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot) funding primarily for building partnerships among key
stakeholders and fostering coordination among the stakeholders to facilitate assessment, cleanup, and
-------
redevelopment of brownfields in North Camden. All assessments and cleanups have been funded by private
and other public resources.
In March 1998, Camden was selected as a finalist for Showcase Community designation and EPA has
supplemented the original Assessment Pilot grant with $200,000. Since there has been little progress made
in the South Camden area, the Pilot plans to use this supplemental funding to focus on brownfields in that
area. In addition, in 1998 EPA awarded a Job Training Pilot to the New Jersey Youth Corps.
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at any of Camden's Pilot-
targeted sites?
The Camden Pilot originally targeted three sites in North Camden (ABC Barrel site, Conrail trestle site, and
Knox Gelatin site). To date, the Pilot's main focus has been to initiate and maintain discussions among
stakeholders at the Knox Gelatin site. Cleanup and redevelopment is near completion on portions of the
Knox site. Preliminary assessments are still underway at the ABC Barrel site and Conrail site. Plans to use
the supplemental funding in South Camden are just underway.
North Camden — Knox Gelatin
The Knox site has been an industrial site and port since the 18th Century. It is comprised of three properties
totaling nearly 40 acres: the original Knox Gelatin property; the Abbonizzio property; and the Black
People's Unity Movement (BPUM) property. The Knox site is surrounded by a low-income residential
neighborhood, a marine dredging company, a county park, and land for a proposed park along the Delaware
River. The site has served as a gelatin manufacturing plant, a ship yard, and a work base for road and roofing
contractors. The property has been used as a disposal site for demolition debris and used roofing materials.
Assessment has been completed on the Knox Gelatin and BPUM properties. Assessment of the gelatin
property was funded by the prior owner. Asphalt tile left from a roofing company, illegal fill on part of the
site, and petroleum hydrocarbons of unknown origin have been identified as areas of potential concern, but
no significant hazardous materials have been found. The assessments have "significantly increased" the
comfort level for redevelopment at the property because little contamination was found. According to a
Camden Environmental Zone Corporation (CEZC) representative, "any residual environmental contamination
is not enough to prohibit immediate reuse, [a prospective tenant] could be up and running today."
Assessment of the Abbonizzio property was funded by the State after the City had foreclosed on the property.
Assessment at this property was about 85 percent complete when the owner paid his delinquent taxes and
reacquired the property. Since the property was returned to private ownership, the State could no longer fund
the assessment. A local community organization called Save our Waterfront (SOW) then purchased the
property for $140,000 (assessed value is $500,000), and will seek funding from the State to complete the
assessment report (approximately $9,000). No cleanup has been conducted at the site to date.
Land assembly and redevelopment of the site is being overseen by the Knox Redevelopment Team, which
has been jump-started by the Pilot after several years of delay under a prior administration. The Team
consists of municipal. State and Federal government officials, community stakeholders, private businesses,
and a non-profit community empowerment agency. Two of the three parcels have been acquired (BPUM)
or are controlled (Knox Gelatin) by the CEZC; the other (Abonizzio) has been acquired by SOW.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey B-4
-------
The CEZC and SOW are working to get a potential tenant called Liberty Concrete to operate a newly
patented cinder block manufacturing process at the site. The Liberty Concrete plant will provide up to 100
new high-quality jobs; the company has agreed to hire from within the North Camden area. An agreement
is being worked out with the State to provide job training. Liberty has 90 percent of the financing in place
(secured via industrial bonds) and plans to invest $10 million. Other ongoing negotiations by CEZC include
siting a supermarket, a food bank, and a tire distributor in the Knox industrial park.
North Camden — ABC Barrel
This one-acre, City-owned (tax foreclosure) site is located in "one of the nicest parts of the City"—a
moderate-income residential area (Cooper Grant neighborhood) adjacent to Rutger's University, Camden
Campus. It is surrounded by housing units that are being rehabilitated to serve university-related housing
needs. Previous uses for the site include the manufacture of toilet seats and cleaning and resale of industrial
drums that contained solvents. In 1998, EPA performed a removal assessment on the site and is considering
conducting a partial removal action under the Federal Superfund law. The State is currently conducting an
environmental assessment, including some known lead "hot spots" from paint used on the toilet seats. In
addition, EPA is providing technical oversight of the assessment and stakeholder coordination assistance
through the Pilot. Two end uses have been proposed—new residences by a non-profit housing developer and
a parking lot to service the university by the former owner. A community park is planned next to this site.
North Camden — Conrail
This quarter-acre site was used as a bulk materials facility for more than 50 years. Until the Conrail rail line
that served the site went out of business some years ago, bulk materials such as sand, gravel, and crushed
stone were unloaded from "hopper cars"and sold. It is located in a low-income residential neighborhood and
is also adjacent to the Rutgers campus. The State had begun building temporary prisons on the site, but
construction was stopped because of community opposition after fill had been placed and foundations had
been laid. Prior to determining future redevelopment plans, a State-funded Phase I investigation indicated
some contamination (hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls— PCBs). A Phase n assessment has been
completed, and further testing is required to determine who has responsibility to clean up the site. If the fill
material used to prepare the site for the prisons is contaminated, then the State may be responsible; otherwise
responsibility will probably fall to the City.
According to City officials, completion of the assessments has "not been a high priority"—the City has
"many other fish to fry" and the consultant conducting the assessment has other projects. Lengthy contract
amendments have also slowed down the project. There is no definite end use planned for the site. An early
proposal to develop the property into a senior citizen assisted living facility may be defunct.
South Camden
The Pilot plans to expand its efforts into the southern part of the City. To date, no sites have been targeted.
The City is interested in establishing a tax base and attracting more industry to this area, but residents would
like to expand housing opportunities in the area.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey B-5
-------
Was there stakeholder involvement at any of Camden's Pilot-targeted sites?
Since all sites except for Knox Gelatin are on hold or are extremely preliminary in nature, the response to
this question will focus on the Knox Gelatin property in North Camden, where there has been significant
community involvement.
Save Our Waterfront is a non-profit association representing the interests of the North Camden waterfront
neighborhood. It was incorporated in 1989 as part of a campaign to stop the proposed prison in North
Camden. SOW is made up of several related groups, including the Concerned Citizens of North Camden,
the Roman Catholic diocese, business owners, and the North Camden Land Trust (a housing rehabilitation
group).
After winning the fight against the prison, the group was dormant for a couple of years, then renewed activity
to finalize and implement a neighborhood redevelopment plan. According to Tom Knoche, SOW's Resource
Coordinator, this neighborhood planning process "was entirely community-driven." It was an "18-month,
very intensive process of talking to everyone in the neighborhood and nailing down a vision." The planning
process included a survey of the environmental conditions in the area to identify potential problem sites.
The North Camden Plan, as it is called, has three major components—a waterfront park, an industrial park
(with a goal of 350 jobs), and a permanent police substation—and includes plans to improve the
transportation infrastructure, especially Delaware Avenue. In 1993, the City approved the plan.
Implementation of the North Camden Plan has faced several barriers (for more details about some of the
barriers see response to Question 6).
When Liberty Concrete approached the City and the CEZC about a year ago, it appeared that they were not
informed of the community's vision as stated in the North Camden Plan. Preliminary negotiations took place
between Liberty Concrete and the CEZC, and some of the specific details of the project were in contradiction
to the Plan (e.g., number of jobs created, access to the waterfront). SOW discovered the Liberty Concrete
negotiations from a newspaper article and this put the organization in a "higher tension, advocacy mode."
The community confronted the City and CEZC officials. The CEZC started showing up at the
Redevelopment Team meetings and all of the problems were put on the table. From that point on, the
community (as represented by SOW) has not only been fully involved in all discussions and decision-making,
but has supported the redevelopment plans for Liberty Concrete and the entire Knox Gelatin property through
the Knox Redevelopment Team.
SOW has met directly with Liberty Concrete to discuss its concerns, including its concern that the plant
might not be environmentally friendly. There was added concern because the proposed manufacturing
process is new and has no proven track record. 'According to Tom Knoche, "[Liberty] made it quite clear
that this was the kind of operation we wanted to see." Liberty Concrete promised that nothing is burned, no
hazardous substances are involved, and truck traffic would be low. Although Liberty Concrete assuaged all
of SOW's concerns, SOW plans to watch the plant once it becomes operational to see if there are any issues.
To further allay the community's concern, the Team agreed that the CEZC would hire an engineering
company to make sure that the operation is "green" once its up and running.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Camden, New Jersey 8-6
-------
In addition, SOW believes that its recent purchase of the Abbonizzio property makes them an "equity
participant" in the process. In addition, SOW is also applying for control of the Knox Gelatin property.
According to Tom Knoche, "we become a stakeholder as soon as we own land...we have leverage."
Are there permitting issues at any of Camden's
Pilot-targeted sites?
Since all sites except for Knox Gelatin are on hold or are
extremely preliminary in nature, the response to this question will
focus on the Knox Gelatin property in North Camden.
Because the nature of Liberty Concrete's operations are new and
not yet fully known, it is unclear what type of permits, if any, they
may require for its day-to-day operations. There is speculation
that a storm water permit may be required under the Federal Clean
Water Act and a permit for building near a coastal area may be
required under State law. Although the area is a non-attainment
zone under the Federal Clean Air Act, it does not appear as if
there will be any emissions created from the manufacturing
process.
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge: 24
Hazardous Waste: 233
Air Releases: 134
Toxics Release
Inventory: 21
Biennial Reporting
System (1995): 10
As noted in the response to Question 3, the community had initial
concerns about whether the plant would be a "clean, green business"or have other "nuisance" issues, but
these were addressed by Liberty Concrete. The engineering firm to be hired by the CEZC will oversee the
operations to ensure there are no unacceptable emissions from the plant.
With regard to other planned development on the property, other tenants in the industrial park are likely to
be commercial or light industrial, which would generally not require environmental permitting. This is in
line with one of the North Camden Plan's ten key policies—to "end negative land uses such as trash-to-steam
plants, prisons, polluting industries and power plants."
If any permits are required, they will go through the standard State permitting processes. The State reviews
any proposed permits. The current procedure is to put a notice in the paper for ten days, with a comment
period and mandatory public hearings.
For Camden's Pilot-targeted sites in which no complaint was filed, what were the
factors present which ensured there would be no complaints?
According to interviewees, involvement by affected community members early in the redevelopment process
is key to addressing any issues that could bring a project to a halt. Since SOW had a clear vision about
redevelopment, had conducted an environmental study of the area, and was persistent in getting its issues
heard, problems were addressed early in the process. Finally, job creation seemed to play a key role in
averting formal complaints. Even though Liberty Concrete is not as labor-intensive as the community had
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey
B-7
-------
hoped for, there wi 11 be a substantial number of jobs provided with "livable" wages and State-funded training
for the area's residents.
According to the Pilot Manager, keeping all the parties at the table and trying to streamline any City
assistance/resources has been helpful. He also noted that this community group's ability to use the press and
involve other stakeholders has helped get its voice heard.
According to the CEZC representative, it was important to draw the line at some point to stop the
community's demands. Otherwise, they keep asking for more and the deal never gets done. For example,
he had to push back with the community on the number of jobs that Liberty Concrete would provide. He
noted that the community has to consider other "real world" factors such as community investment and taxes.
Is Camden's environmental office working with its redevelopment office? What
other working relationships are in place in Camden (such as with the local civil
rights office)?
Many of the interview participants noted that the prior administration had frustrated many of the attempts
to redevelop Camden's brownfields. There was substantial political opposition and in-fighting. When the
administration changed, the Pilot acted to restart the Knox Redevelopment Team, which seems to have
facilitated more progress. The Team not only facilitates inter-city communication, but also communication
between the other key government stakeholders in the State and Federal governments.
However, there were still comments indicating that the City could improve its internal working relationships.
As Jerry O'Donnell of NJDEP stated, "the City's going through a disjointed redevelopment." For example,
North and South Camden redevelopment discussions do not take place at the same time or with the same
group of people.
In addition, according to Charles Lyons of the Camden Planning Department, there is a struggle in South
Camden over who has the right to set development policy. For the past ten years, non-profit groups, with
money from the State and Federal governments, have been doing all of the revitalization work in the City.
These groups are saying that the City has abdicated its right in this arena. The Mayor is trying to bring the
groups together and the Pilot sees itself as the perfect forum.
Are there enforcement issues at any of Camden's Pilot-targeted sites?
There are currently no enforcement concerns at any of the Pilot-targeted sites. The community representative
did note some concerns about odors from a company currently operating in North Camden. Tom Knoche
reported, "the only one that we know is a polluter that may be affecting people in the neighborhood is
Decorated Paper." The plant, which uses hydrocarbons for paper finishes, is believed to have "a number of
environmental permits." However, the community has checked, and found that Decorated Paper has filed
its paperwork regularly with the State and appears to be in compliance.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey B-8
-------
In addition, there were multiple comments about non-environmental, social justice and/or "nuisance" issues
present in North Camden such as truck traffic, high crime rates, gang activity, and drug use. The major issue
noted was the planned prison site, which was defeated due to community opposition.
Any disparate impact claims would more likely be connected to South Camden. All of the stakeholders
interviewed remarked upon the heavy industry in South Camden, and the unpleasant smell associated with
the wastewater treatment plant. Based on "off-the-record" comments by local stakeholders interviewed, and
a conversation with State enforcement officials, lack of compliance is a key factor with regard to the plant.
In fact, the State and a local community group have filed lawsuits against the plant operators for non-
compliance.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Camden's Pilot areas?
No formal alternative dispute resolution processes were used for the Knox site in North Camden. As soon
as possible after the dispute arose and SOW went into "advocacy mode," however, the stakeholders began
face-to-face dialogues within the context of the Redevelopment Team. These types of interactions would
be considered alternative dispute resolution under a broad definition of the concept.
How can the Camden Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
According to Fred Martin, the Pilot's goal is "no matter what happens, the community group is involved."
This Pilot's primary mission is to coordinate dialogue and resources among all stakeholders, including the
community groups, so it has built-in processes regarding the targeted sites. The Pilot has helped to
"institutionalize" the monthly Redevelopment Team meetings. Continuing to facilitate these meetings should
help ensure sustained community involvement. In its role as coordinator for the Knox site, the Pilot has
helped forge working relationships that should allow the community to more easily achieve results in future
endeavors on this and other brownfields projects.
In addition, the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) is entering a contract with SOW to provide
training on risk assessment, permit issues, and community organization that has proved successful for other
New Jersey community groups. This approach seems a promising way to ensure that the community
involvement is meaningful.
How can the findings of the Camden Pilot case study be applied beyond Brownfields
activities?
The environmental knowledge and planning exhibited by Save Our Waterfront went a long way toward
realizing not only its redevelopment plan, but its power as an organized, educated, and involved stakeholder
group. Similarly, having an institutionalized stakeholder group like the Knox Redevelopment Team appears
to be effective in preventing disputes, or at least provides a forum for their resolution outside of the
courtroom.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey 6-9
-------
The NJIT community training model has been used in other New Jersey cities as a way to empower
community members to be credible participants in brownfields redevelopment. This model could be used
at other redevelopment projects within Camden. The Pilot Manager has indicated that they would like to use
the same approach for South Camden. In addition, NJDEP recently received a $100,000 Environmental
Justice grant from EPA to develop an "environmental equities" program. The agency intends to work with
several communities around the State and with the State Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution "so that
we don't have a lawsuit" at the end of the redevelopment pipeline. NJDEP hopes that by involving all
stakeholders from the beginning, like with the Knox Development Team, the agency can prevent problems
before they start and prevent those who decide not to participate in the process from filing lawsuits after the
process is complete.
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed'toJdehtifyipotential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Marlene Doolev. New Jersey Department of Enforcement and Compliance and Ron Hatch,
New Jersey Deputy Attorney General
Brian Finnie. Camden Empowerment Zone Corporation
Torn Knoche, Save Our Waterfront
Charles Lyons. Camden Redevelopment Agency
Fred Martin. Camden Division of Planning
Jerry O'Donnell. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Alison Devine. EPA IPA
Attended the January 14,1999 Knox Development Team meeting, but no formal interviews
were conducted
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Camden, New Jersey B-10
-------
T"^TF^*n"T'7r If ™* *7E P IT /f^ /\ (C™*^ II "^* /i""1"* TT** tl
TITLE VI CASE STI
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Charlotte, North Carolina
Describe the demographics that exist in
Charlotte.
The City of Charlotte has a population of 396,000. The
Brownfields Pilot (referring to the EPA Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilot) area is adjacent to
uptown in the South End/Wilmore business district, which
includes Charlotte's earliest industrial area, dating back to
the late 1800's. The Pilot is targeting five sites in the
South End/Wilmore Neighborhood, which has a
population of approximately 3,500 and a high minority
rate (93.7 percent) compared to the City as a whole (34.4
percent). The poverty rate for the South End/Wilmore
Neighborhood (26.7 percent) is more than double that for
Charlotte (10.8 percent). Educational attainment is
significantly higher than the national average, however:
21 percent of Charlotte residents over 25 have a
bachelor's degree, compared to the national average of
13.1 percent.
Have cleanup and redevelopment been
done/completed at any of Charlotte's Pilot-
targeted sites?
Of the five sites targeted by the Charlotte Pilot, two
(Thomas Construction and Camden Square) have been
cleaned up and are under redevelopment. The remaining
three (Gaines Brown, Cost Effective Maintenance, and
Truck Equipment Manufacturers) are in various stages of
assessment and cleanup. Four of the five sites targeted
are attempting to take advantage of North Carolina's
Brownfields Property Reuse Act which limits liability for
prospective developers.
Demographics:
Charlotte
Population: 396,000
Minority Rate: 34.4%
Poverty Rate: 10.8%
Unemployment Rate: 3.2%
Educational Attainment:
(City-wide):* 21 %_
Pilot-targeted Area
Population: 3,500
Minority Rate: 93.7%
Poverty Rate: 26.7%
Educational Attainment
(City-wide):* 2f%
'Percent of residents over 25 with a bachelor's
degree.
-------
Thomas Construction
This was the first site redeveloped with assistance from the Charlotte Brownfields Pilot. Seventy-five
hundred dollars in Pilot funds were used to conduct environmental sampling activities on this 1,920-square-
foot site and to develop a cleanup plan. Sampling showed the presence of lead contamination as a result of
its former use as a radiator shop. Thomas Construction, a construction contractor, removed the contaminated
soil, renovated a building, and is now occupying the site. Thomas Construction did not pursue a brownfields
agreement with the State.
Camden Square
The Camden Square project, the largest in the Pilot area, is a six-parcel, 2.7-acre abandoned industrial area
in the middle of the South End/Wilmore Neighborhood. The developer, Tony Pressley, spent $31,000 on
Phase I and H environmental assessments, and $20,000 in Pilot funds were allotted for additional
assessments. Cleanup of lead and asbestos found at the Camden Square site was conducted by Pressley,
which is estimated at $165,000. Redevelopment is underway and plans include shops, restaurants, and
design-related businesses such as architectural firms, graphics production companies, and interior decoration
firms.
Under the State of North Carolina's Brownfields Property Reuse Act, which provides liability protection for
prospective developers who are not responsible for contamination, the Camden Square developer has agreed
to limit future use of groundwater at the site to protect those using the property in exchange for the State's
agreement not to hold it responsible for past contamination. The agreement, signed on April 6, 1998, was
the first to be reached under the State's new Brownfields Property Reuse Act: the cleanup of the site was
slowed as Pressley had to wait more than one year to receive a brownfields agreement from the State.
Gaines Brown
A local developer, Gaines Brown, bought a brownfields parcel as part of his redevelopment plan related to
the design and exhibit businesses planned for Camden Square. Once purchased, the Brownfields Pilot spent
$20,000 to conduct a Phase n environmental assessment and design a cleanup plan. Similar to the Thomas
Construction site, a portion of the property was found to contain lead contamination from its former use as
a radiator shop. Cleanup costs are estimated at $20,000 to $100,000. The portion of the site that was found
to be free from contamination is being cleared of debris. Development is pending a liability protection
agreement under the State's Brownfields Property Reuse Act.
Cost Effective Maintenance
The Pilot spent $20,000 on this parcel for site assessment. Jennifer Rush, the owner of Cost Effective
Maintenance, an industrial construction materials business, intends to purchase this property, renovate the
existing building for flex space lease, and construct a new building on the site for its own administrative
offices. She has secured financing to purchase and redevelop the property, but development is contingent
on the issuance of a brownfields agreement with the State that will limit environmental liability on the site
for which her company was not responsible.
Truck Equipment Manufacturers
An environmental assessment has been performed on this site. Truck Equipment Manufacturers hopes to
expand its business to this lot, which is across the street from its current facility. Estimates of expansion cost
have been reported at approximately $2.5 million. The renovation of an existing manufacturing building and
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings * Charlotte, North Carolina B-12
-------
the removal of debris have started on the project site. The owner, Robert Gilbertson, is seeking a brownfields
agreement with the State prior to development.
Was there stakeholder involvement at any of Charlotte's Pilot-targeted sites?
Stakeholder involvement has been a hallmark of this Brownfields Pilot. The City worked with local residents
and other stakeholders from the application stage of the Pilot, explaining the project and brownfields
concepts and soliciting input. A variety of activities were conducted to ensure that assessment, cleanup and
redevelopment activities were being conducted with the blessing and involvement of residents in the
impacted neighborhoods. In the beginning, door hangers, mailings, and flyers were distributed throughout
the community in order to attract interest in the Brownfields Pilot and invite residents to the community
meeting sponsored by the City. The City received an award for the effectiveness of their community
outreach materials from the National City County Marketing and Communications Association.
In order to organize the involvement process, the Brownfields Pilot formed three committees:
Environmental, Site Selection, and Financial. All of these committees consisted of a broad range of
stakeholders, including community development corporations, neighborhood associations, banks and
environmental professionals. Meetings of these committees were held in the Wilmore Neighborhood, making
it easier for those residents most affected by potential redevelopment projects to attend. As a result they were
very well attended.
Input from stakeholders was used to determine which five sites would be targeted by the Pilot, and what kind
of redevelopment projects would be considered. AH potential redevelopment projects were brought before
the committees by the prospective developers. Stakeholders were able to question developers about their
proposed projects so that all concerns, mainly those of the community organizations, were addressed. For
example, residents in the Wi Imore Neighborhood expressed concern with the height of some of the buildings
being proposed for the Camden Square project, feeling that they would be living in the shadows and street
trees would fail to thrive for lack of light. As a result of this input, the developer lowered the height of one
of the buildings.
Louise Shackelford, the Wilmore Neighborhood Association representative, commented that members of the
committee were "very receptive to my ideas," and concerns which included: traffic congestion; protecting
natural urban ecosystems; providing high-wage employment opportunities; and encouraging
entrepreneurship. Shackelford said she had "nothing but good things to say about the brownfields project"
and that the program not only brought "economic development to the area, but also changed people's
attitudes for the better," referring to residents realizing their potential for improving their surroundings for
themselves and for their children. A local lender stated that she was "wowed" by the City's outreach efforts.
A representative of the West Enterprise Community Board (a neighborhood group also involved in the City's
Federal Enterprise Community designation) stated that the process was a "tremendous educational tool" for
all those involved.
The best example displaying the cooperation between the community and a developer is Tony Pressley's
(developer) Camden Square project. Pressley met with community groups early in the process to explain his
proposed project, and to address any neighborhood concerns. Calling him a "community conscious"
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Charlotte, North Carolina B-13
-------
developer, both community representatives interviewed said Mr. Presley was open and honest from the very
beginning and has continued to update the community with regard to the project's status. Community groups
aided Pressley by providing letters of support for the project for him to use when he was seeking" a loan for
the development. Pressley stated that community support for the project was very important; he doubted he
would ever pursue a project if the community was against it. He went on to say that he felt his entire project
was "Wilmore-driven."
This type of inclusive decision-making is also being supported by the State's Brownfields Property Reuse
Act in that developers seeking assistance from the State must show local community is in support of the
project. In addition to the aforementioned letters of support to lenders, the Wilmore Neighborhood
Association has written letters of support to the State on behalf of Pressley and the Camden Square project.
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge:
Hazardous Waste;
Air Releases:
Toxics Release
Inventory:
61
641
330 1
120
49 -'
Are there permitting issues at any of Charlotte's
Pilot-targeted sites?
At this time it is not predicted that any of the Pilot-targeted sites
will require environmental permits. Redevelopment activities are
focusing on service and commercial ventures such as restaurants,
offices, and warehouses.
It is interesting to note that the State of North Carolina is
currently developing a process that is supported by a
Geographical Information System (GIS), which will readily make
available environmental, permitting and demographic data to
State permit regulators. Access to this data will allow regulators
to identify renewal or new permits where environmental justice
concerns are or might be an issue.
It is also of interest that the State, through the Brownfields
Property Reuse Act, has a public comment period requirement
that could be criticized in the same manner as Title VI for causing delays in brownfields redevelopment
projects. Under the Act, a brownfields agreement with the State cannot be approved until after a 60-day
public comment period where stakeholders could conceivably oppose a project well into the cleanup or
development stage. However, none of the brownfields projects in Charlotte have been canceled or slowed
as a result of community opposition in this review period. While the Camden Square project was slowed
down by a year due to delays in receiving the State's first agreement under the Act, this did not prevent the
developer from moving forward or interacting with the community.
For Charlotte's Pilot-targeted sites in which no complaint was filed, what were the
factors present which ensured there would be no complaints?
There have been no complaints filed regarding any of the Pilot-targeted sites. Participants in the Pilot stated
that intensive stakeholder outreach and inclusive decision-making ensured that all potential concerns were
addressed before a project was started including the following factors: 1) the City built trust with affected
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Charlotte, North Carolina
B-14
-------
neighborhoods early on by conducting intensive outreach and soliciting input and participation in the
Brownfields Pilot beginning with the application process; 2) community members sat on the selection
committees for redevelopment projects; and 3) involvement continued throughout the project, so that future
concerns of stakeholders also would be addressed. The environmental engineer, whose company has
performed brownfields assessments for the City, stated that he did not think Title VI issues would hamper
redevelopment efforts because these deserted areas are serving no purpose by remaining blighted. The
brownfields program has "nothing but positive results" to offer residents in these areas.
Community group representatives interviewed were asked the hypothetical question, "If there had been an
issue relating to environmental permits, do you think the City's stakeholder involvement efforts would be
adequate to resolve a problem?" Those community representatives felt confident that their strong
relationships with the City would likely allow a permitting or end use concern to be resolved. This
hypothetical situation is not likely to be tested considering the redevelopments currently underway or planned
in the Pilot target area. Redevelopment activities are entirely non-industrial; they are service-oriented and
commercial in nature. Bruce Nicholson, head of the State's Brownfields Program, noted that most of the
City's brownfields are not fit for modern industrial uses and that most manufacturing and industrial plants
tend to be located in rural areas in North Carolina.
Is Charlotte's environmental office working with its redevelopment office? What
other working relationships are in place in Charlotte (such as with the local civil
rights office)?
Charlotte's Economic Development Division is responsible for administering the Brownfields Pilot grant.
The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection is a cooperative partner in the Pilot. The
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management,
was also a cooperative partner in the Pilot. Although not an active participant, Division of Waste
Management officials were present in community meetings to serve as a source of information concerning
the State's brownfields' laws.
Are there enforcement issues at any of Charlotte's Pilot-targeted sites ?
There are not facilities in the target area that are raising Title VI community concerns. The Wilmore
Neighborhood representative, Louise Shackelford, commented that a pipe plant outside the Pilot area had
raised the concerns of residents due to the smoke being emitted. She went on to say that she heard that EPA
had investigated the plant and had found everything in compliance with environmental laws. Enforcement
issues were not considered by any of those interviewed to have an impact on brownfields redevelopment.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Charlotte's Pilot areas?
There were no disputes surrounding brownfields activities.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Charlotte, North Carolina B-15
-------
How can the Charlotte Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
Both the Pilot Manager and representatives from community groups expect to share in the decision-making
process with regard to future brownfields projects. Parties acknowledged that the key to continued success
is to maintain open dialogue and trust between the parties and to involve all concerned from the beginning.
Furthermore, developers, City officials and neighborhood representatives all feel that the likelihood of
success for any endeavor increases significantly when all stakeholders involved feel that they are active,
knowledgeable, and influential participants in the process. Open and honest dialogue between stakeholders
from the very beginning of a project helps to build relationships between participants and improve the
chances of overcoming future obstacles.
The attorney who represented the Camden Square developer in receiving a brownfields agreement,
commented that Title VI concerns are not likely to occur in Charlotte because the City is "attuned" to the
concerns of the community.
How can the findings of the Charlotte Pilot case study be applied beyond
Brownfields activities?
A lesson from the experience of redeveloping brownfields in Charlotte is that developing trusting, mutually
beneficial relationships among communities, businesses and the City can spin-off other positive benefits.
The Wilmore Neighborhood Association plans to maintain its strong relationship with the City in working
to redevelop the South End/Wilmore Neighborhood. It also plans to leverage this relationship to build
further partnerships with public and private sectors to achieve such other community goals as: job training
and education; neighborhood beautification; and crime reduction. As a result of the close relationship
between the Association and the developer for the Camden Square site, the developer is now involved in
helping to support activities at the community center in the neighborhood as well as conducting
redevelopment projects.
Furthermore, the impact that the State's Brownfields Property Reuse Act has had on encouraging developers
to involve local communities in a meaningful way is showing early, but promising, results. According to
developers and business owners interviewed, protection from environmental liability for pre-existing
contamination is often the critical component needed to make a project viable in Charlotte. To receive
liability protection from the State, a developer must show that the community is in support of the
redevelopment, adding an additional incentive for developers in North Carolina to work with affected
stakeholders. The importance of this incentive and the results it achieves regarding community input should
be revisited after more projects have received liability protection.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Charlotte, North Carolina B-16
-------
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed to:identify potential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Tom Warshauer. City of Charlotte: Economic Development Division (Pilot Manager)
Kathryn Justice. First Union
Tony Presslev. Camden Square Associates
Benne Hutson. Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore
Jennifer Rush. Cost Effective Maintenance
Ted White. West Enterprise Community Board
Chris Bozzini. Malcolm Pirhie
Bruce Nicholson & Grover Nicholson. NC Division of Waste Management
Louise Shackelford. Wilmore Neighborhood Association
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Charlotte, North Carolina B-17
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Demographics:
Chicago
Population:
Minority Rate:
Poverty Rate:
2,800,000
54.6%
21.6%
Chicago, Illinois
Describe the demographics that exist in
Chicago.
The City of Chicago has a population of 2.8 million.
Chicago is one of the first cities in the country to develop
a program to redevelop its brownfields. This "rust belt"
City has administered its own program since 1993, which
has included assessment and cleanup of sites as well as
coordination of redevelopment activities. In December
1994, the City of Chicago was designated as one of six
urban Empowerment Zones (EZ) by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 1997 the
City was awarded a relatively small, $41,000 EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grant
(hereafter referred to as the Pilot), which was dedicated to
improving the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement for
brownfields projects throughout the City. This would be
performed by creating outreach materials and evaluating
the progress of issues raised during the Brownfields
Forum, which was conducted in 1994 and 1995 with a
grant from the Mac Arthur Foundation.
The City's minority rate of 54.6 percent and poverty rate of 21.6 percent are significantly higher than
Illinois' minority rate of 21.6 percent and poverty rate of 11.9 percent. Chicago's unemployment rate is 6.7
percent, and 12 percent of the population over 25 has attained a Bachelor's degree (according to the 1990
Census). Illegal dumping in minority neighborhoods has been a longstanding problem. All of the Pilot-
targeted sites are located in neighborhoods that are predominantly minority.
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at any of Chicago's Pilot-
targeted sites?
Chicago's Brownfields Sites Program has already invested more than $15 million for the assessment,
cleanup, and preparation of various sites for redevelopment throughout the City. In addition, the City is
currently devoting a portion of the $50 million in Section 108 loans from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development funding for brownfields-related activities. Chicago has cleaned up 33 sites,
Unemployment Rate: 6.7%
Educational Attainment* 12%
•Percent of residents over 25 with a bachelor's -
degree.
-------
encompassing approximately 50 acres; the City is currently focusing on 28 additional brownfields sites,
covering approximately 480 acres. Of these sites, interviewees repeatedly mentioned the Burnside Steel
Foundry, the former Wisconsin Steel site, the 7&h and Albany site, and the Roosevelt and Kostner sites.
Bumside Steel Foundry
In 1979, an explosion destroyed the seven-acre Burnside Steel Foundry, completely burning the original
structure and leaving a 150-foot smokestack on the verge of collapse, along with a large amount of debris.
The site was subsequently abandoned and became a safety hazard. Fortunately, the foundry property was
located adjacent to the Verson Corporation, which was looking to expand its stamping press operations. The
Southeast Chicago Development Commission and the Alderman brought the site to the attention of the City
and advocated for assessment and cleanup funding. Through its Brownfields Sites Program, the City
invested about $500,000 for the cleanup and removal of more than 200 truckloads of debris and five barrels
of hazardous waste. Verson Corporation redeveloped the site, investing $31 million and adding
approximately 100 new jobs when its new addition was completed.
Wisconsin Steel
Navistar, a heavy truck and combine manufacturer, owns this site as a successor to Wisconsin Steel. The
Economic Development Agency (EDA), which holds a loan with the company, convinced the company to
perform a voluntary cleanup and try to sell the site. Navistar cleaned up the site to industrial standards and
is now looking for a redevelopment option. Some members of the surrounding community expressed that
they would like to have the site cleaned up to (higher) residential standards in order to make the land a "blank
slate" for redevelopment, since its end use is currently unknown.
76th and Albany
This 30-acre site has been the location of considerable illegal dumping activities. In addition to
approximately 420,000 tons of construction debris illegally disposed of on the site, residual contamination
(treated wood, contaminated soil, and concrete debris) existed from previous uses. According to Jim
Capraro, of the Greater Southwest Development Corporation, cleanup is estimated at $18 million. Style
Master, a container-making company, is interested in expanding its current Chicago-based operations by
building a factory on the site. The company's owner, Martha Williamson, is an African-American Chicago
native interested in moving her growing company back to her hometown, but the cost of cleanup is
prohibitive. Style Master would bring 500 jobs to the area, with the potential of 600-1000 jobs in the future.
To date, no cleanup activities have taken place. Mr. Capraro and the Greater Southwest Development
Corporation are investigating other sources of funding, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, since
it is believed that some of the dumping was a result of organized crime activities.
Roosevelt and Kostner
Between 1990 and 1996 more than 600,000 cubic yards of debris had been illegally dumped on this 16-acre
site, creating a seven-story "mountain" of waste. The City spent $2.3 million on site cleanup, a process that
ran from January 1996 until April 1997, and removed more than 140 truckloads per day for over a year. Due
in part to community input and the City's desire to involve the affected community, the waste removal
contract was awarded to a local minority-owned trucking firm, which is part of a coalition of truckers who
work with the Reverend Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition. A black family television network is
constructing a $ 150 million building, including indoor television and movie sets and a cable channel. It is
expected that this project will create 75 new jobs.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Chicago, Illinois B-20
-------
Was there stakeholder involvement at any of Chicago's Pilot-targeted sites?
The purpose of the original EPA grant was to augment the City's Brownfields Forum by evaluating the
progress made on Forum recommendations. The Brownfields Forum was a broad-based, public/private
policy group comprising real estate developers, business interests, bankers, lawyers, representatives from
local, State, Federal government agencies, environmental organizations, and community groups. It served
as a coalition-building process that solicited community input on brownfields issues. Members of the
Brownfields Forum included:
•Altheimer & Gray
•American National Bank
•Baker & McKenzie
•Bank of America
•Buchanan Consulting, Inc.
•Business and Professional
People for Public Interest
•Center for Neighborhood
Technology
•Chicago Association of
Neighborhood Development
Organizations (CANDO)
•Chicago Department of
Environment
•Chicago Department of Law
•Chicago Department of
Planning and Development
•Chicago Legal Clinic
•Chicago Manufacturing Center
•Chicago Mayor's Office
•Chicagoland Department of
Law
•Clean Sites, Inc. (Delta
Institute)
•Department of Housing and
Urban Development
•U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
•Greater Southwest
Development Corp.
•Heitman Properties
•Illinois EPA
•Illinois Waste Management &
Research Center
•John D. & Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation
•North Business Industrial
Council
•Southeast Chicago
Development Commission
•Waste Management Research
Center
The Brownfields Forum focused on issues of sustainable development and property cleanup and reuse.
Between December 1994 and June 1995, more than 130 people attended a series of working meetings,
developing 65 recommendations for promoting brownfields redevelopment. Forum activities achieved
regulatory changes, influenced regional planning, and increased access to communities in brownfields
decision-making.
The Brownfields Forum was highly inclusive and allowed for broad-based involvement. According to Bill
Abolt, Commissioner of the Department of the Environment, since that time the City has demonstrated its
commitment to community involvement in brownfields projects. For example, although the Brownfields
Forum has been completed, the City holds evening meetings to continue to receive community input so that
every project can begin with a community consensus. No stakeholders interviewed felt that the Brownfields
Program currently excludes any parties from the decision-making processes.
Of the original $41,000 EPA Pilot grant, $21,000 was targeted for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Forum, and to help compile a cumulative Brownfields Forum Progress Report. In addition, EPA has awarded
Chicago $200,000 as a Showcase Community; $200,000 under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA),
which temporarily provided a Federal employee to assist the City's brownfields efforts; and $200,000 to
temporarily fund an Army Corps of Engineers staff person to support the City's brownfields efforts.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Chicago, Illinois
B-21
-------
Another method by which stakeholders can provide input is through the City's process for request for
proposals. In a highly competitive environment, bid selection is based on a defined criteria selected by the
Chicago Department of Planning and Development (DPD) including: the developer's conforniance to the
requirements of the proposal, quality of the development's design, economic feasibility of the plans, financial
ability of the developer to complete the development, the project schedule, and any benefits the respondent
will bring to the City, including job creation. DPD reviews every proposal and then passes good ones onto
the Community Development Commission (CDC) to make sure that community concerns are addressed. The
CDC reviews the proposal with affected communities. Based on past successes, Mr. Abolt and Jennifer
Muss, of the City of Chicago, both stress that community support greatly aids the selection of proposals. Mr.
Abolt states that the "smarter proposals will go to the community beforehand with ideas," because "if the
community advocates a particular idea, the City is likely to follow through, especially if the development
benefits the community." He cites the Roosevelt & Kostner site as a prime example of community
involvement contributing to a successful proposal. Through the community's monthly meetings, residents
were allowed to question and speak with potential developers about their redevelopment plans for the site.
Based on the community's support for the black television network, the City accepted the bid because it
would directly benefit the area's minority residents.
In addition, the City has created extensive community involvement opportunities throughout the permitting
process. To receive a permit, a potential developer must first take the request before the City, where the
proposal is discussed in a public hearing open to members of the community. If the request reaches the
zoning board, there is second public hearing. A final, third public hearing is then required before a permit
is issued. According to Mr. Abolt, this three-tiered formula allows for ample community input into every
permit.
Alderman Michael Chandler of the 24lh Ward illustrated an example of how expanded community
participation has strengthened the City's enforcement programs. In the summer of 1995, the Department of
Environment and the 11th Police District began a cooperative enforcement program that consisted of stricter
laws, an enforcement unit, public outreach, and a data management and tracking system to help stop illegal
dumping. The Department of Environment also has a complaint hotline and brochures announcing the
hotline (produced in English, Spanish, and Polish), encouraging community residents to report illegal
dumping activities.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Chicago, Illinois B-22
-------
Are there permitting issues at any of Chicago's
Pilot-targeted sites?
None of the parties interviewed expect there to be permitting
issues at any of the targeted brownfields sites. Planned end uses
for the sites include: a stamping press manufacturer, a container
manufacturer, and a television studio. Some of these end uses
may require new environmental permits.
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge: 48
Hazardous Waste: 4674
Air Releases: 1949
Toxics Release
Inventory:
Biennial Reporting
System (1995):
466
208
Although there are no permitting issues expected on these four
brownfields sites, in another part of Chicago community
members have been involved in the issuance of permits. Mr.
Abolt cited an instance where a developer was interested in
spending $2 million to clean up and redevelop a site, but could
not get the necessary air permit from the State because they were
located in a non-attainment area. Since the developer was going
to create jobs for local residents, the community became an
advocate for the project. Through its support, the developer was
able to get an emissions credit from 3M and the State awarded
the permit. This case exemplifies how important job creation activities are to distressed communities
regardless of environmental concerns.
For Chicago's Pilot-targeted sites in which no complaint was filed, what were the
factors present which ensured there would be no complaints?
According to the parties interviewed, strong community involvement has headed off any potential
complaints, even though some of the sites will have industrial reuses. With intensive City and community
partnerships in brownfields issues, most potential problems were identified and treated from the beginning,
thus avoiding any complaints or dissatisfaction with cleanup and redevelopment plans. Mr. Abolt states that
by involving the community at the beginning of a project, "We let the community define the possible." Each
group interviewed stressed the necessity of including the community from the outset of any project and
praised the Pilot and City efforts in this regard.
Is Chicago's environmental office working with its redevelopment office? What
other working relationships are in place in Chicago (such as with the local civil
rights office)?
In 1993, representatives from the Chicago Departments of Environment, Planning and Development,
Buildings, Law, and the Mayor's Office came together to develop a strategy for promoting cleanup and
redevelopment of the City's brownfields. These various City departments have been significantly involved
in all aspects of the Brownfields Program in Chicago. Mayor Richard M. Daley is primarily responsible for
these working relationships associated with Brownfields. Mr. Daley formed the Department of Planning and
Development (which plays a large role in the selection of bids for redevelopment of brownfields), initiated
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Chicago, Illinois
B-23
-------
the City-based Brownfields Program, and insisted on community involvement in brownfields projects. Due
to his leadership, the City, the Pilot, and the community all work together in one large partnership.
Although the City and Pilot work in concert with the community, several stakeholders expressed frustration
with the Illinois EPA's (IEPA) role in the permitting process. Mr. Capraro mentioned that "coordination
with the City, State, and EPA leaves something to be desired." According to Mr. Capraro, the IEPA
bureaucracy makes it difficult to complete permits and receive a EPA-issued "No Further Remediation
(NFR)" letter when a cleanup is completed. An NFR letter gives the site developer and end user the security
needed to pursue redevelopment without environmental liability. Mr. Capraro emphasized that timing is
important in construction for projects. "If [the developer] misses the season, it totally throws [the developer]
off schedule," he explained. Therefore, the additional level of bureaucracy encountered with the IEPA can
lengthen the amount of time to receive a permit, potentially disrupting the entire construction schedule for
a project.
Are there enforcement issues at any of Chicago's Pilot-targeted sites?
No parties interviewed were aware of enforcement issues at any of the targeted sites. Although there are no
enforcement issues relating to Pilot activities, the context in which redevelopment is occurring in Chicago
is volatile. Community groups in nearby South Cook County have actively opposed two incinerators (Bloom
Township Incinerator and Robbins Incinerator) in a predominantly low-income, minority area.
The Bloom Township incinerator Title VI complaint was filed in 1995 by the South Suburban Citizens
Opposed to Polluting our Environment (SS-COPE). SS-COPE objected to the construction of a wood-
burning incinerator, citing potential dangers to the community including: the possibility of fire, the
possibility of burning toxins, and the harms caused by the incinerator being visited on overwhelmingly
minority populations. Due to the Title VI complaint and the community's strong stance against the
incinerator, the permit was denied, and the case closed.
The South Cook County Environmental Action Coalition (SCCEAC) filed a Title VI complaint against the
Robbins Incinerator in November 1997. The complaint charged that the incinerator was a source of air and
noise pollution, and that the facility would almost exclusively affect the people living in immediate proximity
to the incinerator who are, in turn, disproportionately minority when compared to residents of Cook County
and Illinois. The case is still open.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Chicago's Pilot areas?
No dispute resolution surrounding any of the brownfields sites was mentioned by those interviewed. Due
to the volatile climate surrounding pending litigation related to the Robbins incinerator, participants were
unwilling to discuss this case or any ADR activities.
How can the Chicago Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
Strong community involvement was consistently mentioned by all stakeholders as crucial to redevelopment
plans getting underway and being successful. Consequently, the City plans to continue its strong program
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Chicago, Illinois B-24
-------
of community involvement, especially through the permitting process and public meetings. In an effort at
continual improvement, the City plans to implement suggestions for improvements identified in the Pilot-
funded Brownfields Forum Progress Report.
In order to ensure that community concerns are taken into consideration and redevelopment time lines are
met, the Pilot and City should work to develop a more coordinated processes with the IEPA. The City and
IEPA could work together to help prioritize activity on sites related not only to environmental and public
health needs, but to take into consideration construction seasons and funding cycles as they are sometimes
dependent upon "No Further Remediation" letters.
How can the findings of the Chicago Pilot case study be applied beyond Brownfields
activities?
The Chicago Brownfields Pilot has shown that through dedication, long-term stakeholder involvement, and
education, it was able to overcome the initial skepticism that hinders brownfields redevelopment and
establish a solid track record of past performance for future projects. The broad-based, inclusive type of
decision-making evidenced in the Brownfields Forum is easily transferable to other types of community
decision-making processes that require multiple stakeholders, such as master planning, park and greenway
development, capital improvements, and stadium siting.
Another lesson from the Chicago Pilot is that relationship-building between the City and local communities
can help address other community issues. Alderman Chandler of the 24th Ward illustrated an example of how
the City and the local community worked together to solve a related crime and blight issue. Illegal dumping
is a large and expensive problem for the City of Chicago, with an annual average cleanup price tag of $ 11.5
million. In the summer of 1995, the Department of Environment, the 11 * Police District and local residents
began a cooperative enforcement program where residents were given brochures in English, Spanish, and
Polish that included a hotline to report illegal dumping. According to Chandler, "we swarmed the 11th Police
District for fly dumpers and caught many of them." Simultaneously, the City Council passed an ordinance
"that gave teeth to a law against illegal dumpers." Stricter punishment provisions for fly dumping now
include: fines between $1,000 and $2,000 for first-time offenders; jail time of up to six months and
community service up to 200 hours; impoundment of vehicles with up to $2,000 in fines; $100 rewards for
citizen information leading to conviction; and loss of City contracts and business licenses for those
convicted.
Relationships developed through brownfields activities have also created opportunities for the City and
DePaul University to more efficiently target their resources and improve overall effectiveness relating to
employment readiness. The University is partnering with the City to target its job training activities to match
needs with brownfields redevelopment activities. DePaul regularly consults with local community
organizations to locate residents as potential students for its programs.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Chicago, Illinois B-25
-------
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of Stakeholders was developed to identify potential
interviewees. The Brown fields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Jennifer Muss. City of Chicago
Bill Abolt. Commissioner of the Department of the Environment
Lynne Cunningham. Southeast Chicago Development Commission
Rob May. CANDO (Chicago Association of Neighborhood Development
Organizations)
Jim Capraro, Greater Southwest Development Corp.
Alderman Michael Chandler. 24th Ward
Sheila Presslev. DePaul University
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Chicago, Illinois B-26
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Detroit, Michigan
Describe the demographics that exist in
Detroit.
Detroit's population has declined during the past two
decades, from 1.5 million in 1970 to approximately 1
million in 1990. The City is focusing its brownfields
efforts on the southwest portion of the City, as well as
approximately five other "industrial corridors" scattered
throughout Detroit. The southwest portion of the City is
populated by low-income, residential neighborhoods, and
suffers from a heavy industrial legacy, mainly automotive,
that has left the area littered with abandoned and
contaminated properties. The residents of southwest
Detroit have worked in the nearby factories over several
generations, and many of them have lost jobs as the
factories have shut down. During the 1980s, for example,
plant closings resulted in the loss of about 5,000 jobs,
approximately 7% of which belonged to southwest Detroit
residents.
Demographics:
Detroit
Population:
Minority Rate:
Poverty Rate:
Unemployment Rate:
1,027,974
78.4%
32.4%,
9.1%
Educational Attainment: * 5.9%
'Percent of residents over 25 wfth a
bachelor's degree^
The City has a high unemployment rate (9.1 percent) and a high percentage of residents living below the
poverty level (32.4 percent). Detroit has one of the highest minority rates in the country (78.4 percent),
almost every area of the City is racially diverse, and residents in many areas are impoverished. According
to the 1990 Census, educational attainment is well below the national average, with 5.9 percent of residents
over 25 possessing a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to the national average of 13.1 percent.
Detroit used its EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot (hereafter referred to as the Pilot) grant
funds to create a "toolkit" for brownfields redevelopment. The toolkit includes a video and a manual for
developers and others interested in brownfields redevelopment in the City. The toolkit included who to
contact, city and state services available, and processes of brownfields redevelopment, highlighting three
redeveloped sites, one commercial, one industrial, and one residential.
-------
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at any of Detroit's Pilot-
targeted sites?
Overall, Detroit's brownfields program has had many redevelopment successes and several more are
underway. Because the City did not use any of its EPA Brownfields Pilot funding to target specific sites,
this response will focus on two redevelopment projects located in southwest Detroit that are deemed by
interviewees to be the most likely to have permitting issues.
Perstorp Xvtec
Perstorp, a Swedish company that manufactures plastic racks used to ship automobile parts, expressed
interest in two adjacent properties in southwest Detroit's Federal Empowerment Zone to expand their
operations. These sites were suspected to be contaminated due to years of dumping (including drums of
hazardous materials and hundreds of tires) and decades of manufacturing use, most recently as a porcelain
enameling plant.
The City paid for a Phase I site assessment. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
conducted further assessment and sampling of the site and removed some drums, and the City cleaned up
tires and other solid waste. Perstorp invested $9.2 million in a new plant that is providing jobs to Detroit
residents. The 55,000 square foot facility began operations in the summer of 1997 with approximately 30
employees, with plans to hire up to 100 people.
Detroit Coke
The Detroit Coke facility is located in the southwest part of the City, near the convergence of the Detroit and
Rouge rivers. The site is an abandoned RCRA permitted facility and has a notorious history of
environmental problems, including violations of air quality standards and fines relating to injection wells
containing waste water from steel-making processes. In 1991, the owners shut down their coking operations;
the site was abandoned and became State property through tax foreclosure. Since that time, several
ownership, liability, and jurisdictional issues have prevented full assessment and cleanup of the property.
The owner redeemed the property by paying the back taxes.
In the 1980s, EPA conducted site assessments and determined that no further Federal remedial action was
needed. While it was in control of the property, the State conducted extensive assessments (including the
drilling of approximately 1,000 sampling wells) that supplemented and contradicted (i.e., showed higher
contamination levels) the private owner's own assessments. Only a few more weeks of assessment work is
needed to finish the study, but lack of access has delayed completion. At one time, while the site was
considered State property, the State was prepared to conduct a site cleanup. These plans were put on hold
when the owner redeemed the property.
Owners of several cement storage silos are looking to relocate along the river in southwest Detroit because
their properties are being redeveloped into a downtown stadium and casino by the City. Two southwest
Detroit riverfront sites are being considered—Detroit Coke, and a City-owned site next to historic Fort
Wayne. The silo owners are in negotiations with the City and site owners and have had several discussions
with community representatives. According to Andy Hogarth of the MDEQ, the silo would be distribution
centers and have "fairly clean" operations.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Detroit, Michigan B-28
-------
Was there stakeholder involvement in Detroit's Pilot areas?
The City of Detroit has focused much of its stakeholder outreach activities at a specific stakeholder group:
potential developers. The Pilot-funded toolkit includes a video which focuses on three example sites—one
commercial, one industrial, and one residential—and offers information about how to get involved in
brownfields redevelopment activities in Detroit. It also explains Detroit's Redevelopment of Urban Sites
(R.E.U.S.) Action Team, a partnership of City and State agencies that have a role in environmental and
redevelopment issues, which coordinates the City's brownfields activities. Although community
representatives are not members of the R.E.U.S. team, community members were involved in the
development of the toolkit. They commented on drafts of the toolkit, and offered input to ensure that it was
written in non-technical terms and that non-profit developers' needs were addressed. Community groups also
assisted the City in distributing the toolkit.
Simultaneous with the creation of the Pilot toolkit, the City undertook a year-long community visioning
program called the Community Reinvestment Strategy (CRS), intended to raise awareness of brownfields
opportunities for community groups in Detroit. For example, the southwest neighborhood indicated that they
wanted to clean up existing sites and prevent contaminant migration, especially on sites relating to the waste
disposal industry (e.g., landfills, injection wells, incinerators, and waste water treatment plants). The
community wants to attract companies that do not pollute or adversely impact quality of life, and that create
jobs for the neighborhood residents—companies that are "clean, with intense employment opportunities."
Residents stated that "survival of the community is based on brownfields redevelopment."
In addition to the community's input on brownfields redevelopment through the toolkit and CRS processes,
one group is getting involved in assessing, cleaning up and marketing sites in their neighborhood. Southwest
Detroit Environmental Vision (SDEV) has partnered with university and non-profit groups, and uses trained
citizen volunteers to conduct Phase I assessments, environmental surveys and market research for companies
interested in relocating onto brownfields in their neighborhood. SDEV feels that their assistance "helps level
the playing field" for those who might prefer to develop greenfield sites. According to SDEV representative
Kathy Milberg, SDEV is "actively engaged in marketing clean companies so that we don't have to be victims
again."
According to Sara Lile, Brownfields Pilot Manager, the community has a long history of informal
collaboration with the City and various developers. She said that "most developers have touched base" with
the community in order to get its reaction to proposed projects and have "up front dialogues" to ensure
community acceptance before expending resources on a project. All those interviewed concurred with Ms.
Lyle's statement, "in Detroit, there's always community involvement."
The R.E.U.S. Team has yet to involve the community in the redevelopment of the Detroit Coke site "because
there's no real redevelopment plan yet," accordirig to the Pilot Manager. The silo developers, however, have
met directly with community residents to discuss operations and resident concerns. The silo developers took
the community representatives to one of their newer facilities so that they could see how the cement silos
operate. Kathy Milberg of the SDEV notes that the community is "not concerned about environmental
emissions, because [the silo developers] run a clean plant."
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Detroit, Michigan 6-29
-------
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge:
Hazardous Waste:
Air Releases:
Toxics Release
Inventory:
Biennial Reporting
System (1995):
10
2111
264
71
Are there permitting issues in Detroit's Pilot areas?
According to those interviewed, none of the brownfields sites
featured in the Pilot toolkit required permits to operate their new
end uses.
However, Pilot Manager Sara Lile noted that "southwest Detroit
and all the industrial corridors have multiple permit issues" for
past and ongoing operations. This makes the context of
redevelopment highly industrial, creating greater potential for
Title VI complaints compared to commercial, residential or open
space end uses. For example, the Detroit Coke site is a RCRA
permitted facility which is also subject to safe drinking water laws
relating to the deep injection wells on-site. The owner, Allied
Signal, attempted to renew the original EPA permit for these
wells in order to store tar waste from a nearby facility. The
SDEV protested, educated themselves on the specific
environmental issues, and went to the public hearing "armed to do
battle." As a result of this action, says Lile, the City did not "rubber stamp" the permit, but "used its power
to protect" the residents and denied the permit.
Most of the community's concerns about permitting relate to waste facilities. In part, this is connected to
historical enforcement problems in the area. The community has noted that there should be more equity in
siting waste facilities. As stated by Kathy Milberg, "we are not saying 'not in my back yard,' we are saying
'our backyard is full. Now it's our turn for clean jobs.'" The Pilot Manager echoed the communities'
desires: "they've got plenty of [permitted waste] facilities; any permitted facility would have to greatly
benefit the community for them not to have opposition. The community looks at two things: jobs and what
type of facility is proposed." With these concerns in mind, most of the recent or proposed redevelopment
projects do not raise environmental permitting issues because they are residential, commercial, or light
industrial. Usually, redevelopment leads to a net benefit for the community so there is little opposition.
For Detroit's Pilot areas in which no complaint was filed, what were the factors
present which ensured there would be no complaints?
No Title VI complaints have been filed or threatened with regard to any Detroit brownfields redevelopment
project. As indicated by the two highlighted sites, there seems to be two key factors that may bear on
whether complaints or other opposition occurs: the environmental impact of the proposed use and the overall
benefit to the community.
Community support for the Perstorp Xytec site is a good example of these factors in action. The end use is
industrial (manufacturing plastic racks), but is not considered "dirty" and the company has provided jobs to
local residents. According to Andy Hogarth from the MDEQ, the site's redevelopment is viewed as a "total
improvement."
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Detroit, Michigan
B-30
-------
Conversely, initial plans to expand the operations of the Detroit Coke injection wells to allow commercial
waste water to be injected into the wells faced enormous community opposition. The current negotiations
about siting the cement silos, on the other hand, is now supported by the community even though'opposition
to silo siting was expressed in the CRS due to environmental concerns. To allay fears, the developer initiated
contact with the community and demonstrated that the silos operate in an environmentally clean manner.
Is Detroit's environmental office working with its redevelopment office? What other
working relationships are in place in Detroit (such as with the local civil rights
office)?
The R.E.U.S. Team brings together all City departments that have a role in environmental and redevelopment
issues (i.e., department's of Environmental Affairs, Planning and Development, Law, Building Safety and
Engineering, Water and Sewage), as well as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, EPA
Region 5, and Detroit Edison. The Team was formed to serve as a resource of information, knowledge, and
expertise on resolving environmental impediments to redevelopment in Detroit. Through the Team, the direct
intervention of high-level officials at early stages in the process resulted in prioritization of projects, directing
requests for assistance to appropriate agencies, and coordinating efforts to expedite projects.
The R.E.U.S. Team has helped to overcome some historical problems in addressing environmental concerns
within the City, including claims of disparate enforcement. According to one source, part of the problem in
the City's enforcement of environmental issues was that when the enforcement codes were developed, they
did not address what is now regarded as environmental pollution, and there was no City environmental
department. The Pilot Manager noted that steps are being taken to clarify which department has
responsibility over various types of code enforcement. Others note financial and cultural constraints within
the City government as posing barriers to redevelopment. Through the R.E.U.S. Team, the City departments
have improved their ability to streamline related enforcement and redevelopment projects. As noted by Rick
Plewa of Comerica Bank, the R.E.U.S. team has helped to "break logjams by getting the attention of higher
ups" to make things happen. Still, community representatives believe "the City needs to ratchet up its
resources to enhance and protect" southwest Detroit and other City Renaissance Zones, "to provide the same
level of effort as when they are trying to build stadiums and casinos."
Are there enforcement issues at any of Detroit's Pilot areas?
According to those interviewed, there are no future enforcement actions or Title VI complaints anticipated
with regard to the two highlighted sites. There have been, however, historical enforcement issues at both
sites and throughout the southwest Detroit area. For example, the Perstorp site was subject to years of illegal
dumping and the Detroit Coke facility has been cited for numerous Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water
Act violations. Most recently, EPA Region 5 reached agreement with Detroit Coke on violations of
underground injection control regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In December 1998, the company
agreed to pay a $ 15,500 fine. As noted earlier, the community has opposed continued or expanded operations
of injection wells but fully supports end uses that are environmentally friendly.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Detroit, Michigan B-31
-------
According to community representative Kathy Milberg, there is a perception of uneven enforcement in
southwest Detroit. "Enforcement is treated differently in southwest Detroit than in the affluent suburbs—a
violation in the suburbs would get the plant shut down; in the City we are lucky to get a citation.""This view
was reinforced by other interviewees. According to Lillian Randolph from the Detroit Community Outreach
Partnership Center (DCOPC), many residents feel that the City has not used its resources and powers to
protect the residents. Because there are so many City departments, confusion and distrust on the part of
residents result. These enforcement issues cover general "nuisance" issues (e.g., traffic, building codes,
crime) as well as more traditional environmental issues (e.g., air quality, water quality, and illegal dumping).
Based on this history, the Pilot Manager indicated that southwest Detroit has the potential for Title VI
complaints, but notes that if the end use is acceptable there probably will not be any community opposition.
Representatives from the City's redevelopment organization noted that although Title VI concerns "have not
hit the fan and stopped any redevelopment plans yet," they believe it will eventually happen, because Title
VI "just adds another potential barrier" to the already difficult redevelopment process.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Detroit's Pilot areas?
The interviewees did not reference the use of alternative dispute resolution for the sites highlighted in the
Pilot toolkit, nor for any other redevelopment projects in the City.
Although alternative dispute resolution has not been used at any of the brownflelds sites to date, a program
to create Citizens Information Committees (CIC) to supplement traditional public notice, comment, and
hearing procedures that is being undertaken by the MDEQ could be useful if dispute resolution is needed in
the future. According to Andy Hogarth, several departments within the MDEQ form CICs for difficult sites
that are "likely to garner opposition" such as those with groundwater contamination issues, where the
residents feel they are exposed to contaminants, or where waste disposal facilities are involved. These CICs
are comprised of local elected officials, citizens who are willing to represent interests from the community,
State senator and representative staff members, and the local health department. They take a longer-term,
broader and more proactive approach to community involvement than the typical public hearing process.
The regular CIC meetings are supplemented by other methods including bulletins, mailings, and informal
meetings for information sharing.
How can the Detroit Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
The Pilot toolkit, which has a significant section on community involvement, will continue to provide a
reminder to developers and others involved in brownflelds redevelopment that meaningful and
comprehensive stakeholder involvement is critical to successful redevelopment. In addition, the City's
encouragement to developers to reach out to the community fosters an atmosphere where community input
is valued.
Community representatives noted that the City has been progressive in involving the community already, but
had several additional suggestions including: generating interest in a project; providing enough resources
and access to decision makers; good communication; and building up community credibility. As Kathy
Milberg notes, "a lot of this is relationship work and trying to find something that everyone can be for...but
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Detroit, Michigan B-32
-------
you have to be at the table [to make progress]." Milberg praised the involvement efforts relating to the
Anaconda Brass facility, where "all kinds of information" including flyers and a toll-free phone line were
made available up front. According to Milberg,"we didn't even have to ask for it; they just sent it to us."
Andy Hogarth of the MDEQ agreed on how effective this effort this was, and that it could serve as a model
for future efforts.
The Pilot Manager suggested that making "public participation mandatory" may help to prevent Title VI from
becoming a barrier to redevelopment by denying legal standing to anyone who chooses to "lie in the weeds"
and wait until the end of the process to voice their protest.
The representative from the lending community noted that they do not impose any community involvement
requirements on their borrowers at this time. They did note, however, that several proposals have been
circulated and they may become a reality.
How can the findings of the Detroit Pilot case study be applied beyond Brownfields
activities?
Outreach, education, communication, and access to streamlined public decision-making seems to be the key
to success for Detroit's brownfields redevelopment. Several interviewees remarked that the use of
universities and other non-profit groups to serve as neutral parties and capacity building resources has made
a significant difference in the community's ability to be an effective stakeholder. Community experts from
the universities can provide outreach and education without the distrust sometimes faced by State/City
representatives. Further, these resources help build capacity within the community, making them credible
participants in the redevelopment dialogue.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Detroit, Michigan 6-33
-------
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed to.identify potential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were ^contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Sara Lile. Detroit Department of Environmental Affairs
Rick Plewa. Comerica Bank
Lillian Randolph. Michigan State University Center for Urban Affairs
Kathv Milberg. Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision
Karen O'Donoqhue. Detroit Economic Growth Corporation
Peter Fleming. Office of the Mayor, Economic Development
Andv Hogarth. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Ross Powers. EPA Region 5, former Detroit IPA
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Detroit, Michigan B-34
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response:
Lawrence, Massachusetts
Describe the demographics that exist in
Lawrence.
70,207
45.2%
10.3%
6.4%
The City of Lawrence has a population of 70,207.
Lawrence was one of the first industrial cities of the
northeast. The 150-acre Brownfields Pilot (referring to
the EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot)
target area, known as the North Canal Mill District, is
located in the original industrial area. The North Canal
Mill District is almost entirely industrial and commercial
in nature, and is separated from residential neighborhoods
by the Merrimack and Spickett Rivers and a series of
canals or "raceways" that serviced the original textile and
paper mills. There are nearly four million square feet of
non-residential buildings in the target area, which house
281 companies that employ approximately 3,300 workers.
The area has approximately 1.8 million square feet of
vacant, out-of-date commercial and industrial space
remaining from its industrial past; this space is largely
inadequate for modern processes. Poor traffic flow and
inadequate parking provide obstacles to further
redevelopment.
As it did at the beginning of the industrial revolution, Lawrence continues to attract high levels of recent
immigrants. The predominant immigrant group in Lawrence is now Latino, which has displaced historically
high numbers of Irish and Italians. Almost half of the population of Lawrence is a member of an ethnic
minority (45.2 percent). Unemployment is the highest in the State of Massachusetts (10.3 percent) and
educational attainment is far below the national average, with only 6.4 percent of Lawrence residents over
25 possessing a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to the national average of 13.1 percent.
Demographics:
Lawrence
Population:
Minority Rate:
Poverty Rate:
UnempIoyrnentRate:
Educational Attainment:*
'Percent of residents over 25 with-a bachelor's
-------
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at any of Lawrence's Pilot-
targeted sites?
Three sites within the North Canal Industrial Corridor are being targeted by the EPA Brownfields Pilot for
redevelopment: Oxford Paper, Everett Mills, and West Island. At all three sites a component of the
redevelopment is focusing on transportation improvements to improve the business climate for the City's
industrial core. The Brownfields Pilot, the City and the Department of Transportation Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) planning process are all coordinating on these efforts.
Oxford Paper
The 6-acre Oxford Paper site had long been suspected by the City to be contaminated. A $50,000 Pilot-
funded Phase I environmental assessment confirmed that the site was contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) due to a process used to produce glossy pages for magazines such as National Geographic.
GenCorp, a neighboring corporation, and the State of Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) are
partners in this site's cleanup and redevelopment. GenCorp has contributed more than $900,000 towards
assessment and cleanup of the site and a series of mini-canals (raceways) which traverse the Oxford Paper
site, to ensure that contamination does not spread to its property. MHD plans to construct a suspension
bridge that will span the Spickett River and improve transportation access for businesses in the area.
According to Robert Devany of GenCorp, MHD will begin demolishing abandoned structures on the Oxford
Paper site in Spring 1999, under the supervision of the Brownfields Pilot. Robert Luongo, the current Pilot
Project Manager, indicated that the Pilot and City have spent $ 125,000 on an environmental engineering firm
to oversee the environmental aspects of demolition. Mr. Luongo expects that construction on this site will
begin "toward the end of 2000 or in 2001."
The remaining portions of the site will house either surface or structured parking and open space.
Redevelopment activities have not begun yet on this portion of the site and according to Bob Devany, it is
"unclear as to who will pay for these improvements."
Everett Mills
Redevelopment of the Everett Mills site (40,000 square feet) is dedicated to widening an adjacent
intersection that is too narrow for industrial machinery and tractor trailers to turn and which is creating a
safety hazard. Widening of the intersection by the MHD will proceed when questions of who will pay for
the demolition of a 30,000-square-foot warehouse is decided. Widening this intersection will improve
transportation flow in the North Canal Industrial Corridor and heighten the appeal of the gateway into the
City. Pilot-funded assessments totaling approximately $7,000 revealed no contamination in either the
warehouse or on the adjacent land.
West Island
This 7,000-square-foot property will be part of planned roadway upgrades that will improve access to
business on the island (currently, the site is accessible only by a private roadway in serious disrepair). The
Brownfields Pilot provided $10,000 for Phase I and n environmental assessments, which revealed no
contamination. The roadway improvement project will be funded with ISTEA dollars.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Lawrence, Massachusetts B-36
-------
Was there stakeholder involvement at any of Lawrence's Pilot-targeted sites?
Stakeholder involvement in the Pilot has focused primarily on private-sector partners, particularly with the
Oxford Paper site. An active Brownfields Advisory Committee comprised of local business leaders,
representatives from the Lawrence Hospital, the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, the Merrimack
Watershed Council, and the Bank of Boston made recommendations to the Mayor regarding site selection,
assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment options. However, no local residents or representatives of
community groups are members of the Advisory Committee. Pilot Manager Robert Luongo stated that this
is a project "largely developed and steered by private industry."
The Brownfields Pilot project is closely coordinated with the larger-scale redevelopment goals of the City's
Merrimack Corridor Enhancement Project (MCEP), which is funded by ISTEA grants and Groundworks
Trust, a National Park Service program dedicated to the preservation of open space and parks. The Pilot and
the MCEP held several public meetings regarding redevelopment activity in an area that includes the Pilot-
targeted sites, but there has been little community interest or participation. According to former Pilot
Manager Suzanne Lamoureux, "Meeting and planning information is always made available to the public,
but there wasn't much interest in either Brownfields activity or the work of the ISTEA grant. Perhaps two
people showed up at the public meetings offered by ISTEA."
Pilot Manager Robert Luongo feels that the lack of community interest is due to the low number of people
actually residing in the Pilot-targeted area, and a lack of understanding as to how redevelopment might
impact them. In addition, because the planned redevelopments are either transportation improvements
(including parking) that residents generally agree are much needed, and open space, Mr. Luongo feels that
the Pilot's plans are non-controversial. Language barriers could also account for lack of resident
participation, as communities surrounding the target areas are primarily Latino.
Stakeholders involved with the Advisory Committee have and continue to play a role in Pilot planning,
though only the private sector and local government are represented by the Committee. Some stakeholders
outside the Committee, while acknowledging access to public Brownfields meetings, expressed that their
voices were not as influential in the decision-making process. John Leavitt of the Lawrence Grassroots
Initiative (LGI), an active environmental justice group within the City, stated, "a certain group of people tend
to dominate [public Brownfields] meetings, and [those in positions of authority] have set ideas of what a
community group should do. Groups like LGI are rarely taken seriously."
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Lawrence, Massachusetts B-37
-------
Are there permitting issues at any of Lawrence's
Pilot-targeted sites?
The three Pilot-targeted sites will ultimately be used for
transportation improvements, new parking, and open space. No
permits will be required.
For Lawrence's Pilot-targeted sites in which no
complaint was filed, what were the factors present
which ensured there would be no complaints?
The three Pilot-targeted sites will ultimately be used for
transportation improvements, new parking, and open space. No
permits will be required.
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge: 4
Hazardous Waste: 128
Air Releases: 81
Toxics Release
Inventory: 20
Biennial Reporting
System (1995): 4
Is Lawrence's environmental office working with
its redevelopment office? What other working
relationships are in place in Lawrence (such as with the local civil rights office)?
Nearly all those interviewed described a difficult political climate in Lawrence—processes and infighting
that do not promote cooperation and coordination. As former Project Manager Suzanne Lamoureux
explained, "No one wants to grab the reigns of redevelopment planning and strategy in the City, and until
they realize how important creating a strategy is, it won't be done..." Under Ms. Lamoureux, the Pilot spent
a year putting together the Lawrence Economic Development Council (LEDC), which was supposed to
oversee redevelopment efforts in Lawrence. "Ideally, this was supposed to be an entity that would survive
[negative] politics and administration," said Ms. Lamoureux. "But the City did not continue the efforts of
the LEDC, so the group has dissolved."
Are there enforcement issues at any of Lawrence's Pilot-targeted sites?
Due to the nature of the brownfields redevelopment activities in Lawrence, enforcement issues were not
considered by any of those interviewed to have an impact on brownfields redevelopment.
This lack of knowledge about enforcement activities in Lawrence should not be misunderstood for apathy
or ignorance about en vironmental justice issues. Community groups in Lawrence have strongly opposed two
of the City's trash incinerators, including one dedicated to medical waste. The medical waste incinerator,
which is operated by BFT and is located in the poorest section of the City, is the main focus of opposition
from community and environmental justice groups. Jonathan Leavitt, with LGI, explains: "within a mile
radius [of the BFI medical waste incinerator], the community is virtually all low-income." Mr. Leavitt
indicated that a petition is now circulating to oppose the release of dioxin into the nearby lake, a phenomenon
directly attributed to the BFI incinerator. Recent tests on the lake have indicated the highest dioxin levels
in the lake's history. LGI plans to stage protests and wage letter-writing campaigns in its efforts to shut down
the BFI incinerator.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Lawrence, Massachusetts
B-38
-------
However, the community perceives Brownfields Pilot activity as beneficial, or at the least, benign. When
asked if the community perceived the Oxford Paper site redevelopment project as positive, Robert Devany
of GenCorp answered "Absolutely... the site has been a major eyesore, and I hear nothing but negatives as
to its current condition. The community knows that the site negatively affects the City." This sentiment was
carried further by Charles Tontar, with the Merrimack College Urban Resource Institute, who stated that
"The Oxford Paper site is the City's best hope for overall restoration; it is at the City's entryway, and will
serve as a test case that will show how likely the City's restoration will be."
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Lawrence's Pilot areas?
According to those interviewed, alternative dispute resolution was not used in regard to either of the
incinerator disputes. There were no disputes surrounding Brownfields activities.
How can the Lawrence Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
The Pilot managers learned that access to decision-making and public meetings is not enough to really have
meaningful public involvement. To that end, the Pilot is cooperating with the Merrimack College Urban
Resources Institute, through an EPA Environmental Justice grant, to promote community involvement in
neighborhood associations and minority areas. Ms. Niruka Aybar, with the Resources Institute, has been
conducting surveys with Latino residents to determine if they have any environmental questions, health
questions, or safety concerns. Future efforts could include distributing Spanish-language pamphlets to keep
residents informed of future Brownfields meetings, and using an interpreter at these meetings to keep Latino
neighborhood representatives involved.
It is also important to avoid technological jargon and other complicated approaches that could alienate
community members at these meetings. As explained by Leavitt, who had also expressed his frustrations
about the weak opportunities for community involvement: "I'd like to see [the Brownfields Advisory
Committee] lay down their redevelopment plans in the simplest terms possible—tell me what is expected and
when, and how community groups can be involved in real decision making, not just feedback. I'd like more
specifics [at these meetings], more chances for community groups to make a difference."
How can the findings of the Lawrence Pilot case study be applied beyond
Brownfields activities?
An innovative multi-agency task force created to address cleanup issues at the Oxford Paper site and adjacent
GenCorp property is showing promising results for speedingup environmental cleanup activities. In addition
to helping create the Brownfields Pilot proposal and sitting on the Advisory Committee, GenCorp also
invested $60,000 to create a task force that includes environmental and regulatory representatives and
decision-makers from the State of Massachusetts, EPA Region 1 and the City. According to Robert Devany,
"The first phase of environmental cleanup work [on the Oxford Paper site] took 4 years; the second phase
only took one year, and it dealt with far more environmentally complicated issues." Getting all the decision-
makers around the same table, with the same information and making decisions in concert really sped up the
process.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Lawrence, Massachusetts B-39
-------
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed to identify potential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Robert Luonao. Chief Economic Development Officer, City of Lawrence
Suzanne Lamoureux. former Pilot Manager
Robert Devanv. GenCorp
John Leavitt. the Lawrence Grassroots Initiative
Tennis Lilly, community activist
Charles Tontar. Merrimack College Urban Resource Institute
Niruka Avbar. Merrimack College Urban Resource Institute
Ralph Goodno. Merrimack River Watershed Council
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Lawrence, Massachusetts B-40
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Miami, Florida
Describe the demographics that exist in
Miami.
The City of Miami has a population of 358,548. The City
is focusing its Brownfields Pilot (referring to the EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot) efforts on
the economically distressed Wynwood neighborhood
(population 6,850), which was heavily impacted by race-
related riots in 1990. When six police officers were
acquitted of beating a Puerto Rican drug dealer to death,
almost 300 youths ran through the streets of the Wynwood
neighborhood, looting and setting stores on fire. Local
businesses were hit hard, with damage estimated at
approximately $2.5 million. According to Lorenzo
Rodriguez, Executive Director of the Edgewater Economic
Development Corporation, the area has lost more than
10,000 jobs in the past four years. Rodriguez said that
"there was a perceived feeling in the community that the
City didn't do anything to keep the manufacturing
companies in the area, like giving tax incentives and
stuff."
The Wynwood neighborhood includes the Miami-Metro
Dade Federal Enterprise Community and the State
Enterprise Zone (EZ). The area is almost entirely minority
(62 percent Hispanic and 38 percent non-Hispanic); this
minority rate is very high compared to Miami overall
(34.3 percent). The poverty rate in Wynwood (51 percent)
exceeds the rest of Miami by about 20 percent (30.6
percent). Educational attainment is considerably below
the national average, with only 7.2 percent of Miami
residents over 25 possessing a bachelor's degree or higher,
compared to the national average of 13.1 percent.
Demographics:
City
Population:
Minority Rate:
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Poverty Rate;
Unemployment Rate:
Educational Attainment
(City-wide):*
Pilot-targeted Area
Population:
Minority Rate:
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
Poverty Rate:
358,548
59%,
28%
30.6%
10.5%
7.2%
6,850
62%:
38%
51%
'Percent of residents over;25 with a bachelor's
degree.
-------
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at Miami's Pilot-targeted
site?
The Miami Brownfields Pilot is currently focusing its efforts on one site, called the Wynwood property. A
second site, the Allapattah property, is also of interest to the Pilot, but little activity has been conducted there
to date.
Bill Tocose, a developer who specializes in purchasing blighted properties, cleaning them up and reselling
them for redevelopment, stated that the Wynwood property had been inactive for more than ten years. Crime
and illegal activities, including drug dealing and prostitution, were occurring on the site, and had begun to
spread to surrounding areas, causing residents and business owners to fear for their safety. Looters and
vandals have stripped the property, taking air conditioning systems, windows, and plumbing fixtures. Tocose
paid off all back taxes on the Wynwood property, and negotiated deals with those holding liens on the
property to share future profits from redevelopment.
Tocose remarked that, "in Florida, soil contamination means water supply contamination" because the water
table is so close to the surface. An environmental assessment showed contamination at the Wynwood
property is primarily from underground storage tanks, sewer pipes, and industrial chemicals. The west parcel
was formerly a dry cleaning facility that has since been torn down, and the vacant lot is contaminated with
spent oil drums and diesel fuel. On the east parcel, the City worked with the police to remove illegal tenants
from an abandoned warehouse. The Pilot conducted a Phase I environmental assessment which revealed
slight asbestos contamination from an old boiler.
Bill Tocose has sold the west parcel to a developer who is planning to construct a ready-mix cement plant,
which will create 30 new jobs in the community. This same developer is currently discussing plans to
purchase the east parcel as well for office space and some warehousing.
Was there stakeholder involvement at Miami's Pilot-targeted site?
The City of Miami formed a Brownfields Working Group to apply for the Pilot grant. The Working Group
includes the executive director of a Community Development Center, a long-time realtor for the Wynwood
area, the Administrator for the Wynwood Neighborhood Enhancement Team, and the Pilot Manager, a
municipal employee at the time of the Pilot application. This group has since governed the activities of the
Pilot.
Since its inception, the Brownfields Working Group has made presentations at several town council and civic
organization meetings in order to provide area residents with information about the Pilot project. The
discussions have primarily focused on the Pilot's approach, what contamination has been found on the land,
and what redevelopment plans have been made. To allay fears regarding the planned cement plant,
toxicologists were brought in to explain in layman's terms the types and level of pollution that could be
expected. Meetings were attended by a dozen or so residents and two or three local activist groups.
The City Manager has appointed Louis Carrasquillo as a liaison with the community. As Neighborhood
Enhancement Team Administrator, Carrasquillo stays current concerning activities in the Wynwood
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Miami, Florida B-42
-------
neighborhood and reports to the City Manager every week regarding the developments with the Pilot. He
said that because contamination is perceived to be minimal, the community at large has not seen the
development as a threat and therefore has not attended the informational meetings.
At this time it is not predicted that any of the Pilot-targeted sites will require environmental permits.
Redevelopment activities are focusing on service and commercial ventures such as restaurants, offices, and
warehouses.
Permits and Other
Release Information
Water Discharge:
Hazardous Waste:
Air Releases:
Toxics Release
Inventory:
Biennial Reporting
System (1995):
9
2154
139;
23
Are there permitting issues at Miami's Pilot-
targeted site?
All interviewees stated that there would not likely be any
permitting issues at the site, although the cement plant will most
likely require both an air and a water permit. Larry Mizrach, a
long-time realtor for the entire Wynwood area, said that he had
never dealt with any properties where obtaining environmental
permits were an issue.
Was a complaint filed at Miami's Pilot-targeted
site? If not, what were the factors present which
ensured there would be no complaints?
Those interviewed believe there will be no complaints filed on
this property because the cement plant will be such a large
improvement compared to current blight and crime. Because the
area has been a tremendous eyesore and danger to the community, the community desperately wants a
company that will provide jobs at the site. An interesting observation was made by Tocose: "When
[community] groups don't feel like they have gotten their fair share of the benefits [e.g. contract work,
development opportunities, involvement in the process], one way to remedy that is to stir up community
activism about the environmental contamination of the site." Tocose feels that the Miami Pilot has used
community meetings to get residents and local businesses involved in the redevelopment plans and that this
approach should prevent future complaints.
Another reason that those interviewed feel that complaints are unlikely is that the developer of the cement
plant has come to the community and spoken to the residents on their own turf and in their own language.
The fact that the developer is Cuban-American and speaks Spanish helped immensely in building a positive
relationship between the community and the Pilot. He assured residents that he will work with local churches
and community groups to train them for positions at the cement plant. Initially, some residents voiced
concern about the planned cement plant both because of the noise produced by trucks driving through the
area and perceived issues relating to dust and water contamination. The developer explained that cement
plants are much cleaner and produce less dust than in the past. This seemed to have alleviated the fears of
the community, and since that meeting there has been little community concern.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Miami, Florida
B-43
-------
Is Miami's environmental office working with its redevelopment office? What other
working relationships are in place in Miami (such as with the local civil rights
office)?
Municipal departments involved in the Brownfields Working Group include the City Manager's Office, the
Mayor's Office, and Miami-Dade County Officials. The Police Department has been involved in removing
illegal tenants as needed. In addition, the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource
Management (DERM) has been in close contact with the Brownfields Working Group. The Miami Pilot has
begun to coordinate with the more recently awarded Miami-Dade County Pilot to more effectively use
participants' time and to address issues on a broader geographic level.
Are there enforcement issues at Miami's Pilot-targeted site?
None of the stakeholders interviewed felt that environmental enforcement issues were impacting brownfields
activities.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Miami's Pilot area?
Alternative dispute resolution was not needed for the Wynwood site. Open conversations between the
owner, developer and residents allayed initial fears relating to traffic and dust, negating the need for a more
formal dispute resolution process.
How can the Miami Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community involvement?
Those interviewed felt that continued open dialogue between developers and residents will ensure that
brownfields redevelopment continues to go smoothly in Miami. Tocose explained that trust-building
activities such as bringing in a toxicologist to explain potential impacts goes a long way in building
community support for a project. Furthermore, projects that meet other community goals such as job creation
and crime reduction are likely to have more community support.
All of those interviewed said that there was a language barrier between the community and the Brownfields
Working Group that was limiting meaningful dialogue. Should additional sites be targeted where the
developer is not Spanish-speaking, the Pilot will have to employ a translator or find a community
representative or staff member to communicate with interested residents.
How can the findings of the Miami Pilot case study be applied beyond Brownfields
activities?
Regardless of the positive relationship between the community, the developer and the Pilot, it is important
to realize that community revitalization activities can be blocked due to a negative relationship with State
agencies. In Miami, it was expressed that developers feel that DERM requires too much testing and data
tracking, and as a result shy away from developing those properties because this process is so costly and
time-consuming. Community groups have seen developers attempting to locate in the area, only to give up
after attempting to go through DERM's cumbersome processes. The community is desperate to have
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Miami, Florida B-44
-------
redevelopment in the area, and views DERM as the 'enemy' to this process. Based on the Miami Pilot's
experience, it seems important that Pilot efforts work at not only developing positive relationships with the
local community, but also put in place the necessary processes to ensure that community redevelopment
projects are not unnecessarily delayed by State or Federal agencies.
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed to identify potential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators and EPA Pilot leads were contacted to
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Louis Carrasquillo. Neighborhood Enhancement Team Administrator
Larry Mizrach. Realtor for Wynwood Area
Bob Schwartzreich. City of Miami (Pilot Manager)
Lorenzo Rodriguez. Executive Director of Edgewater Economic Development Corp.
BiHTocose. owner of the Wynwood site
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Miami, Florida B-45
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
TITLE VI CASE STUDIES:
Preliminary Findings
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Demographics:
Miami-Dade County
Population:
Minority Rate-
Poverty Rater
Unemployment Rate:
Educational Attainment*
2,076,175
70%
25%
12%
11.2%
Describe the demographics that exist in
Miami-Dade County.
Miami-Dade County is a large urban County (population
2,076,175) situated between two national parks (Everglade
National Park and Biscayne National Park) and above a
sole source aquifer, from which the County draws its
drinking water supply. The predominantly small, service-
oriented businesses (e.g. tourism, aviation and foreign
trade) that comprise the economic base of the County were
devastated by civil unrest in 1980 which resulted in more
than $100 million in damages to local businesses and
residences.
The minority rate for the County (70 percent) is three
times higher than the State of Florida (16.9 percent). The
poverty rate (25 percent) is double that of the State (12.4
percent), and the unemployment rate is also almost double
(12 percent versus 7.3 percent). The educational
attainment rate for individuals over 25 in Miami-Dade
County is higher than the State's rate: 11.2 percent of this group has earned a bachelor's degree in the
County as compared to 8.2 percent for the State overall (the national average is 13.1 percent).
Have cleanup and redevelopment been done/completed at any of Miami-Dade
County's Pilot-targeted sites?
The Pilot (referring to the EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot) is targeting the Poinciana
Industrial Corridor, which consists of 70 individual parcels on 30 acres of County-owned land. The Corridor
is located directly across from a large public housing project that has received U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant funding to be designated a Model
City. Pilot-funded Phase I environmental assessments have been completed on all 70 parcels. The need for
Phase n assessments has been identified on several of the more contaminated parcels. Contamination levels
range from very little to fairly significant and include underground storage tanks, solid waste, pesticides,
asbestos, and heavy metals. The Pilot hopes that cleanup of the sites will begin as early as July 1999,
"Percent of residents-over25 with a bachelor's
degree.
-------
although funds have yet to be acquired. To date, no redevelopment plans for any of the sites have been
developed. The Brownfields Working Group is considering releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) in
March 1999, either targeted at developers or to the general public, to solicit ideas on how to besfredevelop
the parcels.
Was there stakeholder involvement at any of Miami-Dade County's Pilot-targeted
sites?
The Brownfields Working Group is comprised of County environmental staff, real estate and banking
representatives, businesses, community development corporations, and local government representatives.
Two members of the Model City Advisory Board also sit on the Working Group and serve as the primary
connection between the Pilot and residents in affected communities.
Due to the sensitization of citizens and community groups to environmental justice issues because of
controversies in other parts of the State, the Pilot realized the importance of involving the community and
State and local government entities from the outset of the project. To that end, the Working Group has
attended more than 60 community meetings over the last two years to discuss not only the redevelopment
plans, but the site assessment findings and what impact the contamination has on the community. At the end
of each monthly meeting, the Working Group opens the floor to discussion about the Pilot's plans. In order
to ensure convenient access to interested residents, Working Group meetings are held in the County Chamber
building so that they can be open to the public; meetings are videotaped and made available to those not able
to attend. Additionally, four public hearings have been held to inform the community of decisions made,
such as the start of the program and when contracts were awarded. An information clearinghouse that
includes an index of all the documents generated and received regarding the Brownfields Pilot (brownfields
reports, brochures from conferences, site assessment results, contracts, etc.), as well as the minutes from each
task force meeting, is available to the public in the Department of Environmental Resource Management
Office.
There were differing opinions about how effective these stakeholder outreach efforts have been. While the
two Brownfields Working Group members seem to feel that the community is highly involved and satisfied,
Louis Sparks, Chair of the Model City Advisory Board, said that the project had not been explained very well
and for the most part thought that residents were ill-informed. In addition, Roy Hardemon, who sits on the
Model City Advisory Board as well as the Brownfields Working Group, said that originally, when the Pilot
came to talk to the residents of the Model City about its plans for redevelopment, "there were no black people
in the Working Group." A representative was added, but that was eight months into the process. Finally,
according to Louis Sparks, residents still fear that they are not being told everything and that contamination
may be worse than what has been explained to them by local health department representatives.
There is also evidence that communication between the Working Group and the Model City Advisory Board
may have some problems. Both groups want to bring needed jobs into the area; however, there is an apparent
disconnect as to what type of developer should provide those jobs. Representatives of the Brownfields
Working Group advocate bringing in a national company to promote the Pilot's visibility, but have varying
impressions of what the Advisory Board desires. Some say expansion of local businesses and others, such
as Louis Sparks, say it does not matter, "as long as we bring in developers that have a history of staying
power and providing not only a lot of jobs, but jobs that can be filled by the residents in the community."
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings • Miami-Dade County, Florida 5-48
-------
Permits and Other
Release Information:
Water Discharge;
Hazardous Waste:
Air Releases:
Toxics Release
Inventory: .
Biennial Reporting
System (1995):
13
3139
205
98
29
Are there permitting issues at any of Miami-Dade
County's Pilot-targeted sites?
Since reuse options have not yet been identified for the Poinciana
Industrial Corridor, permitting issues have not come to the
forefront at this Pilot to date.
It is important to note that environmental permitting issues are
currently receiving much attention in Miami-Dade County due to
community protests at incinerator sites in Broward County,
Florida. Issues at these sites have caused residents in those areas
to question whether complete environmental information is being
disclosed to them. According to Pilot Manager Doug Yoder, a
Title VI complaint has been filed in Broward County regarding an
incinerator site that has reportedly increased the level of cancer
in the surrounding community. Both Ron Frasier of the Black
Business Association and Michael Goldstein, the Chair of the
Working Group, related that activists who are concerned about
these other sites are holding meetings in the area and raising issues of mistrust with residents and community
groups. Frasier and Goldstein both thought that these activities could cause some potential problems for the
Pilot in the future.
For Miami-Dade County's Pilot-targeted sites in which no complaint was filed, what
were the factors present which ensured there would be no complaints?
No complaints have been filed to date; however, redevelopment plans have not been finalized.
In addition to maintaining an open dialogue with community groups, those interviewed believe that the Pilot
is taking several proactive steps to avoid potential environmental justice issues or Title VI complaints. For
example, Julian Perez, the Vice Chair of the Brownfields Working Group, sat on the Governor's
Environmental Equity and Justice Commission. He is well educated on the issues and adds credibility to the
Pilot, showing that the Pilot is serious about community concerns.
The Pilot has also been trying to quickly dispel any negative rumors. For example, the Brownfields Working
Group knew that concern stemming from the Broward County incinerator sites and contamination issues in
Tallahassee could impact redevelopment in Miami-Dade County, if issues of contamination were left
unexplained to local communities. To address this, local and State health officials were brought into the
Model City Advisory Board meeting to explain the implications of the contaminants in the Poinciana
Industrial Corridor, and to dispel some of the fears residents initially showed. Perez stated that he "hopes
that openness regarding types and levels of contamination from the beginning will prevent future
complaints."
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Miami-Dade County, Florida
B-49
-------
Is Miami-Dade County's environmental office working with its redevelopment office?
What other working relationships are in place in Miami-Dade County (such as with
the local civil rights office)?
Miami-Dade County will prepare an "interdepartmental agreement" that will involve all the local permitting
agencies and departments participating in the County's brownfields redevelopment efforts. Mr. Perez says
that this agreement will provide clear directives to the agencies signing the agreement that rarely work in
accordance with one another. By clearly defining the role of each department in the brownfields process,
the County hopes to minimize the possibilities of having one department assigned multiple responsibilities
under the program. Mr. Perez believes that the community needs to further its relationship with the Office
of Community and Economic Development. He believes those issues pertaining to job creation and
economic redevelopment would be addressed more effectively if concerned residents had a proactive
relationship with the Office of Community and Economic Development.
Are there enforcement issues at any of Miami-Dade County's Pilot-targeted sites?
According to those interviewed, enforcement issues are not expected to be a problem in the Miami-Dade
Pilot area.
Was alternative dispute resolution used or considered in Miami-Dade County's Pilot
areas?
To date there have been no disputes that have required a formal alternative dispute resolution process.
How can the Miami-Dade County Pilot ensure sustained, meaningful community
involvement?
In general, Working Group members feel they have made good progress in involving the community in their
efforts. Many agree, however, that there is a breakdown in communication between the Model City and the
Working Group. Currently, the Working Group needs to find a way to reach residents in the Model City
area, and not just the few people that sit on the Advisory Board. To this end, the Pilot could encourage the
Model City Advisory Board and residents to present a united front when presenting their needs and desires
to the Brownfields Working Group. At the time of the interview, Mr. Perez had just returned from a meeting
with the residents, the Pilot Manager and the contractor responsible for the cleanup of the Pilot site,
regarding a dispute over the use of local residents in the cleanup process. A group of residents wanted the
contract for the cleanup work and the Pilot Manager told them that the contract for that work had already
been awarded. During the meeting, Mr. Perez worked with all the stakeholders to address the residents'
concerns so that the dispute could be resolved. Adequate communication between the Advisory Board and
the Working Group in the future could ensure that residents of the area understand the redevelopment process
and how to get involved.
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings » Miami-Dade County, Florida 5-50
-------
How can the findings of the Miami-Dade County case study be applied beyond
Brownfields activities?
A lesson learned from this case study that can be applied to almost any public program is that citizens'
perceptions of past acti vities dramatically impact chances for success on new initiatives. For example, Frasier
believes that most residents will be reluctant to get involved until they see development happening because
with all the promises that have been made in the past, they are wary of getting their hopes up. Julian Perez
added that "programs create expectations," and that public servants need to be aware of that going in and
tailor their messages and activities accordingly.
Interviews Conducted:
Based on Pilot reporting information, a list of stakeholders was developed to-idenWy potential
interviewees. The Brownfields Regional Coordinators andEPA Pilotleads were contactedto
confirm the appropriate interviewees for this case study.
Doug Yoder and Margaret Meyer. Pilot Managers, Department of Environmental Resource
Management
Michael Goldstein. Chair, Brownfields Working Group (environmental attorney)
Rov Hardemon and Lottie Mines. Model City Advisory Board/Brownfields Working Group
Members
Louis Sparks. Chair of the Model City Advisory Board
Julian Perez. Vice Chair of the Brownfields Working Group
Ron Frasier. Black Business Association representative
Title VI Case Studies: Preliminary Findings 0 Miami-Dade County, Florida 8-57
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
------- |