In a recent article titled “New York State’s Controversial Brownfield Cleanup,” the writers illustrate the debate about whether these areas should be cleaned with taxpayer’s money. The article goes on to state,“New York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program is a broken system that has cost taxpayers $1.4 billion to clean up just 170 sites, this is an average payout of $8.2 million per site. Structural deficiencies within state law has left thousands of toxic brownfield off tax rolls, while taxpayers are instead footing a huge bill for projects that would have occurred regardless of the program’s existence.” This is a serious issue, but I believe that the government should go another route rather than charging taxpayers for issues that these companies caused.
Others debate if we should be worried about brownfield in general. “While most known or suspected brownfield are in central cities, the problem is also evident in older inner-ring suburbs, some rural areas and military base communities.” Brown fields, in short, play an important role in shaping regional development patterns by influencing the location of residential and business activities. According to New York State’s Controversial Brownfield Cleanup, “central cities must tackle the brownfield problem to provide new land for development and reverse their declining economic competitiveness.”
Others debate if we should be worried about brownfield in general. “While most known or suspected brownfield are in central cities, the problem is also evident in older inner-ring suburbs, some rural areas and military base communities.” Brown fields, in short, play an important role in shaping regional development patterns by influencing the location of residential and business activities. According to New York State’s Controversial Brownfield Cleanup, “central cities must tackle the brownfield problem to provide new land for development and reverse their declining economic competitiveness.”