The master developer of Steelpointe Harbor says it is in negotiations with an anchor tenant for the long stalled waterfront project in Bridgeport ”“ but warns that the state”™s rules regarding mildly contaminated brownfields could kill a deal.
As Earth Day arrived April 22, Connecticut was finalizing yet another tweak to its longstanding brownfields remediation programs, in hopes of providing the silver bullet needed to spur redevelopment of trouble spots like Steel Point Peninsula, which was cleared years ago for a proposed 1.3 million square-foot mixed use neighborhood that has yet to build on land cleared for the purpose.
Bridgeport Landing Development L.L.C. has been in “final negotiations” with an anchor tenant, according to project coordinator Mark Summers, who testified in support of the state improving its brownfields mechanisms last month in Hartford.
“One of the difficult issues in getting this project started has been getting major tenants and co-developers comfortable with the remediation plan and particularly the liability that they might incur for someone else”™s past practices under Connecticut law,” Summers said. “These concerns have been raised in preliminary negotiations with interested tenants and retailers and will continue to affect our ability to scare up partners in this project.
“The latest hurdle that we”™ve been trying to address is ”˜chasing”™ the contamination ”¦ from Steel Point (that) has spread offsite,” Summers added. “This is a concern because if we are forced to ”˜chase”™ contamination across the entire Bridgeport Harbor, it could potentially stop this project dead in the water.”
”˜We want broad-gauge incentives”™
As legislators attempted to correct flaws in Connecticut”™s brownfields laws ”“ particularly in the arena of liability exposure for developers acquiring such properties ”“ among the few points of disagreement remaining among varying sides were whether the bill should focus on the 20 sites in Connecticut most in need, or whether any one of the hundreds of brownfields statewide could qualify for funding.
Connecticut”™s new head of environmental protection leaned toward focusing state resources on a limited number of projects while acknowledging the merits of a broad program.
“I do believe that the bulk of the work is going to have to be done by private developers,” said Daniel Esty, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. “What we need to do is find ways to get more of them here doing more projects and leverage those limited state funds.
“It makes sense ”¦ to get away from earmarking and trying to pick specific projects,” Esty added. “We want broad-gauge incentives ”“ draw as many people into the work that needs to be done as possible. But the state does have a responsibility to help figure out where the opportunities are, where the economic payback will be great, and, frankly, where the risks are most serious that we need to go after.”
No takers for the program
The current bill stemmed from the work of a legislative brownfields task force that completed its report in December. Co-chairman Gary O”™Connor, an attorney in the Waterbury office of Pepe & Hazard L.L.P., said a state Brownfields Remediation and Development office created in 2006 never received adequate funding to fulfill its original purpose as a one-stop shop for developers.
And the state”™s Abandoned Brownfield Cleanup program has not drawn any takers, he said, despite ABC”™s carrot of removing liability for any pollution that leaks from a property that was created prior to a developer taking control of the property. Officials offered no theories on why that is the case ”“ including in the case of Steelpointe.
“There is a certain irony that there is really no ready, developable space but yet we have these hundreds and hundreds of brownfields,” O”™Connor said. “We believe that this was an enormous incentive to potential developers ”“ unfortunately, today no one has enrolled in this program. It”™s not clear whether it”™s because of the dismal economy or due to certain limitations in the program.”
In all likelihood, it is a mix of issues that a brownfields program alone will not readily erase, including the high costs of construction and doing business in Fairfield County, pockets of blight that beg a Marshall Plan approach and relative differences in the severity of contamination.
EPA solicits applications
In early April, the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a national brownfields conference in Philadelphia to highlight noteworthy programs and projects; speakers included Gov. Dannel P. Malloy addressing how Stamford approached the issue during his 14-year tenure as mayor that saw the city move further along in its transformation from a manufacturing base to an economy based on professional services.
For its part, EPA is now soliciting applications to convert mildly contaminated brownfield properties into energy-generating facilities that use renewable resources such as sun, wind and geothermal. For the 20 communities selected, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory will conduct a feasibility study of potential technologies for such sites. The goals included reusing sites, improving communities, creating jobs, decreasing the use of “green space” for siting renewable energy and increasing the amount of renewable energy generated.
Between Superfund sites, brownfields, landfills and other properties, the EPA says some 11,000 properties nationally totaling 15 million acres could qualify for reuse as renewable energy plants. Among myriad requirements, the EPA says applicants must produce a letter of support from a local utility committing to buy energy from any facility.
”˜We lag far behind”™
If a small sliver of that national real estate, Fairfield County and Connecticut have long had a proportionally high number of brownfields that have resisted development, with notable Fairfield County examples including the former Gilbert & Bennett wire mill in Redding and the former U.S. Army engine plant in Stratford. In the past few years, investment groups have pulled out of both projects, with the mill envisioned as a wooded village in the heart of Fairfield County, and the engine plant as a movie lot.
“The private sector is willing and able to come into these neighborhoods, clean them up,” said Barry Trilling, an environmental attorney in the Stamford office of Wiggin & Dana. “We don”™t want state or federal money. We just want a basic real estate deal, and in order to (do) that there should be liability release ”¦ They exist in New York, they exist in ”¦ several other states which have passed us by. Those states which have adopted regulatory systems similar to those that are in (the bill) are moving forward on their brownfields development while we lag far behind.”
