Land Use Lesson 8 Extension : Brownfields and Greenfields

Among the issues that state agencies and local communities face is that of brownfields. Brownfields are sites of prior industrial or commercial activity that have been either abandoned or are on the local real estate market to be redeveloped. A site does not have to be contaminated to be a brownfield, but contaminated sites are always classified as brownfields. A brownfield may be contaminated with pollutants that are dangerous to the public or to new activities to be located at the site. One of the most famous examples of a brownfield being developed into a new land use without knowledge of the dangers presented by pollution was Love Canal in New York State. Residential neighborhoods were developed on land that contained toxic chemicals, and health problems resulted among the people who lived there. A residential area and lake near Muskegon, Michigan, is a similar contaminated brownfield site affected by toxic waste; it has also been the object of both legal and legislative action.

Sometimes the prior owner has abandoned the brownfield land. Sometimes the prior owners are not available to clean up their abandoned properties. In some cases they have gone bankrupt; in other cases many of the previous owners could be responsible for the pollution, and it is impossible or very difficult for a court or the state to determine which owners are responsible for all or part of the clean up costs. If that is the case, then the local, state, or federal government becomes responsible for cleaning the site to prevent it from being a risk to the public. In other cases, the brownfield may be evaluated for its contaminants and the clean-up requirements specified; the new owner must complete the work prior to developing the land. Regardless of whether the government or a private company cleans the brownfield site, it is an expensive, technical, and complex process necessary to gain certification that the land is safe for the newly planned uses.

Brownfields generally have roadways and public services such as water, electricity, sewer, and storm runoff systems already installed as a result of their prior use. Those may have to be upgraded depending on the new land use plans.

Greenfields present a different, but perplexing issue for policy makers. Greenfields are open lands, usually on the edges of the built-up community. They generally have not been used for activities other than agriculture, golf courses, parks, and forests. Industrial, commercial, and residential developments are attracted to greenfields because there are usually few problems in developing the sites. However, new municipal services are often needed, including improved roadways, sewers, electrical lines, domestic water, and storm water runoff controls. Those services are expensive to install. Some of the services are called “public services” or “public goods”; they are often either paid for or supported by taxes paid throughout the community. A new facility on a greenfield site usually contributes by direct payments for the installation of services, through the taxes they are obligated to pay local authorities, or through use fees for water, sewer, etc. The use of greenfields contributes to urban sprawl or land consumption. In Michigan there are numerous proposals to reduce sprawl, such as the Governor’s Land Use Leadership Council proposal.

The tension between the redevelopment of brownfields and the development of greenfields for different land uses in a community is well established in Michigan. The tension is often viewed as the support of the core community (the central city) versus support for the suburbs allowing them to grow and abandon the core community. In 2003, the Governor of Michigan released an “action plan for land use.” Some believe that too much of Michigan’s greenfield space is being lost to other land uses. This extension lesson examines several of the issues underlying the Governor’s land use initiatives.