CREATING PUBLIC ASSETS FROM BROWNFIELDS: A COM PARISON OF PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY By Cassi Marie Meitl A T HESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Urban and R egional Planning - Master of Urban and Regional Planning 2015 ABSTRACT CREATING PUBLIC ASSETS FROM BROWNFIELDS: A COM PARISON OF PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY By Cassi Marie Meitl Contaminated, vacant, or derelict land s , commonly known as b rownfields, offer of life. Due to numerous social, economic, and political forces, brownfields are becoming increasingly concentrated in previously industrial ci ties and urban areas in the Unit ed States and Europe. L iterature is readily avai lable on brownfield definitions, policies that guide brownfield management , barriers and challenges to remediati on, and economic and environm ental benefits of red evelopment. R e search is limited on public sector brownfield redevelopment strategies. Many of the previous planning efforts and much of the existing literature is centered on private investment in brownfield sites and va cant land where the site remains commercial or ind ustrial and the process excludes community involvement. This study focuses on public investment in the adaptive reuse o f brownfields by assessing applicable policies and programs, exploring funding practices, and addressing misconceptions about public inv e stment in brownfield redevelopment in the US and Germany. General and location specific information is gathered from scholarly journals and articles, and existing public documents and records , and details on current processes and experiences are revealed t hrough case studies of redevelopment projects in Michigan and the Ruhr region. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Zenia Kotval for her continuous support of my Masters study and research. This thesis would not have been po ssible without her guidance, patience, and encouragement. I would also like to thank the interviewees who participated in this research for their time and valuable contributions . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... vi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... vii CHAPTER 1: Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 1.1 The Importance of Studying Brownfield Strategies ................................ ......................... 1 1.2 Where Brownfields are Concentrated ................................ ................................ .............. 2 1.3 Problem Statement and Research Questions ................................ ................................ .... 3 1.4 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4 1.5 Michi gan and the Ruhr Region (Ruhrgebiet) ................................ ................................ ... 5 1.6 Case Study Projects ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 1.7 Utica Community Complex: Utica, Michigan ................................ ................................ . 9 1.8 Phoenix - See: Dortmund, Germany ................................ ................................ ................ 12 1.9 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 CHAPTER 2: Policies and Progra ms ................................ ................................ ........................... 15 2.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 15 2.1 Brownfield Definition ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 2.2 United S tates ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 17 2.3 Michigan ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 21 2.4 Local ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 24 2.5 European Union ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 26 2.6 Germany ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 28 2.7 Ruhr Region and Local ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 31 2.8 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 33 2.9 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 39 CHAPTER 3: Public Sector Funding ................................ ................................ ........................... 42 3.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 42 3.1 Historical Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 3.2 Differences between Traditional Development and Brownfield Funding ..................... 44 3.3 United States ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 45 3.4 Michigan and Local ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47 3.5 European Union ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53 3.6 Germany ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 55 3.7 Ruhr Region and Local ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 56 3.8 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 58 3.9 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 66 v CHAPTER 4: Misconceptions About Brownfield Redevelopment ................................ .............. 68 4.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 68 4.1 Myth: The costs of brownfield redevelopment outweigh the benefits. .......................... 68 4.2 Myth: Greenfield development is more economical than bro wnfield redevelopment. .. 72 4.3 Myth: Brownfield redevelopment is not an effective use of public funds. .................... 75 4.4 Myth: Public projects do not generate tax revenue. ................................ ....................... 79 4.5 Myth: The challenges and barriers to brownfield redevelopment are too complicated to be handled by public agencies. ................................ ................................ ....................... 83 4.6 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8 6 CHAPTER 5: Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 91 5.0 Limitations of this Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 91 5.1 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91 5.2 Implications for Planning in the United States ................................ ............................... 94 5.3 Implications for Planning in Germany ................................ ................................ ........... 97 5.4 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 98 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 99 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Utica Co mmunity Complex Aerial View ................................ ................................ ...... 10 Figure 2. Future Utica Ballpark and Community Complex ................................ .......................... 11 Figure 3. Phoenix - See Aerial View ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Figure 4. Lake and Public Space at Phoenix - See ................................ ................................ ......... 57 Figure 5. West Parcel of Utica Community Complex Site ................................ ........................... 61 Figure 6. Pathway Along Clinton River in Utica, MI ................................ ................................ ... 71 Figure 7. Western View of Phoenix - See ................................ ................................ ....................... 79 Figure 8. Phoenix - See: New Commercial and Residential S pace, and a Remin der of the Old Land Use ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 vii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS APA American Plan ning Association BEA Baseline Environmental Assessments BEDI Brownfields Economic Development Initiative BMBF German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMU Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety BMVBS Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs BRA Brownfield Redevelopment Authority CABERNET Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network CBO Community Benefit Organization CDBG Community Development Block Grant CDC Community Development Corporation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CNTS Covenant not to sue CRP Cleanup and Redevelopment Program DNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources EDA Economic Development Ad ministration EEA European Environment Agency EFRD European Fund for Regional Development EPA Environmental Protection Agency, Unites States ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union viii FONA Research for Sustainability GCBRA Genesee County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development INTERREG III Joint Initiative for Trans European Cooperation LEDC Lansing Economic Development Corporation LVF Land Value Finance MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MEDC Michigan Economic Development Corporation MSHDA Michigan State Housing Development Authority NABU Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union NPL National Priorities List NREPA Natural Resources an d Environme ntal Protection Act OPRA Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REFINA Research for the Reduction of Land Consumption and Sustainable Land Management RESCUE Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environments RRC Community Assistance Team SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act TED Department of Talent and Economic Development TIA Talent Investment Agency TIF Tax Increment Financing TIMBRE Tailored Improvement of Brownfield Reg eneration URBAN II Joint Initiative for Urban Sites ix US United States VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program 1 CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.0 Introduction Contaminated, vacant, or derelict land s offer opportunities for economic growth, community revitalization or real property is generally considered a brownfield, or site that was previously used for in dustrial or commercial purposes , is usually located in an urban area, and may or may not b e 006 ; Levy, 2013 ). Coined in the U nited States , the common term brownfield is globally used today in public policy and the development industry (Vanhuesden, 2009). Due to the challenges t hat accompany the redevelopment of brownfields, the term can have a negative connotation. Recent studies , on the other hand, encourage an optimistic view of brownfields with potential to become community assets through public investment. This study assesse s applicable policies and programs, explores funding practices, and addresses misconceptions about public inv estment in brownfield redevelopment in the United States (US) and Germany. 1.1 The Importance of Studying Brownfield Strategies The sheer number of brownfields that exist in the US and Europe alone highlight s their significance. There are about 42 5,000 brownfield sites in the US that cover five million acres of vacant land, and account for $2 trillion of undervalued real estate according to an estima te by the Government Accountability Office (National Brownfield Association, 2014). In the 33 European Environment Agency (EAA) member countries per a 2011 estimate there are 2.5 million potentially contaminated sites, 45% of which have been identified (EA A, n.d.). T he stock of brownfields will never disappear since they are part of a constant and complex land use process that affects all cities. As uses of land become redundant, new sites are 2 made available while others are redeveloped in a land use cycle (Adams, De Sousa, Tiesdell, 2009). Today, brownfields are not equally dispersed, but rather increasingly concentrated in post - industrial cities. Studying the redevelopment of brownfields is necessary to identify solutions, strategies, policies and incenti ves for the adaptive reuse of the large amount of idle land in urban areas. 1.2 Where Brownfields are Concentrated Commonly referred to as legacy cities, post - industrial cities, or cities in transition, during the 19 th and early 20 th centuries these place s were booming industrial metropolises of that followed, the success of these cities became history. City factories and mills closed, businesses and residents relocated, and services dwindled as a result of social, economic, and political forces. The shift in economy affected urban form and many industrialized countries and regions are now challenged with the remains of cities with manufacturing - based economic r oots. Post - industrial cities and regions face numerous challenges. Odd - shaped or small plots of land resulting from irrational plot lines, aging infrastructure, and a mixture of incompatible land uses plague the aging cities (Lyons & Hamlin, 2001). The ar eas struggle with supporting growth and establishing a new economy that will provide opportunities for the existing population that may be poorly educated and untrained. The ability to balance the socioeconomic characteristics of the existing population an d encourage social organization challenge leaders with limited capacities to bring about change in local governments (Mallach & Brachman, 2013). With weak increasingl y vacant, abandoned, or demolished and the revenue base declines as businesses and residents vacate the city. The result of these forces is a concentration of brownfields. 3 1.3 Problem Statement and Research Questions The r edevelopment of vacant and contami nated land has been the focus of planning agencies and professionals worldwide. S cientific literature on the redevelopment of b rownfields in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) has increased in the last two decades. In most recent years, res earch has expanded the literature from national policy strategies and the identification of redevelopment barriers to wards evaluating program outcomes and assessing the effectiveness of initiatives (Hula & Bromley - Trujillo, 20 10; Ploegmakers & Beckers, 201 4; De Sousa, Wu, & Westphal, 2009 ) . Literature is readily avai lable on brownfield definitions, policies that guide brownfield management, barrier s and challenges to remediation, and economic and environmental benefits of redevelopment. Research that explor es a daptive reuse strategies and public funding mechanisms for redevelopment projects is lacking in the US . Many of the previous planning efforts and much of the existing literature is centered on private investment in b rownfield sites and vacant land wher e the site remains commercial or industrial and the process excludes community involvement. Research has not fully explored the broader benefit s to the public of brownfield redevelopment for uses other than industrial or commercial. Other potential use s fo r vacant land include : recreation , residential, education , temporary, agriculture , and entertainment . Numerous states in the US have incentive programs and options to encourage the adaptive reuse of brownfields to transform them from liabilities to communi ty assets, but research is lacking on the process to do so ( Adelaja, Shaw, Beyea, &McKeown, 2010 ). In Germany brownfield redevelopment is advanced, the public sector is increasingly involved in the process, and innovation in adaptive reuse strategies is a priority. T his research will provide a comparison of redevelopment practices to convert brownfields to public assets in the United States and Germany. 4 Research was guided by the following research questions: 1. How do policies and programs address brownfields ? 2. 3. Which misconceptions potentially limit public investment in brownfield redevelopment? 1.4 Methods For this thesis research, general and location specific information is gathered from scholarly journals and articles, and existing public documents and records. Details on current processes and experiences are revealed through case studies of redevelopment projects in Michigan an d the Ruhr region. The analysis of one redevel opment project in each location includes a qualitative interview to provide a practical application of current strategies. Attention is paid to applicable policies and programs, public funding mechanisms, and barriers and opportunities. A case study is an appropriate form of research because the research questions are explanatory in nature, contemporary events are the focus of examination, and the researcher does not intend to manipulate relevant behavior (Yin, 2009). It is expected that a n analytic genera lization of the case study results combined with information from existing public documents and records will lead to the development of theoretical strategies with application to brownfield redevelopment (Yin, 2009). Furthermore , t he international comparis on of current practices will reveal opportunities to promote public sector investment in the ada ptive reuse of brownfield sites in the US. 5 1.5 Michigan and the Ruhr Region (Ruhrgebiet) This research focuses on two specific locations: Mic higan, Unites State s and the Ruhr region in North Rhine - Westphalia, Germany to provide an international perspective. Numerous similarities allow for a comparison between the two places. B oth regions had previously concentrated industrial activity and have experienced signifi cant population and economic decline. Michigan is located in the northeast part of the Midwestern US . The state is surrounded by the Great Lakes and includes two land masses: an upper and lower peninsula. There are more than 1,500 cities, villages, towns akes to transport goods were booming. Urbanization of the state and its cities then followed the general trend of urbanization in the United States. Cities grew in geographic and population size with industrialization during the late 19 th century partially because they were easily accessible by water and by land, near production centers and close to sources of coal, iron, and copper (Sugrue, 2007). Detroit, the largest city in Michigan was originally a leading center for the manufacturing of cigars and kitc hen ranges and the production of shoes, bicycles, paint, beer, and pharmaceutical products (Craig, 2006). By the early 20 th century, the city became the center of the automobile industry. As the auto capital, economic growth in Michigan was dramatically im pacted by the success of the industry (Michigan Legislature, 2001). Michigan experienced significant economic grow th and prosperity during the 194 this time, Detroit was home to nearly two million people and was the fifth largest city in the Unite d States (Levy, 2013). During the following decade, the city began experiencing 6 decentralization as a result of numerous forces, including: the automobile, the growth and prosperity of the middle class, federal funding for highway system improvements, new technology that removed the need for face - to - face business contact, affordable housing options in the suburbs, a lack of appropriate economic development tools, and racial tension (Levy, 2013; Thomas 1990). The deterioration of Detroit is reflective of the and economic decline (Michigan Legislature, 2001). , the Ruhr region as it is known today is about the s ame age as Detroit; considering substantial growth and urbanization occurred around the same time. The Ruhrgebiet includes 53 cities and villages located in North Rhine - Westphalia in western thern end of the Dortmund - Ems Canal stimulated rapid growth since it offered opportunities for transportation through the center for coal, steel, iron, and beer Dortmund, Duisburg, and Essen were leading Germany in the mining of coal, iron and steel production, the brewing of beer, and machinery and motor vehicle production (Stadt Dortmund, 2015). Betwee n 1850 and 1925, the population in the region grew from about 400,000 to 3.8 million, as people came from all over Germany and neighboring countries (Hospers, 2004). The major industrial region became the center for military weapons and machinery during th e World Wars; resulting in the destruction of 75% of the area during World War II (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). After reaching its peak in 1956, the mining industry crumbled as a result of the mining and steel crisis, industrial dismantling, modernizati on, and controlled rebuilding (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014; Hospers, 2004). The collapse of industry contributed to 7 population and economic decline beginning in the 1970s as the region lost tens of thousands of jobs (Grieshaber, 2014). T he influential fo rces on economic decline and the cultural context differ between the two locations, yet the extent of job loss relative to the previous population and significant land vacancy makes their present situations similar. Michigan is currently home to 9.8 millio n people, only 7% of which live in the largest city, Detroit. The city filed for bankruptcy in 2013 to address its estimated long term $19 billion of debt. It has 78,000 abandoned structures, a weak market for downtown office space and retail shopping, an unemployment rate that is more than double the national average, and is plagued by crime and violence (Reeves, 2013; Eisinger, 2003). Detroit is not al one in its struggles . Since 2012, a total of thirteen units of governmen t , including a county , in Michiga n have been appointed an emergency manager to assist with financial in stability. In the Ruhr metropolitan region, where there are 5.3 million residents and an unappealing urban fabric , the unemployment rate is near ly double the national average, and the re gional cities face budget shortfalls and have significant debts (Greishaber, 2014; Thimm, 2010). The air, water, and soil are polluted and the landscape is littered with deteriorating roads, waterways, railways, and gas or sewage pipes (Kunzmann, 2004). T oday both places are encouraging the development of arts, entertainment, sports, culture, and services to support the tourism industry. Michigan advertises its western Lake Michigan beaches and northern forests and campgrounds to every outdoor recreation e nthusiast and family across the state and Midwest region. The development of attractions is encouraged in all cities and townships to entertain, feed, and house the yearly influx of visitors. In regards to entertainment, Detroit for instance has three casi no complexes, three major sports arenas, one of the largest theater districts in the country, a university, numerous museums, an art institute, and 8 hosts a large jazz festival and the auto show each year (Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau, 2015). The Ruhr region is home to numerous monuments, museums, galleries, theaters, and shopping districts, an annual music and arts festival, universities and research institutes (Thimm, 2010). Sports venues and green space are also attracting visitors (Dortmund Tourismus, 2014). The region was named the European Capital of Culture in 2010 by the European Union; the first entire German region to receive this honor (Internet Commercial Informations Services, 2015). Once thriving industria l areas, Michigan and the Ruhr r egion have since suffered from economic depression. The regions are deep in debt, have unemployment rates that are considerably higher than their respective national average, and struggle with an increased prevalence of drugs, crime, and violence . The former manufacturing state in the Midwest and previous industrial heart of Germany are trying to reinvent themselves with a new economy, but the have not yet been replaced (Grieshaber, 2014). Both places ar e currently in the process of planning and making efforts for redevelopment. Furthermore, both have an abundance of brownfields and are challenged with the problems that accompany them . 1.6 Case Study Projects As identified in the methodology, this resear ch includes a case study on one brownfield redevelopment project in both Michigan and the Ruhr region. Information on each project is gathered from existing documents a nd records, and through a qualitative interview with a local and knowledgeable professio nal . Q uestions about the contamination and environmental remediation, funding mechanism, redevelopment plans, and economic impact are used to guide the interviews . 9 Both brownfield redevelopment projects identified below were financed with public funds; in corporated communi ty input in the planning stages; are located in economically depressed areas , but where there is a demand for housing and entertainment; and exemplify the conversion of contaminated, vacant, or derelict land to a new use that is not indus trial in nature . The publicly funded projects promote environmen t al, social, and economic goals and t he new recreational, residential, and public space uses offer improvements to local residents life . T he Utica Community Complex is located in s outheast Michigan. Although it is outside the boundaries of the City of Detroit, like many places in Michigan , Utica was affected by similar social, economic, and political forces that contributed to d eindustrialization . It is worth noting that the project is located on the fringe of an outer suburb rather than in an urban area and is currently under constr uction, to be finished in 2016. The Phoenix - See project is located in Dort mund, one of the four largest cities in the Ruhr region . The social, economic, and political situation s in the city are reflective of th ose in the Ruhr region. 1.7 Utica Community Complex: Utica, Michigan Details on the Utica Community Complex are revealed in an interview with Michel l e Bakun, Brownfield Redevelopment Coordinator w ith Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Remedia tion and Redevelopment Division and in Brownfield Redevelopment Grant and Loan Application ( personal communication, October 21, 2015; 2015) . The Utica Community Complex is a red evelopment project in Utica, Michigan on a brownfield site. The City of Utica is located in western central Macomb County, 12 miles north 10 miles with under 5,000 residents (Macomb C ounty, 2015, p. 7). As shown in Figure 1, i t is located on the Clinton River and off a major Michigan highway. Figure 1 . Utica Community Complex Aerial View Source: Macomb County, Brownfield Redevelopment Gran t and Loan Application The property for the Utica Community Complex was originally a sand mine which was then used an unlicensed dump and then it remained vacant . The 15 acres of property located near the main downtown commerc ial area of Utica are divided into east and west parcel s by the Clinton River. The city acquired the west parcel in 2009 as a result of tax reversion and used the land periodically for community events. A residential building was constructed on the east pa was never finished or occupied. The Downtown Development Authority and the city acquired this parcel in 2009 by voluntary acquisition and dem olished the building remnants. Both parcels are contaminated by waste 11 material with volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, and m ethane gas . The $12 million community activity complex currently under construction will include a 2,000 seat ballpark and entertainment venue, picnic areas, and parking. The sta dium , pictured in Figure 2 below, will house a three team minor baseball league, be used by school and college level softball and baseball teams, and is designed to accommodate community uses including but not limited to: a walking program for seniors, con certs, an outdoor ice rink, graduation ceremonies, and movie night s . In addition, p lans are in place to build a pedestrian bridge over the river, and connect the recreation and picnic areas to numerous other walking, hiking, and bik ing trails . The place - ma king project is a public - private partnership between the City of Utica, Macomb County, and General Sports and Entertainment ( a sales, marketing, and customer service company ) . Figure 2 . Future Utica Ballpark and Community Compl ex Source: Macomb County 12 1.8 Phoenix - See: Dortmund, Germany Information on the Phoenix - See project is gathered from an interview with Jens Woelki, Aktionsraumbeauftragter of Hörde within the Aktionsplan Soziale Stadt in Dortmund. His position is a project manager for the urban revitalization of Dortmund - H örde within a program to residents (personal communication, October 26, 2015). Phoenix - See is one part of a two - part redevelopment project that i ncludes Phoenix - See and Phoenix West in Dortmund, Germany. Both pr operties are located just south west of Dortmund city proper on the east and west side, respectively, of the Hö rde borough or district , which is bordered by major highways. The historic downtown of the H ö rde , where there is rail connection to Dortmund city center, is between the properties. Prior to 2001 , both sites totaling 200 hectares were owned by ThyssenKrupp, a diversified industrial group. A blast f urnace was on the site of Phoenix West and Phoenix - See was home to a steel - plant. When the company shut down operations at the site s in 1998 , over 10,000 jobs were lost and the city was left with vacant industrial buildings and contaminated soil. The sites then became one of the largest urban development projects in Germany , funded by the city of Dortmund, the Land, the federal Bundestag, and the European Union . The city purchased both properties in 2001 and gave them to a subsidiary of the Dortmunder Stadt werke AG, the public developer Phoenix See Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH. The steel mill equipment was removed and sold to a company in China, plans were made for both sites, and the environmental contamination on the Phoenix - See site was remediated. Since individual properties were then sold to private developers and businesses, the project can be considered a public - private partnership. 13 Today Phoenix West is a technology park to encourage the development of new industry in the region. About 30% of the are a is sold and 20% is reserved by companies and businesses that employ about 750 people . The goal is for 3,000 people to work in Phoenix West in the next five to ten years . As of 2011, the Phoenix - See side of the project , pictured is Figure 3, is a 200 million (over $221 million) mixed - use residential, commercial, and recreational development with a lake with a water surface area of 24 acres . The man - made lake attracts wildlife and can be used for sailing small boats, the property is surrounded by pe destrian and bicycle paths, and other features include a marina, floating stage, and promenade with restaurants (Stadt Dortmund, 2015) . Figure 3 . Phoenix - See Aerial View Sour ce : w w w . c o m m o n s . w i k i me d i a . or g 14 1.9 Overview The foll owing paper is divided into three chapters that individually address each research question: Policies and Programs, Public Sector Funding, and Misconceptions About Brownfield Redevelopment. Each chapter opens with findings, proceeds with a discussion that compares both locations, and closes highlighting opportunities for the application of German practices in the United States and Michigan. Details from the case study projects are used to support arguments throughout the discussion in each chapter. The pape r concludes with a discussion of overall recommendations and implications for planning in the US. 15 CHAPTER 2: Policies and Programs 2.0 Intro duction B rownf ield redevelopment practices are directed by governm ent policies. This chapter assess es how p olicies and programs apply to vacant, contaminate d, and derelict land. Background information is provided to explain the definition of the brownfield term , and the co mplicated history and evolution of pol ici es . The presentation of findings begin s with th e legislation, programs, an d agencies involved in the US and Michigan, and are then provided from the EU and Germany. C omparisons are made in the discussion between t he highest levels of government, which include the federal US and federal Germany , and the lowest local municipal levels . T he role of the European Union is so too considered . The levels of government in the middle include the state and county in the US , and the state and region in Germany. 2.1 Brownfield Definition The brownfield definition challenges the accurate evaluation and comparison of laws and legislation . The definition of brownfield si tes is not universal within jurisdictions in the U nited States, among EU member states, or worldwide Kl usacek, & Bartke, 2014) . A ccording to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Small Business and Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act , a brownfield site is plicated by the US EPA, 2002 ; Public Law 107 - 118, H.R. 2869, p. 6) . Examples of brownfields in the US , according to the National Brownfield Association (2014) include: aban doned gas stations and dry cleaners, strip malls, railroad properties, and closed military bases. 16 Even though the federal EPA definition is recognized in the US , state governments are authorized to determine the local definition of brownfields. Since 2000 , brownfields are defined or blighted facilities previously used for commercial, industrial, public or residential purposes (Hula & Bromley - Trujillo, 2010). does not consider whether or not the l and is contaminated or may be contaminated. cleanup programs consider property contaminated with more hazardous substances than the state cleanup standard for residential property to be considered to be a facility (MDEQ, 2013 a ). A Michigan brown field is not necessarily a facility. The European Union does not have a generally accepted definition since descriptions are det ermined at the national level, and m ember states do not consistently use the English term brownfield or a term that directly tr anslates to brownfield when referring to the land use problem (Vanhuesden, 2009). When considering only polluted soil, e xamples of sites in Eu rope include former and current industrial sites, dumps, wrecked car heaps, river basins, petrol stations, and sit es of illegal dumping ( Vanhuesden, 2009 ). In France, brownfields are spaces that are temporarily or definitely abandoned and can be partially occupied, derelict, or contaminated (City of Stuttgart Department for Environmental Protection, 2012). Since the re is not a commonly recognized definition in the Netherlands, s ites are not necessarily vacant or contaminated ( Ploegmakers & Beckers, 2014 ; City of Stuttgart Department for Environmental Protection, 2012 ). The German definition of the equivalent of a b rownfield separates the land challenge into parts . The term Altlasten extensive soil contamination identified by hazard assessment as a concrete threat to human ademy for Spatial Research and Planning , 2008, p. 175). The 17 broad German term Brachfläche is translated as derelict and vacant land and omits the question of pollution or contamination (Academy for Spatial Research and Planning, 2008). The terms fre quently revitalization include Innerstädtische Brachflächen (innercity building areas not currently used) and Innerstädtrische Entwicklungs und Sanierungsgebiete (innercity areas for redevelopment and refurbishment) (CABERNET, 2003). A s identified by the German Federal Environmental Agency guidebook (2005), the . 2.2 United States Many policies trickle down from the highest level of government leadership i n a country or organization of countries to set the tone and focus . The highest level of leadership in the US , a federal constitutional republic is the federal gover nment . The L egislative branch ( US Congress) passes laws that apply to all fifty states. The laws are interpreted by the Judiciary branch and implemented t hrough regulations enforced by E xecutive branch departments and agencies. E xecutive bodies that are involved in the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated, vacant, and derelict land incl ude the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and interior agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Economic Development Administration (EDA). Federal policies on brownfield management in the US began with the Reso urce Conservation and Recovery Act (RC R A, Pub. L 94 - 580) of 1976 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. Under RC R A, individuals were allowed to file a citizen - suit to hold previous owners responsible for contamination on properties (American Planning Association, 2010). Commonly known as Superfund , CERCLA requires owners of contaminated sites or those responsible for 18 contamination (including retroactive liability for contamination caused before such co ntamination became illegal) to bring the land up to EPA standards (Jones & Welsh, 2010). Per the United States Environmental Protection Agency website (2012), CERCLA: - Created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries - Provided broad Federal authority t o respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances - Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites - Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at t hese sites - Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified - Authorized a response action for short - term removal to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response - Authorized long - term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with the releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life threatening Since CERCLA focused exclusively on remediation , there were unfortunate consequences. Some companies and individuals abandoned properties or declared bankruptcy to evade responsibility for the costly cleanup (Brachman, 2004). In addition, CERCLA made potential buyers hesitant to purchase the liability of and/ or invest in previously industrial sites that may be contaminated (De Sousa et al., 2009). Finally, since banks were hesitant to foreclose on properties and cleanup standards required sites to be restored to pre - development levels of contamination, the act contributed to a market that favored greenfield sites, or undeveloped land in suburban and rural areas, for industrial and commercial development over urban brownfields (Levy, 2013; Brachman, 2004). In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendmen ts and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Per the EPA website (2012), SARA: - Stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites; - Required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requir ements found in other State and Federal environmental laws and regulations - Provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools 19 - Increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program - Increased the focus on human health problems posed by h azardous waste sites - Encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up - Increased the size of the trust fund CERCLA and SARA establish federal priority in the area o f environmental cleanup. T he policies were orig inally directed towards the most hazardous waste sites and did not encourage site redevelopment or post clean - up use (Jones & Welsh, 2010). To mitigate some of the negative effects of these acts, allocate funding for redeveloping sites, and provide clarity on the Agenda was launched in 1995 (De Sousa et al., 2009). The goal of the agenda was to develop a coordinated national agenda for addressing environmental pro tection, economic development, and community revitalization related to brownfields (Garczynski, 1997). In the years that followed, state governments took the lead in redevelopment with an alternative to the CERCLA model (Jones & Welsh, 2010). By implementi ng voluntary cleanup p rograms (VCPs), state environmental remediation capacity increased significantly. The programs simplified the cleanup process and capped future liability to encourage owners to remediate brownfield sites and attract redevelopment. In response to the increasing resistance and disapproval of the federal approach, the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub. L. 107 - 118,11 5 stat.2356) commonly known as The Brownfield Law , was passed by the federal government in 2002 to again amend CERCLA (De Sousa et al., 2009; - Exempts persons from Superfund response cost liability at National Priorities List (NPL) sites as generators and transporters if the person can dem onstrate that they contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid materials or 200 pounds of solid materials containing hazardous substances and that all or part of the disposal, treatment, or transport occurred before April 1, 2001 20 - Exempts persons from Super fund response cost liability as generators for the disposal of municipal solid waste if the person is an owner, operator, or lessee of residential property, or a business of nonprofit with not more than 100 employees - Expedits settlements based on limited a bility to pay - Authorized a new budget for brownfields assessment and cleanup - Expands the definition of brownfields to include mine scarred lands and lands contaminated with petroleum or controlled substances (American Planning Association, 2010) - Exempts pe rsons that own contaminated land and bona fide prospective purchasers (and their tenants) from owner or operator liability if the land was contaminated by someone else - Offers protection for innocent landowners - Authorizes grants to assist States and tribes in the development of State response programs T he amended CERCLA and Brownfield Law currently apply to contaminated sites according to different classifications. Brownfields are typically less contaminated that CERCLA or Superfund sites, of which the most contaminated are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL classification, which designates the sites that need a more elaborate management process, helps to prioritize remedial response action funding (American Planning Association, 2010). The EPA, a federal US agency, ov ersees Superfund and NPL sites while state and local jurisdictions oversee most brownfield cleanup and redevelopment projects. These acts have had both positive and negative impacts on public and private development. Alth ough the Brownfield Law provides some liability relief, CERCLA is still a strict liability statute. This may deter developers that are not best prepared to protect themselves as the potentially responsible party (Goodstein, Trinward, & Lynch, 2011). Public agen cies, on the other hand, are protected. To support public investment and protect loc al and state governments , when property is acquired by a government entity by escheat, through a voluntary transfer, or eminent domain, the entity is not held to CERCLA lia bility in the US (Goodstein et al. , 2011). 21 2.3 Michigan management in the US. The federal government sh ares sovereignty with all fifty state governments . P er the US Co nstitution, state governments are awarded all powers not granted to the federal government. Since state governments are modeled after the federal government, the state law making process is similar; t he state legislature passes laws that are implemented th rough regulations enforced by executive branch departments and agencies. Brownfield a pplicable executive departments in the state of Michigan include: MDEQ , Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Department of Talent and Economic Developm ent (TED), which includes the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) , the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) , the Michigan Strategic Fund and the newly created Talent Investment Agency (TIA) . F orces at the state and local level have driven brownfield redevelopment beginning in the - base growth, job creation, and neighborhood revitalization (Adams et al. , 2009). Many state laws originally followed federal legislation with a strict li ability framework and held the owners of contaminated property liable for cleanup regardless if they had or had not caused the contamination. The Po lluters Pay Law (Public Act 233 of 2990) in Michigan held private parties responsible for pollution so that public funds would not be used to pay for cleanup (Swartz, 1994). As a result of this strict legislation, investors began to avoid polluted or potentially polluted brownfield locations. The financial industry denied resources for reinvestment in brownfield s fearing that environmental liabilities would be imposed on lending banks (Swartz, 1994). When frustration with this approach grew, 22 as mentioned earlier , states took the lead in brownfield redevelopment with innovative legislation that released liability and created voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs) . VCPs release liability or ensure that the state will not enforce later action on the remediated site if the development party implements a state appro ved remediation plan (Goodstein et al., 2011). Recent r esea rch in Chicago highlights the success of state VCPs ; although it should be consider ed that Illinois is at the forefront of remediation programs in the US. Winston - redeveloped in the p rogram that received closure letters during the early 21 st century were prepared for market re - entry, as they demonstrated high building and property values. Nationwide the number of these state programs have increased; adapting over time to meet the needs of those involved in brow nfield redevelopment (Goodstein et al., 2011). Regardless, participation in the cleanup program does not guarantee th at the site will be redeveloped since it only releases the owner from liability. To release liability in Michiga n, the state initially passed the Natural Resources and Environmental Protecti on Act (Act 451 of 1994, NREPA) to enable the state to enter into a covenant not to sue (CNTS) with a landowner innocent of contamination for past liability. The EPA was involved in the agreement to protect a future purchaser from federal pursuit of liability as long as the new use did not release pollutants. Under the Act, parties responsible for contamination on property they own are required to pay for remediation and can be fi ned up to $10,000 per day for not diligently pur suing containment and clean up (Jones & Welsh, 2010). The act regulates the discharge of substances and use of resources, and sets standards for pollution control. The pollution controls specify waste manageme nt, pollution prevention, 23 funding, remediation, and underground storage tanks (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, 2009). This act highlights the shift of focus from environmental cleanup to economic development. The CNTS punishe s those responsible for contamination and requires cleanup. However, it does not require cleanup from owners not responsible , and releases both current and future owners from liability. This act was the first of its kind with the goal of promoting the rede velopment of contaminated sites with industrial and economic potential (Swartz, 1994). Over the years, the and practice s have improved. Michigan has designed a Site Reclamation Program to provide funding through grants and loans for the c leanup and reuse of properties with economic potential (Swartz, 1994). Furthermore , t o avoid full liability in Michigan , new owners of potentially contaminated pro perty are required to conduct and submit a Baseline Environmental A ssessment (BEA) to MDEQ wi thin 45 days of purchasing a property (MDEQ, 2013 a ) . This analysis is a more efficient process to evaluate liability claims against previous and current landowners and operators than the CNTS process discussed above (Jones & Welsh, 2010). Under the BEA, n e w owners and operators of contaminated sites are required to protect the public and avoid worsening existing - requirements. Replacing the practice of receiving a No Further Action Letter, as requested, MDEQ still issues a Certificate of Completion . The certificate releases the party from liability upon completion of a MDNR a pproved remedial action plan . It is worth noting that a BEA does not provide liability relief from state and federal laws. In sum, s tate policy innov ations in Michigan that differ from the federal approach include: - Increased flexibility in cleanup standards with criteria based on land use - Limited owner liability for innocent land owners 24 - Increased reliance on private or voluntary action with a baseli ne environmental assessment - Increased public funding and tax incentives - Explicit recognition of economic development as a policy goal - Expanding the definition of brownfield to include vacant and underutilized properties in blighted areas (Hula & Bromley - T rujillo, 2010; Jones & Welsh, 2010). The state agency that oversees contaminated property or facilities is the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) . When the federal approach required strict remediation, MDEQ created a unique framework that does not require contaminated properties originally had three tiers of standards, in descend ing order of stringency for : residential, commercial, and industria l properties. The standards differ by the type of contamination present and provide local governments the option to institute controls on land use through zoning or restrictive deed covenants as an alternative to site cleanup. Today there are five categories of land use - based cleanup standard s: unrestricted residential, unrestricted site - specific, restricted residential, restricted non - residential, and restricted site - specific (MDEQ, 2013 a ). They provide flexible options to clean property to a level appropriate for the future use and release l iability concerns. Numerous other organizations in Michigan are involved with brownfields in some capacity. Organizations include: Community Assista nce Team (RRC), Brownfield and Redevelopment P rograms, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 Brownfield Program. The organizations provide local units of government with various support programs, technical information, and resources. 2.4 Local States in the US are subdivided into counties and then municipalities (cities, townsh ips, and villages). Many states, including Michigan, follow a Home Rule Act which allows for local self - governance . The act grants counties and municipalities the right to exercise state powers of 25 governance at a local level without state intervention , giv en that they establish a city charter. The municipalities use ordinances and zoning regulations as land use tools for governance and make decisions locally, guided by community master plans. Since development is overseen at a local level , city governments play an central role in the reduction of vacant land (Pagano & Bowman, 2004). The local government is responsible for providing the long - range vision for the community through the master plan (Kotval & Mullin, 2009) . Brownfield redevelopment is impacted b y these plans, ordinances, and zoning regulations. For example, community master plans that prioritize brownfield redevelopment can inform developers about incentives, assistance, or resources, and proactively changing zoning regulations can indicate that the community is ready for revitalization (Kotval & Mullin, 2009). In addition, c ity governments can encourage private sector development and public - priv ate partnerships with use and reuse policies. Finally, local units of government can further impact dev elopment with a Brownfield Development Plan, a written requirement to receive state funding for projects. In regards to policies and programs that address brownfields direct ly , two Michigan acts apply at the local level. Firstly, u nder Michigan Public Act 381, any local unit of government can establish a b rownfield redevelopment authority (BRA) and adopt brownfield plans. Secondly, t he Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA), Public Act 146 of 2000 encourages the redevelopment of contaminated, blighted , or functionally obsolete buildings through tax incentives. Brownfield redevelopment authorities, as advised by community advisory committees, provide tax increment financing (TIF) reimbursement for environmental and non - environmental activities on eligib le properties according to definitions and procedures set by the state Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act (MCL 125.2651 - 2660). T he Genesee County 26 Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (GCBRA) for instance works with the Genesee County Land Bank in Genesee County in central eastern Michigan and the City of East Lansing established a BRA to operate within its boundaries in central Michigan to provide TIF reimbursement for blight elimination and the improvement of brownfields. Aside from local government, cit y nonprofit organizations are indeed involved in brownfield redevelopment. In Detroit, Midtown Detroit, Inc. collaborate s with other city entities and provide s resources and services to guide interested parties through brownfield re development. The organiz opportunities (Midtown Detroit, Inc., 2015). The Lansing Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) in Lansing encourages brownfield redevelopment by attracting, expanding, and retaining business and industry in the city. The benefits of such organizations is that they aid developers through the complicated process of redevelopment from the most local level up to the federal level. 2.5 European Union Since there is unifying leadership among European countries through a twenty - eight country partnership , the highest level of leade rship is European Union (EU) legislation in the form of regulations, directives, and decisions. The European Parliament and Council approve legislation, which is drafted and implemented by the Commission. It is worth noting that EU legal acts may not be binding and may not apply to all member countries. Brownfield regeneration in Europe is not associated with a specific set of regulations from the EU to be adopte d at national level s ( Alexandrescu et al., 2014). Since member states do not consistently use the term brownfield, European law addresses soil remediation (Vanhuesden, 2009). From this environmental perspective, brownfields are overseen by the Environment 27 Directorate General of the European Commission under the European Commission (European Commission, 2015). The initial step in an integrated EU policy that addressed the remediation of contaminated sites and pollution was the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(200 6) 231) adopted by the European Commission in 2006 (European Commission, 2015). The EU legal framework communicated a need for soil protection to other European Institutions, proposed a framework for the adoption of soil protection by member states (Soil F ramework Directive), and included an assessment of economic, social, and environmental impacts. In 2014, the Soil Framework Directive was withdrawn. Since the directive called for action at the European level besides action by member states, the member sta tes felt that it did not respect the principle of subsidiarity. EU member states feel strongly that soil issues should be handled at national, regional, or local levels (Vanhuesden, 2009). To commit contaminated soil remediation as an EU principle, t he Sev enth Environment Action Programme, a non - legally binding document , has since b een adopted (European Commission, 2015). Other applicable directives include the Environmental Liability Directive, and Environmental Crime Directive (Vanhuesden, 2009). The Env ironmental Liability Directive provides a framework for holding operators that caused environmental or land damage fiscally responsible for the costs of preventative and remedial actions (Vanhuesden, 2009). To ensure the provision of penalties, member stat es are required to comply with the Environmental Crime Directive. According to the directive, the contamination of a brownfield may be considered a criminal offense (Vanhuesden, 2009). In the EU, unexcavated purposefully or accidentally contaminated soil i s considered waste. Waste is overseen by the Waste Framework Directive, which previously did not recognize the possibility of a risk assessment and limited remediation techniques. To ease the burden on 28 developers, the new Waste Framework Directive excludes what would be considered brownfield soil (Vanhuesden, 2009). The management of contaminated or brownfield soil is held to national standards given that they comply with the applicable directives discussed above. European law is limited in terms of bindin g policies and directives related to brownfields, but the EU commits to numerou s research programs. For instance, t he Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environments (RESCUE) program that began in 2002 is tasked with identifying previous mi stakes and exploring solutions to land use . CityChlor, another EU program that encourage s environmental protection and sustainable urban development , focuses specifically on small inner - urban polluted sites (City of Stuttgart Department for Environmental Protection, 2012). The se programs , among others, are designed to explore and guide policy and practices in member states. 2.6 Germany As in many EU member states, federal brownfield - related legislation in Germany was strongly influenced by the America n federal approach, including the Superfund legislation (Thornton, Franz, Edwards, Pahlen & Nathanail, 2007). Germ any is a democratic , federal , parliamentary representative republic with sixteen federal states known collectively as Länder. The Bundestag an d Bundesrat comprise federal legislative power to pass legislation; which is frequently executed by state or local agencies. Permanent committees in Parliament work on specific areas of policy. Committees that apply to contaminated, vacant, or derelict lan d include Economic Cooperation and Development and Environment, and Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. The initial focus of legislation was from an environmental standpoint with strict liability statutes. Much like in the US, German law hold s the polluter responsible for 29 remediating damage from contamination. When the polluter cannot be determined, the owner of the property is liable (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). Consistent with the European approach, German policy addresses contamin ated soil. Prior to the withdrawn EU Soil Framework Directive, Germany passed the Federal Soil Protection Act (BBodSchG, 1998) to regulate the remediation of contaminated sites. The Act sets limits for allow able contaminant concentrations and requires that contaminat ed land classified as waste be decontaminated, disposed, or remediated (Thornton et al., 2007). Under the Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance (BBodSchV), the federal states are responsible for acquiring brownfields. Both pi eces of legislation establish standards for evaluation and regulate the decision - making process (City of Stuttgart Department for Environmental Protection, 2012). To orchestrate the redevelopment process, the later ordinance established a public - pri vate decontamination contract. Related k ey policies that apply to the management of contaminated soil include the Closed Cycle Management Act, the Sewage Sludge Ordinance, the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG), and the Ordinance on Biowaste to provide guidelines for the recycling and disposal of waste . Combined with the policies above that directly apply to contaminated soil, Ge rman policies that limit sprawl and focus on contaminated land management and Flächenrecycling (land recycling) address the re development of brownfields (CABERNET, 2003). T h e German federal agenda includes measures to protect greenfields and limit what is referred to as land sealing (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). The Land Protection Concept from 1985 and the succeeding mea sures set the tone for environmental policy with a focus on land protection. In 1998 the Federal Building Code was amended with a land protection clause and the Federal Land Protection Law was adopted. The law, combined with the Federal Land Protection and Residual 30 Contamination Ordinance from 1999, improved cost - efficiency and ecological effectiveness of the clean - up of contamination and reduced liability (Federal Environmental Agency). Similarly, o bjectives such as the 1998 Draft Environmental Programme p ublished by the Federal Ministry for the Environment detail goals including: industrial site rehabilitation and hazard elimination; and land consumption reduction (CABERNET, 2003). Land consumption reduction was further emphasized in the National Sustainab ility Strategy from 2002 (Federal Environment al Agency, 2005). To guide and advance policies that address land use and redevelopment issues, r esearch is a priority to the German federal government. Key agencies involved in research include the Federal Off ice of the Environment and the Federal Office of Construction and Regional Planning. Both organizations actively research creative strategies and provide manuals and guidelines for reuse and financing possibilities (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). The Research for the Reduction of Land Consumption and for Sustainable Land Management (REFINA) was created by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the Research for Sustainability (FONA) program. The program involves numerous oth er organizations including the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) and Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conserv ation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). Significant funding for all programs is provided to develop innovative concepts for reducing land consumption and encouraging sustainable land management while working with universities, local authorities, companies, associations, and private consultants. Over 100 projects, many of which can be considered brownfield projects and 25% of which h ave been completed in the Ruhr r egion, have revitalized individual sites and rehabilitated inner - city neighborhoods (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, n.d.). Organizations such as the 31 Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union ( NABU), an environment association committed to nature conservation, have been engaged in the redevelopment of brownfields at the national level . 2.7 Ruhr Region and Local Whereas i ndividual federal states in Germany implement and oversee their own educa tion system, internal security, and organization of local self - governmen t ; the central government is the primary legislation - determin ing body. Policies and programs related to the regulation of brownfields, contaminated soil, and land use planning typicall y originate from the federal government , as addressed above . This legislation is usually executed by state and local agencies, or smaller go vernment regions. As encouraged by federal objectives, states can issue guidelines that impact development. T he 1998 Draft Environmental Programme and the National Sustainability Strategy recommend that states issue precise guidelines to protect open space and limit sprawl by making urban development and redevelopment more attractive. Aside from state leadership, the l evel of government that significantly impacts brownfield redevelopment in Germany is the regional level. The scale at which urban planning is directed with policies, programs, and incentives in Germany is considered to be regional (Vanhuesden, 2007 ) . The F ederal Regional Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz) guides overall area planning and the use of land and soil. Under this law, states are subdivided into planning regions which are of concern to state governments, local authorities or counties. Consider t he state of North Rhine - Westphalia , where the Ruhr region is located , which is divided into five government regions and numerous districts . Each region has plans, which may consist of ordinances, local statutes or by - laws, that are independent of comprehensiv e, state, and local planning. By having this additional tier of legal oversight, cities and villages have less authority in planning decisions 32 and initiatives . To proceed with development projects, regional development authorities and other regional instit utions usually work with local governments, representatives and experts. The local decisions and initiatives function within a regional, state, and national framework (Schmidt & Buehler, 2007). Research prog rams, funding mechanisms, and development initia tives are provided by the federal government to address brownfields through regional cooperation. The REFINA program explo res regional land ma nagement practices and develops regional model concepts and planning tools to encourage land recycling (Federal Mi nistry of Education and Research, n.d.). Furthermore, s tates receive regional incentives such as a land or property fund. The activities of the property fund include: establishing business parks, accumulating experience with brownfield redevelopment, encou raging urban construction over economic considerations, preserving industrial architecture, and protecting monuments. Funds such as the Grundstückfonds Ruhr and Grundstückfonds North Rhine - Westphalia are used to purchase old industrial sites for redevelopm ent (Thornton et al., 2007). Commercial sites throughout numerous communities in the region are then bundled and packaged with investment incentives to spur regional economic development (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). Finally, development initiativ e s with a focus on brownfield revitalization and contaminated land exemplify the federally supported regional approach . The IBA Emscher Park Initiative was a 10 - year initiative established in 1989 in the Ruhr Area to encourage the redevelopment of over 5,0 00 acres of brownfields (Internationale Bausausstellung Emscher Park; Kunzmann, 2004). A regional agency independent of the regional government was charged with steering and managing the project, and was allowed to bypass the traditional regional policy ne tworks to maximize efficiency (Kunzmann, 2004). The goals of the project were to transform 33 the derelict landscape, restore environmental health to the river and land, construct affordable housing, promote cultural industries and the arts, and create new jo bs. The winning projects from international competitions among architects, urban designers and landscape architects were held to strict environmental, social, and cultural principles by the regional agency . Overall, the initiative ac hieved significant succ ess. Two of the flagship projects: Landschaftpark in Duisburg and Zeche Zollverein in Esse n are recognized worldwide . Even though the project has not been repeated in Germany since 1999, elements of the IBA Emscher Park model have been applied to developme nt initiatives in other regions. The German regional model seems to be successful because it provides guidance rather than dictate s general development locally . In the IBA Emscher Initiative, the role of the regional authority success . The organization set specific environmental, social, and cultural goals and principles with a focus on regional modernization but did not make a blueprint or write a master plan for the project . The regional authority designed flagship projects to apply the guidelines and serve as model s for private and other public sector development. By limiting the requirements, the local governments and private sector were encouraged to be innovative and creative in their project design (Kunzmann, 2004). The or ganization selected and approved projects, given that they aligned with the principles. This approach resulted in a holistic top down strategy that changed the market; whereas the project designs and reuse ideas originated from the bottom up. In summary, t his approach describes the German model for brownfield redevelopment. 2.8 Discussion To begin a discussion and comparison of how policies and programs address brownfields , governmental approaches to the definition of brownfields must be recognized . Def inition s are 34 helpful in guiding policy, but they are not fixed and only based on the current understanding of problems ( Adams et al., 2009 ). Today in post - industrial nations, brownfields are widely understood to be sites that were previously developed, are no longer in use, and need to be redeveloped to restore use. They are contaminated, vacant, or derelict land. This definition has evolved but still differs among states, nations, and larger organizations. W ithout consistency, limitations or over - extension s of policy applications could negatively affect practices. In the US, t he brownfield definition is complicated . To summarize: contaminated property is a brownfield, but not all brownfields are contaminated. The term brownfield was adopted over contaminate d property to reduce any negative connotations, liability implications, and restrictions ( Adams et al., 2009 ). Yet, t he nationally recognized definition acknowledges the presence or possible presence of toxic pollutant s on brownfields using the word contam inant . The definition implies tha t the property is contaminated and t here is currently no differentiation between contaminated land and a brownfield. At the state level, the Michigan definition omit s the requirement of existing or potential polluted or con taminated soil from the description of a brownfield. Since policy is applied, funding is allocated, and the involvement of organizations at the national, state, and local levels are made according to this definition , confusion about what qualifies can have a negative effect on practices . Based on the existing definitions, a piece of property could be considered a brownfield by the state of Michigan, but not necessarily a brownfield by the federal government. There is even inconsistency within the state. MDE Q oversees what are commonly called brownfields, but the organization is only involved in redevelop ment if the soil is contaminated and deemed a facility . The US is not alone in the struggle with using a consistent definition . Among EU member states, a par tnership comprised of numerous countries that speak different languages, 35 t here is a lack of uniformity in the definition of the equivalent of a brownfield . In Germany, a different word is exclusively used t o describe contaminated soil. The terminology diff erentiates between the two situations: brownfields and con taminated property and specific polici es are applied for brownfields (which are not contaminated) and contaminated soil. Another key difference between the US and German definitions is the direction of focus : past versus future . In Michigan, attention is paid to recognizing that the target site was previously used; thus acknowledging the main difference between a greenfield and brown field. This choice of words suggests a focus on the past; that the l and was developed and is no longer of use. The US EPA definition has more of a forward focus by highlighting reuse or redevelopment potential . In Germany, the translated definition accomplishes both an acknowledgement of the past by describing a site previo usly used and of the future by highlighting opportunities for renewal and refurbishment. The direction of focus could play a role in implications for redevelopment. Ideally the definition would define land that was previously used that has the potential to be re used. Aside from affecting policy application, the lack of a standard definition impacts the track ing and inventorying of brownfield sites. In the US , this inventory is maintained at state and local levels , but determining what qualifies and should be included is a problem . There is a question of which definition to follow and what is considered to be a brownfield. Provided with the opportunity, c ities, governments, and land owners tend to avoid the classification of land as a brownfield because they fear the stigma of a brownfield label, to prevent the loss of land value, or because they lack the capacity to maintain such an inventory (American Planning Association, 2010; Adams et al., 2009 ). T his limits the creation of detailed and exte nsive invento ries of re - developable land . At the state level, Michigan maintains a contaminated property database , but 36 o nly for properties for which a BEA has been filed . A BEA is re quired to release liability on properties where contamination is suspected . One way to indirectly identify vacant sites with potential contamination is through state lists of sites with known underground storage tanks (American Planning Association, 2010). European Environment Agency member countries maintain inventories at differing levels . A majority of countries maintain a comprehensive data inventory at the national level, while Germany and a few other countries manage inventories at a regional or local level (EAA, n.d.). Many cities , including Dortmund , have environmental liabilities re gisters or Altlastenkataster with information on land type , size, soil contaminants, former uses, and any special characteristics to manage and market the sites (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). Information gathered for this research reveals that citie s maintain these registers for all land in the city, not just for known brownfields (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). As property owners change and assessments are conducte d, the information is updated. The register ca n be referenced b y home owners and potential purchasers, and is always referenced by the city prior to approving development activities. This strategy of maintaining an inventory for all land at the city level encourages a detailed and extensive inventory of soil contamina nts and prior uses. This registry includes an inventory of what would be considered a brownfield. In the US, the system of only classifying brownfield sites may not be working due to differing definitions and a lack of accountability from higher levels of government. A state, regional, or national inventory of contaminated property could prevent the avoidance of classifying land as brownfields and encourage the development of detailed inventories. It seems appropriate to manage inventories at local levels since local governments would be most 37 German register , could also benefit brownfield re development in the US . The inclusive inventory or database could be a resource for developers, businesses , and other organizations to find the location opportunities for which they are looking , without singling - out or excluding contaminated property. A n exploration of the history of policies reveals that both f ederal and s tate legislation in the US and Europe originally focused on the issue of contamination. When governments and the public recognized the problems of pollution from human health, natural environment, and land value perspectives, and the costliness of cleanup, private parties were held responsible for environmental remediation. Both countries established a necessity for liability platforms to protect the public from paying financially for contamination caused by the private sector . Unfortunately, in the US many polluters still evaded obligation and the strict liability requirements dissuaded new private investment for fear of financial and legal burdens. Regardless of the effort in the U S to avoid the use of the term contaminated property , it could be argued tha t the word brownfield acquired a negative connotation and liability implications as a caused developers with risk concerns to shift their attention to undevelop ed land. Furthermore, s ince the US lacks guideli nes and goals to preserve inner - city areas and limit suburban sprawl , urban boundaries were expanded and urban brownfields were abandoned . Greenfield development was further encouraged by incentives that supp orted suburbanization through tax incentives for commuters and subsidies for new home constr uction (Thornton et al., 2007). Recent research captures these observations and suggests that the abundance of vacant land in post - industrial urban areas cannot be explained solely by the issue of environmental contamination (Schoenbaum, 2002). In addition, r esearch suggests that focusing solutions on 38 brownfields as an environment issue creates numerous problems. I t discourages community participation and reduces the value of proposed projects (Hula & Bromley - Trujillo, 2010). In the US there is still limited demand for brownfield redevelopment projects due to low density zoning on suburban edges, a complicated and time consuming process to clear land titles in urban a reas, and government spending that enco urages greenfield development over redevelopment (Welsh & Jones, 2010). In Germany, the environmental contamination problem was combined with federal goals and objectives to encourage urban development over sprawl . T he German government is committed to protecting open space, reducing land consumption, and limiting sprawl with specific goals that include reducing land consumption by a certain amount per year. Additionally, t here are strict requirements for building per missions on greenfield sites (CABERNET, 2003). This leadership helps retain development in urban areas regardless that it may be more expensive for developers to redevelop contaminated property . As sites are cleaned up and redeveloped, environmental improv ement goals are consequently accomplished. European legislation has recently focused on soil contamination and waste reduction from an environmental perspective , while adjustments in the general definition at the US, Michigan, and German levels of governm ent in the last few decades have shifted the p olicy focus towards economic development goals such as tax - based growth and job creation. Unfortunately , this economic focus , supported with the intention of creating jobs and increasing land value, can limit r edevelopment because it directs policy towards redevelopment on contaminated pro perties for the private market. Providing jobs and increasing the tax base is particularly important in struggling post - industrial ar eas like Michigan and the Ruhr r egion where residents struggle due 39 to unemployment and absent city services . However, a n incomplete policy focus produces inadequate results. Political leadership in the form of policies, objectives, and programs from h i gher levels of government in the US in regards to develop ment, land use, and planning is l imited overall compared to in Germany. Many states in the US , including Michigan , have home rule which provides for essentially autonomous local decision making. Municipalities are also enabled to provide local pl anning and zoning through the Standard Acts which limit state authority. R egional planning organizations exist to coordinate regional activities and provide technical, outreach, or marketing support . Many have economic development goals, but they do not ha ve authority in planning decisions or policies. Therefore, l ocal governments have control over development, and are not required to follow county, regional, or state planning efforts. B ecause decisions are made by independent local units of government wh o are essentially in competition with each other , there is very little coordination between municipalities . This model for planning differs fr om the German model which encourages regional collaboration to meet goals , increases the ability to attract develope rs by bundling properties, expands funding capacity, and promotes resource sharing among a region of municipalities. The US lacks this political framework or model for regional cooperation; which as demonstrated by the German approach, is benefic ial to pub lic efforts to redevelop brownfields. 2.9 Conclusion Brownfield cleanup and redevelopment is a complex issue, complicated by complex definitions, policies, and programs; many of which overlap. An international comparison of policy and program approache s reveals implications for the US to encourage brownfield redevelopment. To increase the success of public projects that encourage adaptive reuse, 40 national, state, and local governments could consider a few lessons from Germany. Firstly, s implifying the re gulatory framework with consistent definitions and standardized, strong, and consistent policy goals could encourage remediation. Policies should indeed protect the public sector by easing liability requirements and offer incentives for developers other th an private companies. A simple and consistent definition among the federal government and state governments in the US could clarify discussions, streamline processes, and appropriate policies and funding. There should be independent regulations and funding for contaminated soil and previously developed land in urban areas. Secondly, regional planning efforts have significant potential to transform contaminated, vacant, and derelict land to community assets . The successful brownfield redevelopment policies a more region al planning approach. Despite the benefits of a local botto m - up approach , as in the US; without national, state, and regional guidelines and prio rities there is less consistency in outcomes . Thirdly, shifting greenfield development to urban development should be made a priority, a national priority. B rownfields are not solely an environmental problem, nor only an economic issue. While the contamination is an environmental problem, the concentrated vac ant and derelict land in urban areas are economic and social issues. T he contamination further complicates the redevelopment of such land, but this kind of policy focus has limited red evelopment potential. D irecting policy towards the economic issues of br ownfields will not solve the problem alone . I deally policy would also encourag e community revitalization . Policies should guide development to remedy environmental, economic, and social problems. The American Planning Association (APA, 2010) highlights the increased success of reuse projects when economic and community development issues are addressed with environmental concerns. Thi s broader focus 41 of legislation c ould increase the involvement of agencies and entities and restructure the allocation of publi c funding. 42 CHAPTER 3: Public Sector Funding 3.0 Intro duction Brownfield redevelopment faces significant financial challenges. The costs associated with site cleanup and environmental remediation increase project costs compared to greenfield develop ment. In addition , access to loans is limited due to the increased risk of liability concerns associated with owning a contaminated or potentially contaminated property. Therefore, brownfield sites are not economically competitive with greenfield sites wit hout public intervention (Thornton, 2007 ). In many places, the increasingly concentrated contaminated, vacant, and derelict land in areas with constrained available public funds further complicates these financial challenges. In the US and Germany, various public funding tools are available t o make brownfield redevelopment projects financially feasible . The practices of private or public sec tor involvement differ from an international perspective. The following discussion will explore funding practices in t he US and Germany. In Germany, there is a long tradition of public sector involvement while the US is predominately driven by private sector funding . A comparison will help identify long standing practices in Germany and how they mig ht be adapted to the US context. In a manner s imilar to the previous chapter on policies and programs, findings in this chapter are discussed at federal US , state of Michigan and local municipal levels , and European Union, Germany, and local level funding. 3.1 Historical Contex t D uring the second quarter of the 20 th century , largely in response to the Great Depression, the federal government in the US played an active role in the development of urban areas. The involvement may have been a response to unequal patterns of growth and decline 43 Federal urban programs dating back to udget cuts to these urban programs; leaving cities responsible for urban revitalization (Lyons & Hamilin, 2001). Without federal programs, when tax bases declined with the evacuation of businesses and residents from central cities, city governments sought increased private sector involvement and funding for redevelopment projects. Since then, a dependence on private investment and the evolving public - private partnership ha ve become accepted practice s to provide urban rev ival activities, including the redeve lopment of contaminated, vacant, or derelict land. Along the same lines, i n Germany, the federal government has a history of playing an active role in economic renewal and public works projects. The role was changed by World War II since activities des troyed cities and left the country divided . infrastructur e and industry was supported in part by international aid through the Marshall Plan, or European Recovery Pr ogram. This American initiative to aid W estern Europe in rec onstruction implemented credit institutes in Germany to fund redevelopment projects . As the country recovered, national policies were implemented to support redistribution efforts. The practice of wealth redistribution between richer and poorer states thro ugh the federal government compensation fund has since been implemented (Schmidt & Buehler, 2007) . With reunification in 1990, the country has increasingly experience d spatial disparities of income and economic growth. As the public sector faces modern eco nomic challenges and city budgets become increasingly tight , t he reliance on public - private partnerships for urban development is increasing ( OECD, 1999; Stadt Dortmund, 2004 ). 44 3.2 Differences between Traditional Development and Brownfield Funding In tra ditional funding for development projects, sources of capital include debt and equity; the debt being of low risk and low return, and the equity being of high risk and high rs in the US are typically unlikely to provide loans for projects on contaminated property due to complications associated with liability (Goodstein et al., 2011). Without access to debt, brownfield projects are limited to funds from the sponsor and equity . The remaining capital can be sought from the public sector, private sector, or through a combination of funds. Contaminated soil or brownfield projects in Germany do not necessarily experience similar funding challenges. The funding model in Germany for redevelopment projects does not differ significantly if the soil is contaminated (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). In the US, n umerous factors determine the initiator and source of funding for the remediation of contaminated property . The economic conditions, existing private demand based on location, level of contamination, and the foreseen new land use are all influencers (Howland, 2003). The location , and its related value and demand, largely impacts the interest level of developers and can determine the redevelopment initiator . The private sector is more likely to be the initiator when there is high economic demand, strong market conditions, low levels of contamination, and the new use remains industrial ( which requires less and chea per cleanup ) . When there is weak market demand, the property is highly contaminated, and the future land use is residential, the research suggests that extensive public subsidy is r e quired (Howland, 2003). Unfortunately, there is an abundance of brownfields in ar eas where market demand is weak and the appropriate future land use is not industrial or commercial ; thus creating a demand for public aid . 45 3.3 United States In the US , the c ommon financing tools available to supplement traditional funding include insurance policies, CERCLA cost - recovery actions, citizen - suit action s , grants, loans, loan guarantees and tax incentives. Firstly, c ontractual provisions on past or future sales and insurance policies can be used to protect buyers and lenders from cleanup liability . Insurance assets can be used for early stages of a project if the environmental contamination occurred when it was covered by historic insurance policies (Goodstein et al ., 2011). The historical insurance assets can provide funds for the remedial investigation, cleanup, or a citizen suit ; or capital can be effectively recovered from the responsible polluters through CERCLA cost - recovery actions. In addition, t he Resource C onservat ion and Recovery Act (RCRA) allows an individual to file a citizen - suit to address contaminated properties. Grants, trust funds, tax incentives, loan guarantees, and low or no - interest loans through revolving funds are available from government age ncies, and grants and loans are also available from philanthropic foundations and banks (American Planning Association, 2010). The grants and loans from foundations and banks are considered private funding. Public funding options exist in the forms of gran ts, loans, loan guarantees, and tax incentives from federal, state, and local programs for activities to aid in development. Activities eligible for public funding include: conducting site assessments, developing a remediation plan, cleaning up the contami nation to state standards, and making physical improvements (American Planning Association, 2010). To restore a brownfield property to public use, Goodstein at al. , (2011) recommends combining a variety of funding options if possible. The source and availa bility of these funds depends on the proposed type of redevelopment and the owner of the site. 46 Brownfields and Land Revitalization provides the majority of funding and r esources to brownfields through local units of government that can only be used for brownfield assessment and cleanup . T he EPA is authorized to award Brownfield Assessment Grants, Brownfield Cleanup Grants , and the Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund to states, communities, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations through the Brownfield Law for assessment and cleanup . In the Utica Community Complex project, Macomb County received grant/loan funds from the USEPA Revolving Loan Fund. The County allocated $700,000 to the project to conduct environmental r esponse actions ( Macomb County, 2015). Furthermore, the USEPA can indirectly fund brownfield projects through other funds awarded to states. For instance , the remediation of contaminated properties that contribute to the contamination of surface or drinkin g water can be funded through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Given that the project meets federal guidelines, the state allocate s the funds they receive from the USEPA to projects that apply (American Planning Association, 2010). Area Wide Planning Grants are awarded to conduct research and provide technical assistance for neighborhood, downtown, or commercial corridor revitalization. The funds may be used to collect information, evaluate environmental conditio ns and market potential, and develop strategies for site cleanup and reuse. While these funds c annot be used to actually clean up the site, the grant seems to be the first funding mechanism that addresses brownfie ld cleanup preparation and plan - making from a holistic neighborhood revitalization perspective. Brownfield redevelopment projects can receive funding through local governments from numerous other federal agencies if the project qualities. Assistance for economic development, housing rehabilitation , public facilities, and large - scale physical development projects is 47 provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The applicable programs include the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and the Community Development Bl ock Grant (CDBG) Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. The CDBG program is a revenue sharing program where funds are allocated to states, cities, and projects on an as - needed basis considering that they meet federal priorities. Assistance for public works an d Development Administration , and assessment, cleanup, and community revitalization in rural areas is supported by Rural Development funds from the US Department of Agr iculture. Other Finally, tax related funding mechanisms include tax ince ntives, tax increment financing (TIF) , brownfield federal tax credits, and state tax credits for remediation that may be extended or doubled (Goodstein at al. , 2011). With these mechanisms, t axes paid on property income or sale are commonly reduced or defe rred. In general, tax incentives are a function of the state and local governments and will be further discussed in the succeeding section. 3.4 Michigan and Local Financial aid and incentives for brownfield redevelopment are provided by state governments , mostly thro ugh voluntary cleanup programs. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) initiates and oversees state - funded cleanup through the Cleanup and Redevelopment Program (CRP) where the financially viable liab le person cannot be identi fied. However, the program was originally geared towards sites where immediate action was ne eded and the contamination posed the most significant risks to human health and the environment. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program accompanies CRP to mat ch 48 federally funded cleanup at Superfund sites. While funding from these programs is beneficial, it was is applicable to many brownfield sites in Michigan . M any do not participate in the Superfund program and may not be considered a facility since brownfie lds may or may not be contaminated according to the definition in Michigan. To level the playing field between brownfield and greenfield sites, MDEQ reinvented the program to offer grants and loans explicitly to Michigan local units of government, brownfi eld redevelopment authorities , or other public bodies created pursuant to state law, including state - funded schools and universities to offset costs for remediation and redevelopment (Midtown Detroit, Inc., 2015). Th e funding originates directly from speci fic revenue streams targeted to brownfield redevelopment efforts rather than from state general funds (Jones & Welsh, 2010). T he properties eligible are sites or facilities with known contamination or properties with redevelopment potential and suspected c ontamination. Numerous activities that include evaluations and assessments, plan preparation, remedial actions, and demolition are eligible for funding (MDEQ, 2013 b ). Local units of government must apply for the funding with an eligible project. The Brownf ield Redevelopment Gran t and Loan Application reveals evaluation criteria that include: the potential economic benefit to the community, the environmental benefit, and local support. The application asks about how many jobs are created, the amount of commi tted private conditions of the surrounding neighborhood, and if the project demonstrates recognized planning and design principles. A d ditional information on MDEQ fu nding and the evaluation process was revealed through the interview conducted to gather insight on the Utica Community Complex. The 49 interviewee shared the following information. MDEQ significantly evaluates the financial aspects of the project , considers t he appropriateness of the use for the land, and ensures that the project has a committed developer with local government support an d will definitely be developed . I n order to qualify for a grant, the project must have a committed developer and the total ex pected economic benefit for the community (job creation, private investment, and/or property tax increase) must be greater than the amount of the grant . Without a committed developer, t he project could receive a loan rather than a grant if the site has eco nomic redevelopment potential. T here is more flexibility in evaluating the creation of jobs and other community benefits with loans . Nevertheless, communities are increasingly hesitant to take them. In general, MDEQ funding programs emphasize the public fo cus on involving the private in a public - private partnership by lessening the burden of investment in projects that create jobs and increase tax revenue . The Utica Community Co mplex projec t reveals the recognition of community outcomes in the evaluation of funding . Although t he and Loan application demonstrates a private investment of $12 million , local government support, and the creatio n of 110 jobs ( 20 full - time and 90 part - time) , it was approved in part because it demonstrated si gnificant place - making benefits . Moreover, t he project highlights some funding restrictions. MDEQ is prohibited from providing grants for professional baseball stadiums . While t he Utica Community Complex includes community space and a stadium for a minor league baseball team, the project is still restricted to only loan funding. Besides, i t is important to note that MDEQ can only provide grants and loans to loca l units of government. Therefore, a local unit of government must be 50 willing to take on the risk of the loan. MDEQ is finding that m any are hesitant to do so regardless of what and where t he development will be because if the developer defaults, the unit o f government is still responsible for paying it back to the state of Michigan . The loans are not forgivable and according to the law, MDEQ can withhold revenue sharing. In the case of the Utica Community Complex, since th e city of Utica was not willing, Ma comb County took the $1 million loan with development agreements or reimbursement agreements with the developer in place. The loan was used for waste removal, methane mitigation and monitoring systems, a perimeter monitoring system, contact barriers, utili ty engineering controls, storm water management, and installing a deep foundation system . The options to leverage funding are somewhat limited. T hrough some programs, local units of government can receive numerous state grants and loans . For instance , a pr oject can receive both a Brownfield Redevelopment Grant and a Brownfield Redevelopment Loan in the same year (MDEQ, 2015). However, the local unit of government may only receive one grant and one loan from MDEQ up to $1 million each, per year. T his challen ges local units of government to determine which one project they want to pursue with thes e extra public funds each year. For many other programs, the funds cannot be combined. A property is not eligible for a Site Reclamation Grant if it is receiving othe r state cleanup funds. State cleanup funds provide free site assessments for approximately seven sites depending on the assessment cost and availability of funds through the Brownfield Redevelopment Assessment Program. It has become co mmon practice to cond uct Level One Assessments on all property prior to purchase or redevelopment to determine the possibil ity of contamination. T hese assessments are relatively low cost, but if the likelihood of contamination is found t o be high, a very costly Level Two Asses sment must be conducted. MDEQ has 51 received funding for the program that eliminates these costs through a federal grant. Local units of government, governmental agencies, and non - for - profit community development agencies can apply potential sites for the pr ogram. Th e purpose of the assessment is to enhance cleanup and redevelop programs by identifying contaminated properties that may need to be remediated prior to development, and provide a preliminary basis for further evaluation. During completion of the a ssessment, information and environmental samples are collected to determinate contamination levels, and recommendations for cleanup and redevelopment are determined (MDEQ, 2011). Properties are more likely to receive the free assessment if a proposed or ac tive redevelopment pr oject is in place (MDEQ, 2011). P roperties proposed for public use are accepted, but private redevelopment projects are a higher priority. Like with federal funding, brownfield projects can receive state funding from other public agenc ies not directly associated with brownfields. Considering programs , which fund remediation activities but not actually redevelopment efforts , some of these funds have specific restrictions . Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) i communities. MEDC efforts have increased private investment, created jobs, and encouraged cleanup and improvements of brownfield conditions at sites throughout the s tate (Midtown Detroit, Inc., 2015). The projects that are selected for MEDC funding programs are expected to have positive local and regional impacts, promote a traditional downtown (dense, walkable, mixed - use, and sustainable), and demonstrate financial n eed (MEDC, 2015 a ). Under the Core Communities program (Core Communities Fund) from 2000, incentives were put in place to target urban aging communities in Michigan, enabling brownfield tools to be used on blighted and functionally obsolete sites as well as on contaminated properties (MEDC, 2015 a ). A n 52 economic and financial consideration for prioritizing candidate projects is that the project (state and federal fundi a ). This criterion indeed prioritizes projects that have received private funding through a public - private partnership . In regards to tax incentives, Michigan Public Act 381 and OPRA previously mentioned are directed towa rds brownfields. They provide tax incentives that freeze local property taxes for up to 12 years, exempt all real property improvements from local property tax, and exempt one - half of the school millage for up to six years (Midtown Detroit, Inc., 2015). To qualify for the d by the state. T his program has limited availability and certificates are only being issued until December 31, 2016. There are other tax incentives not g eared towards brownfield redevelopment explicitly , but for which a brownfield project could qualify. Consider Personal Property Tax Relief in Distressed Communities (PA 328 of 1998). Businesses can have personal property taxes abated on new investment for projects such as: manufacturing, mining, research and development. Funding is also available for projects in rural and urban low - income communities through the New Markets Tax Credit Program through the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Go odstein et al., 2011). Nonetheless, t ax incentives are directed towards private investment since only private entities pay property taxes. The tool tax increment financing (TIF) is increasingly used by local governments to fund infrastructure improvements . TIF is a function of local government where future property tax revenue is used to finance the redevelopm TIF incentives to reimburse developers for activities that prepare sites for redevelopment. Activities that prepare si tes for redevelopment include but are not limited to : baseline environmental assessments, due 53 care activities, additional response activities, lead or asbestos abatement, demolition, site preparation, and public infrastructure improvements (Detroit Economi c Growth Corporation, 2008). Eligible properties for , and have commercial, industrial, public, or residential prop erties and are one of the following: 3.5 European Union In Europe, funding for brownfield redevelopment is available from the EU . Brownfield redevelopment proje cts in Europe are eligible for European Structural and Inv estment Funds (ESIF). T he funds originate at the EU level and are distributed and managed by national and regional authorities who choose projects that meet certain priorities (Thornton et al., 2007 ). The thematic objectives that support growth for 2014 - 2020 focus on technology, environmental protection and climate change, transportation, employment, social welfare, education, and public administration (European Commission, 2015). The funds include: European Fund for Regional Development (EFRD), Joint Initiative for Urban Sites (URBAN II), and Joint Initiative for Trans - European Cooperation (INTERREG III) (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). Specific projects such as the TIMBRE project (Tailored Impr ovement of Brownfield R egeneration in Europe), are EU - funded (Alexandrescu et al. , 2014). The TIMBRE project explores innovative solutions for overcoming barriers that prevent the reuse of large and complex contaminated sites. The Phoenix - See project in D ortmund received EFRD funds to supplement local, state, and federal investment in the project because it fit within the EU scope of thematic objectives promoting regional development. EU funds, which may reimburse for between 50% and 80% of the investment, are only distributed after the project is finished ( J. Woelki, personal 54 communication, October 26, 2015). This model supports projects with alternative investment from local, state, and federal units of government that are funding the redevelopment. L i ability standards impact the availability of European funds since t he EU holds m ember states responsible for identifying the person liable for contamination. According to EU standards, aid cannot be granted when a person or party is identified (Thornton, 2 007). If the person or party responsible cannot be identified, the cost of remediation less the increase in land value can be 100% financed by state aid (Vanhuesden, 2009). Considering EU directives and decisions are not necessarily binding, standards are not in place for member states to direct the distribution of own public funding for redevelopment projects . This is determined at the national level and varies by EU member state. T he Netherlands , for example, has limitations on publicl y funded projects based on use . B rownfield improvement initiatives through public fund s are not geared towards the re use of land for residential or other uses ( Ploegmakers & Beckers, 2014). Examples of regeneration initiatives funded by municipalities include impr ovements to infrastructure, public investments, relocating activities, and demolishing vacant buildings to promote redevelopment ( Ploegmakers & Beckers, 2014). These approved funded activities are similar to those in the US. Germany on the other hand , does not have these restrictions. Besides providing funds, t he role of the EU is to offer funding recommendations. In a recent Science for Environment Policy report (2013), the European Commission encourages local governments to evaluate innovative funding mec hanisms for urban brownfield regeneration. The mechanisms include public - private p artnerships, Land Value Finance (LVF), Urban Development Funds, and Impact Investment Funds. LVF refers to a program similar to tax increment financing, tax relief or specifi c property tax. An example of what is called Urban Development F unds is revolving funds ; a fiscal mechanism similarly used in the US . Impact 55 form of a balanced in p. 9). Although the EU does not offer these funds, they are approaches that could be applied in any member state. 3.6 Germany In Germany, f unds are provided by the federal government and federal states through support programs for brownfields , which are often combined . It is worth noting that land purchases and building renovations on brownfields receive aid comparable to those received by new construction projects on greenfields (Fed eral Environmental Agency, 2005). The measures for which this aid is available for brownfields is complicated by the need for both below soil and above soil funding (City of Stuttgart, 2012). As explained in the previous chapter, since policy programs sepa rate contaminated soil from brownfields, contaminated soil has specific funding options . The main programs that apply to brownfields originate from the Office of Urban Planning and Renewal and the Office of Environmental Protection (City of Stuttgart, 201 2). Approved activities include: marketing and redevelopment concepts, urban planning, detection of contamination and cleanup, demolition of buildings and facilities, development, building renovation, assurance and project management, and real estate purch ases and the management of property (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). By improving the competitiveness of brownfields, the federal and community support programs encourage urban development. Additionally, funding is available through Urban Conversion E ast or Urban Conversion West programs which finance economic development. Other support programs include: state contamination cleanup and urban development programs; support for special purposes such as 56 the write - off of monuments or promotion of culture; a nd research, development, and demonstration projects (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). Lastly, funds are allocated by state governments through property funds such as th e North Rhine - Westphalia fund described earlier. 3.7 Ruhr Region and Local In g eneral, brownfield redevelopment in Germany has a history of not being limited by a offered access to a large rotating superfund for brownfield redevelopment fr om the feder al government (Kunzmann, 2004). B rownfield re development fits within city action plans that are funded to promote urban re development . For example, in Dortmund, the Aktionsplan Soziale Stadt is funded to develop the less developed third of the This program also funds infrastructure improvements, supports job growth, develops missing community assets, offsets costs for home improvement, and takes steps to correct social inequalities. To encourage public or private developmen t agencies or companies to redevelop contaminated sites and quicken the pace of cleanup, it is common for local public brownfield authorities or the local unit of government in Germany to cover some or all of the investigation and cleanup costs (Federal En vironmental Agency, 2005). This is done e ven though liability is primarily assigned to the polluter or property owner to fund the remediation of the c ontaminated property . In the Phoenix - See project, the city of Dortmund purchased the land for a public sub Th e developer received additional public funds from the city of Dortmund, the Land, the federal Bundestag, and the EU to remediate the soil contamination, construct the lake, commercial buildings, roads, walking paths, and public space . Then the land s and building space s were sold to private entities. When the project was 57 finished, the city obtained ownership and oversight of the lake, roads, walking paths, and public space , some of which can be seen in Fi gure 4 below . The proceeds from the property sales to private entities, combined with the proceeds from the sale of the old steel mill equipment went to the public developer to offset development costs (J. Woelki, personal co mmunication, October 26, 2015). Figure 4 . Lake and Public Space at Phoenix - See The Phoenix - See project is an example of a primarily l ocal public redevelopment project with significant private investment in the new use . In general, t he public sector typically f inances the strategic planning and management of brownfield projects, and the characterization and remediation, possibly with supplementary city, region, or state funding assistance. The costs of revitalization and reintegration are traditionally covered b y the private sector, although they may also be supplemented with additional funding mechanisms (City of Stuttgart, 2012). This public - private partnership model is discussed below. 58 3.8 Discussion In both the US and Germany, the public sector is involved in brownfield redevelopment to increase the competitiveness of previously developed land compared to greenfields. Federal and state governments and agencies in both countries offer grants and loans for which brownfield redevelopment projects may qualify. Some are intentionally directed towards the remediation of contaminated property and redevelopment of vacant and derelict land, and others have a broader application. Grants and loans with economic development, environmental, or urban re development objecti ves may not necessarily exclude brownfield projects; given that they meet the qualification criteria. The level of involvement of the public sector in the market is reflective of overall political values. Since the US is more focused on private property, p rivate capital, and the private market; intervention in the private market is not justified (Schmidt & Buehler, 2007). Therefore, development is currently dependent on market based adaptive reuse strategies that require private or not - for - profit investors, developers, and stewards (Ryan and Camp, 2012). When public sector intervention is justified, it is to correct market failure and promote economic development. This possibly explains the history of brownfield re development approaches which focus on econom ic development goals over social, environmental, and public issue goals. Since German policy has been long focused on urban redevelopment and reuse, public fundin g has been a priority. It is generally accepted that the role of the government is to interven e in the private market to achieve specific holistic goals. When there are market imperfections, the government steps in to correct the situation by cleaning land and creating demand. When the market does not exist, the public sector creates public reuse p rojects including temporary use, event space, and museums. The budget for brownfield redevelopment projects 59 traditionally originates mainly from public - sector budgets with some private investment in the final product . In the US, funding priority is given to p rojects with private investment . Regardless that f ederal and state funds are prov ided to local governments, they are intended for projects with private partners. Financing through public - private partnerships seems to be the common practice. In general, a public - private partnership describes cooperation between the private sector and the public sector to accomplish a shared goal. The relationship may take the form of a leader - follower, buyer - seller relationship or a joint venture partnership, and the fin ancing structure differs depending on the project. Since the availability of public financial resources is very limited, this financing is actually a necessity for redevelopment based on the current system in the US . In Germany on the other hand, funding p rograms typically do not require private investment and may even finance rede velopment projects in entirety. Despite this historical commitment to public funding, research suggests that public - private partnerships are gaining in popularity in Germany (Fe deral Environmental Agency, 2005). Publi c - private partnerships in the country occur in the form of: public investment to encourage private investment and create legal and planning conditions that favor private investmen t, or the municipality develops proje cts in collaboration with private partners through subsidiary companies (Stadt Dortmund, 2004). For example, the Zeche Gneisenau coal mine in Dortmund - Derne was a public - private partnership to create urban housing with childcare, recreation areas, and empl oyment opportunities in a craft and services secto r. Funding for the urban redevelopment project was divided at 51% from the city of Dortmund and 49% from the mining company (Stadt Dortmund, 2004) . In a ddition, the NRW URBAN is an institution financed by public and private money. It is a state - owned company for city and neighborhood 60 development that provides support in planning, marketing, remediation, and construction to local governments for brownfield redevelopment or land recycling projects. Based on a n a nalysis, it is evident that a goal of public funding practices in both countries is to encourage and leverage private funds. Encouraging and leveraging private funds is accomplished by streamlining the local redevelopment process, through public - private partnerships , and by using public funds to invest in infrastructure improvements to stimulate private investment. A significant part of this is attracting private development. In Michigan the Redevelopment Ready Communities program is a certification prog With MEDC aid, communities are encouraged to write clear redevelopment master plans, conduct community assessments, make the local redevelopment review process easy for develo pers, and market brownfield sites. However, participation in the program does not necessarily decrease costs to clean the land and soil if it is contaminated or guarantee that the local government will cover the costs . As previously mentioned, it is more c ommon for local governments in Germany to clean the soil and land first to attract developers. Clean, greenfield equivalent land remove s liability concerns and the risk of potential contamination. Since it is known that providers of equity become more inte rested as the property gains value from steps towards redevelopment such as cleanup, removing the contaminants eases their liability fears . In Michigan, MDEQ has cleaned property for developers and local units of government, but only after the project subm itted a Brownfield Redevelopment Gran t and Loan Application that demonstrated commitment from a developer . In the Utica Community Complex, MDEQ completed over $7 00, 000 of waste removal on both the east and west parcels . The Surface Water Quality Initiative Funds were used to remove environmental contaminants that threatened the 61 Clinton River ( M. Ba kun, personal co mmunication, October 21, 2015). The work was completed within the scope of the public - private partnership. Figure 5 . West Parcel of Utica Community Complex Site A challenge of a private - sector market focus for brownfield redevelop ment is that the private sector actors soug ht for investment are mostly businesses or developers that would be M any industria l sites are abandoned because previous resident companies relocated, abandoned the site, may have gone bankrupt, or no longer exist . It is less common for brownfield redevelopment initiatives to involve the previous site owner or tenant in the US; although it has been done before. T he redevelopment of a large steel plan in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania was successful in part due to the financial investment of the company prior to its filing for bankruptcy (Rastorfer, 2015). After the Bethlehem Steel Corporation c los ed its 1,800 - acre plant in 1997 the corporation , with headquarters still operating from an office in Bethlehem , hired a team of professional planners, engineers, and attorneys to develop a master plan for the site. The company then invested $40 million remediating the environmental contamination and 62 preparing the site for redevelopment. Combined with the development of a 20 - year tax increment federal age - private partnership created an environment favorable for redevelopment after Bethlehem Steel filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its assets were liquidated (Rastorfer, 2015). Many public - private part nerships are centered around public investment in infrastructure improvements. This is commonly accomplished with the creation of a TIF district. In the Bethlehem Steel redevelopment project, the city used future revenues of the industrial park district an d future casino - generated revenues to construct streets, create parking, install utility lines and related municipal infrastructure, and develop public space to merge areas of the site, inclu ding a greenway. The site is now home to a casino resort, the Bet hlehem Works entertainment and commercial campus, a visitor center, and Bethlehem Commerce Center (Rastorfer, 2015). Whereas t he above project created many jobs, the use of TIF financing tool , which uses future tax revenue that otherwise would not have be en created, highlights the public sector focus on economic stimulus. A focus exclusively on economic development can result in numerous challenges in regards to securing funding. Since fund allocation is determined by economic development potential , number s determine funding priority. There is significant evaluation in the number of jobs created and local tax benefits, and intensive (and costly) feasibility studies are completed to demonstrate that the project is profitable . Therefore, architectural, develo pment, or business consulting firms (the private sector) are commonly drivers of development . They invest money and expect a short to medium investment buyback period (Kunzmann, 2004). In Germany, project s are led and implemented by the public sector local government (working with 63 a local or regional public developer) , interest groups, or occasionally competitions or concepts , and the investment buyback period is medium to long (Kunzmann, 2004). There is also less evaluation of feasibility and less pressure to demonstrate significant financial gains . For instance , the successful IBA Emscher Park Initiative did not include feasibility studies (Kunzmann, 2004). purchase the industrial land and structures. A public - private foundation was then established to maintain the structures and fund the development projects. It is worth highlighting that the state government of North Rhine - Westphalia has invested a significant amou nt of money over the life of the IBA Emscher Park Initiative project (over US $2 billion) (Kunzmann, 2004). Since the city of Dortmund invested heavily in Phoenix - See, the project was evaluated in regards to fiscal and economic decisions, as well as s ocial , ecological, and sanitary goals among others (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). The other challenges to securing funding revolve around the limited grant programs that cover specific activities, and the complicated application process . The information gathered for this research does not reveal the complexity of the application process in Germany. In the US, Federal and state funding through grants is limited and subject to change since many programs have deadlines or maximum award amou nts. For example, funding for the Site Assessment Fund Grant of 1989 ($10 million) was exhausted by 2010. Even when funds are available, s ecuring brownfield funding from available grants in the US is not an easy task. T he procedure to apply is complicated by strict timelines and m any find the practice of determining funding source, approved activities, and overall process to be confusing and frustrating (American Planning Association, 2010). The MDEQ, on the other hand, does not think that the process i s li miting redevelopment (M. Ba kun, personal communication, October 21, 2015). Since each grant or loan 64 can only cover specific activities, funding could come from many different places . It is time consuming to even find the public funding for which a brownfie ld project may qua lify. Specific funds are available to cover environmental assessment, plan preparation, demolition, and site or building improvements. In Germany the funds cover additional activities such as research, marketing and developing concepts, a nd purchasing or managing real estate. The availability of these funds suggest that they incentivize groups to be innovative in redevelopment and provide capital to get projects off the ground. In the US, f inding the funding, going through the application procedure , and being notifie d about being awarded the funds does not guarantee that funding is available at the right time. Depending on the sou rce, g rant money may not be received at the begi nning of the project. T he Michigan Community Revitalization Pro gram issues numerous means of economic assistance, but funds are not distributed until the project is verified as complete (MEDC, 2015 b ). Since this would not help organizations lacking fiscal capacity with starting projects, it does not encourage them to undertake redevelopment projects . In general, US federal or state funding directly applicable to brownfields is directed towards the most contaminated sites that pose the highest threat to human health and the environment. This fun ding for environmental remediation trickles down from the top; from federal agencies, to state agencies, to local governments. The USEPA only funds the worst sites and does not regulate cleanup outside the Superfund program. State agencies directly fund cleanup at the most conta minated sites; although they regulate cleanup of local brownfields and may receive some funding from federal programs. Nevertheless, the funding does not fit with in a greater top - down framework as i t is geared towards environmental remediation or econo mic development goals. Also, much of the funding, in the form of grants and loans, is retroactive. 65 Project ideas originate from the private sector who apply for funding through a local unit of government. The local units of government receive funding from larg er levels of government if the project demonstrates a committed private developer and significant economic benefits. P roject ideas have be gun to originate from the community as residents and local agencies becomes increasingly involved in redevelopment to meet local goals . Brownfield r edevelopment projects are being increasingly initiated by community - based organizations (CBOs) or community development corporations (CDCs). Due to the structure today, these groups must seek funds from public and private enti ties (American Planning Association, 2010). The organizations are challenged with finding funding since it is not aligned within a greater framework of similar national or state goals , and priority is given to private projects . In G ermany, the funding and goal framework align from the top down to encourage development that originates from local units of government and agencies . Finally, in a market where funding for brownfield redevelopment is driven by the private sector, practices lack government oversi ght. Only with the allocation of public funds in public participation is citizen involvement a priority . In the US, the level of public participation depends on the local government, private developer, and type of project. To qualify for Michigan state and federal level programs and grants, the local municipality must be involved. The lengthy process includes public hearings, MEDC approval, the completion of numerous applications, and intense evaluation. In Germany there is a formal pro cess that follows est ablished planning regulation procedures to ensure c itizen involvement. In general, for redevelopment projects the local unit of government is required to present the plans to the public, invite residents by letter to provide public comment within two to fo ur weeks, and adjust the plans accordingly (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). The other key part of public participation is the 66 involvement of numerous institutions and public groups with different focuses and goals to provide comment a nd evaluate renewal projects. It could be argued that recent successful projects in the US involve levels of public involvement higher than the norm. that public involvement is positive regardless that it provides local op position with an opportunity to prevent brownfield redevelopment. In recent years, citi zens have begun taking an active role in projects, forming c Even when the community is highly involved though, when private investment is driving redevelopment, the public may be forced to compromise in terms of th e resulting land use. C ommunity residents in Bethlehem decided that they would rather the Bethlehem works site be developed th an left abandoned, even though they opposed the development of a casino over a national museum of indust rial history (Rastorfer, 2015). The private developer was able to develop according to a use that they found to have potential to be profitable, regardl ess of other community goals. 3.9 Conclusion I n the US, current role in brownfield redevelopment is to incentivize private investment by offering grants and loans. The financial awards that favor projects that demonstrate economic de velopment are given to local units of government for redevelopment projects with a committed developer. The limitations in a vailable funding that covers very specific redevelopment activities, and the complicated process to receive funding that does not fi t within a broad framework of goals and priorities , may not be encouraging redevelopment to its highest potential. Navigating the path to find funding requires a skill set beyond that of the 67 average community planner, nonprofit organization, local develope r, or community group; from whom many community asset project ideas originate. The most significant difference between the US and Germany in terms of funding revolves around political motives and business decisions. The market in the US is driven by the p rofit margin in the consideration of both private and public spending. This is evident by the evaluation process to receive public brownfield funding and the lack of public and private investment in reuse efforts in urban areas where demand is low. In Germ any, the accomplishment of community goals and objectives takes priority over the financial gains. The goal of public spending for public sector projects is more or less to break even rather than make a profit. Redevelopment in the US could benefit from the allocation of public general funds from the federal government for the adaptive reuse of brownfields to encourage equitable redevelopment in urban areas. If so, there would need to be a change in political outlook to provide funding even though the inv estment may not provide significant financial gains in profit. Federal and state programs could also be implemented and funded to research strategies and models for the successful conversion of contaminated, vacant, and derelict land to community assets. I f the grant and loan funding mechanisms are going to remain in place, local government agencies would benefit from an education program to learn about the opportunities available and help navig ate the public funding process. Further, state and l ocal govern ments should strategically use public funds to influence market dynamics and create a model for fully funded brownfield projects. Funding for cleanup and infrastructure improvements should be proactively allocated so that local municipalities can take an a ctive role in improving the competitiveness of brownfields within their borders and creating community assets. 68 CHAPTER 4: Misconceptions About Brownfield R edevelopment 4.0 Introduction This final chapter discuss es the common misconcept ions that c an potentially limit public investment in brownfield redevelopment in Michigan . Each myth is identified and t hen addressed through a discussion of approaches in the U nited S tates and German y . The misconceptions may only be applicable in Michigan, as the st atements made here that correct them only reflect a small sample of a complex picture. Examples from the Utica Community Project and Phoenix - See case studies are use d to support the arguments made . The chapter concludes with recommendations for how the pub lic sector can trade these myths for truths. 4.1 Myth: The costs of brownfield redevelopment outweigh the benefits. Although the costs associated with brownfield redevelopment vary by project, in general it is very expensive to convert contaminated, vac ant, or derelict land to a community asset. Despite the costs, the benefits of doing so are great. Public investment projects can have noteworthy environmental, economic, and social benefits. The creation of community assets on remediated brownfield proper ty improves the environment, enhances communities, and increases From an environmental perspective, brownfield redevelopment reduces pollution in urban areas to promote public health and wellness. Lead (paints) and other heavy metals , arsenic, gasoline, diesel fuels, solvents, acids, polychlorinated bi - phenols (PCBs), pesticides, asbestos, and hydrocarbons from fuel leaks are among the contaminants found on brownfield sites (Adelaja et al. , 2010 ; Americ an Planning Association, 2010). This contamination threatens the health of residents living within a close proximity. The toxic pollution has been found to cause serious health complications, specifically among children and the elderly after exposure to or by 69 of contaminated brownfields in urban areas and a high concentration of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in inne r - city areas. Therefore, socioeconomic ally disadvantaged groups Remediating a contaminated property removes toxins from the environment that threaten the health of community residents. The USEPA emphasizes that brownfield re development can result in greenfield development pressure relief, air quality improvements, and a reduction of natural habitat destruction (Goodstein et al., 2011). Aside from redeveloping brownfields to spare greenfields, brownfields can be redeveloped to green or open space. Green space is considered a public asset in Germany. Although the Phoenix - See project d id not necessarily create green space, it did significantly change the landscape of the previously industrial area in Dortmund. The removal of the steel mill equipment and the heaps of contaminated soil created a valley with trees and a lake to support wildlife. Without the massive equipment blocking the view out the window of homes, residents can enjoy scenic open space. Studies advocate the health and well - being benefits of open or green space to include: increasing property value and quality of life if near residential areas, providing a natural environment for children to play and learn, and presenting an opportunity for creative temporary uses (H offmann, Gruehn, & Ziegler - Hennings, 2010). Green space redevelopment projects in Toronto, Canada demonstrated improved soil quality, the creation of habitats for plants and wildlife, the enhancement of recreation opportunities, and neighborhood economic r evitalization (De Sousa, 2003). In the US, converting brownfields to green space has not been a recent practice. However, vacant land has a history of being repurposed as green space. Follow ing the Great 70 Depression, count y governments in Michigan, Minnesot a, and Wisconsin became the owners of thousands of acres of land after the land owners faced tax delinquency, foreclosure, and abandonment. The land was bought by the state and federal governments and has become the six national forests and numerous state forests to benefit the local residents and visiting guests (Skidmore, 2013). The most recent area of research explores brownfield redevelopment from a community benefit approach to convert the site to a community asset. De Sousa highlights that the communi of neighborhood aesthetics, enhancement of the sense of community and place, and preservation of historically - aboration and 194). This alternate approach is supported by APA and is an increasingly popular topic of discussion among planning professionals. Resulting from a US Environmental Protection Agency grant, in 2010 APA released REUSE: Creating Community - Based Brow nfield Redevelopment Strategies to guide brownfield redevelopment efforts in the US . In addition, brownfield redevelopment offers psychological benefits for community residents that live in urban areas of concentrated vacant sites and buildings. These abandoned and damaged buildings are considered blight or urban decay. Psychological research has found that residents become distressed by blight and crime , as both lead to a feeling of loss of control (Greenberg & Lewis, 2000). The redevelopment of contaminated, vacant, and derelict land has been found to reduce blight, improve the quality of the neighborhoo d, protect publi c health and safety, and ease s stress (G reenberg & Lewis, 2000; Adelaja et al., 2010). The reduction of stress through blight removal for residents is particularly imperative in communities with high 71 unemployment rates such as Michigan and the Ruhr r egion, where the challenges of meet ing their needs may already be severely stressful. Specific benefits that result from brownfield redevelopment may vary by community considering individual community needs; as revealed in case study research. A redevelopment project to build renewable ener gy production could have economic and environmental benefits in a community (Adelaja et al., 2010). A brownfield - to - greenhouse project highlight s how brownfield redevelopment can help achieve holistic community development goals such as a more just and sus tainable food system (Seamon, 2014 ). The Utica Community Complex is providing community space for recreation and picnic activities on the site, and is part of a larger project to improve neighborhood connectivity through pathways and trails for walking, hi king, and biking (M. Bakun, personal co mmunication, October 21, 2015). Construction of the stadium can be seen in Figure 6 below, across the street from a pathway along the Clinton River. Figure 6 . Pathway Along Clinton River in Utica, MI 72 Furthermore, b rownfields can provide opportunities for cities to redevelop history through industrial heritage tourism. By returning brownfield sites to historic conditions and adding educational and experiential elements, a city could draw visi tors, stimulate the tourism industry, and celebrate their previous success. Overall, t his research does not identify the specific costs of remediation and redevelopment or assign values to the benefits identified. Instead, it highlights the significant ben efits of investment in a community via brownfield redevelopment benefits that contribute to neighborhood revitalization and quality of life improv ements for community residents. 4. 2 Myth: Greenfield development is more economical than brownfield redevelo pment. Many developers consider greenfield development to be more economical than brownfield re development. With conventional development, previously undeveloped land, typically farmland or op en space on the urban periphery is built up. Developers do no t have to remediate contaminated land, tear - down buildings, remove aging infrastructure, or inherit the risks associated with contamination liability. In the US, subsidies a nd the readily available financing for projects without risks and liabilities furth er encourage suburban development. As the city develops outward at a decreasing density , public services and infrastructure are extended , utility lines are lengthened , and longer and wider roads are constructed at the expense of the municipality. The publi c perceives cost savings from access to les s expensive real estate, lower property taxes, and lower public service costs that result from less demand (Burchell & Mukherji, 2003). Therefore, developers, private investors , and landowners perceive greenfield development or sprawl to be more profitable than brownfield re development (De Sousa, 2000). To consider the economic benefits of brownfield redevelopment, the costs associated with sprawl that typically fall on local units of government and the public mus t be considered . 73 The costs of sprawl include : expenses relat ed to the expansion of water, sewer , and local road infrastructure; increased public service costs ; and transportation - related expenses associated with decreased densitie s. As residents and busine sses develop, municipalities must build new infrastructure to serve the public , however, at decreasing densities, these costs are proportionately higher . When daily activities including work, school, and home are geographically farther apart, especially in American suburbs that lack public transportation, it is more expensive and time consuming for the public to travel between them. Since transportation at greater distances is more expensive for companies to transport goods, the prices that consumers must p ay for products increases as well. Decentralized development in general has been found to incur public costs related to a negative effect on environmental and human health. Increased emissions of pollutants from automobile travel have been found to exacerb ate global climate change and human health conditions and illnesses. According to literature, a risk factor for a variety of negative public health outcomes is neighborhood - scale air quality affected by motor vehicle emissions (Mansfield, Rodriguez, Huegy, & Gibson, 2015) . There are significant public costs associated with air pollution, one of the ten leading causes of premature death and preventable disease in the world ( Gillings School of Global Public Heal th, Department of Environmental Sciences and Eng ineering, 2015). In a comparison of social costs and benefits between greenfield development and brownfield redevelopment, researchers have found that development in greenfield locations leaves unpaid costs and forgone benefits (Per sky & Wiewel, 1996). Th e redevelopment of b rownfield s, which are traditionally located in urban areas reduces sprawl and the exceeding costs of sprawl. Many cost saving opportunities from the redevelopment of a previously developed site are recognized in Germany. The Federal Env 74 brownfield guidebook highlights the following advantages of brownfield sites over greenfield sites: better location efficiency, increasing property value, less risk of vacancy, decreased construction costs due to available infrastr ucture, savings on ecological compensation measures, financial incentives and support programs, the marketing advantage of historic structures with In the US these advantages ar e not as rea dily recognized. Brownfield re development reduces the exceeding costs of sprawl and can increase profitability for the developer given that they develop on an urban brownfield rather than a greenfield. Bro wnfield redevelopment reduces municipal costs in re gards to infrastructure and the provision of public services. Brownfields offer existing infrastructure (waterway, railway, roads, electricity, drainage, etc.) (Vanhuesden, 2007). The utility pipes have already been laid, and the roads and pathways have al ready been built. Although in the US, many brownfields are generally located near existing, albeit aging infrastructure in urban areas. If the redevelopment of brownfields became regular practice, then infrastructure would not be left to decay for the exte nded length of time as it has been in the past. Regardless, in many cases, the reuse of existing infrastructure can offer a cost - effective and sustainable alternative to the construction of new infrastructure. Consideration of economies of scale at increas ed densities suggests a decrease in local public service costs compared to that at decreased densities (Burchell & Mukherji, 2003). Increased d ensity and infill redevelopment relieves road congestion and the costs in time and money that fall directly on au tomobile commuters for gasoline, car maintenance and traffic collisions, and the related costs of increased travel (Persky & Wiewel, 1996). Partially for this reason, t he development of residential property specifically on a brownfield has been found to be more cost - effective than greenfield development (De Sousa, 75 2000). In addition, r educing automobile and semi - trailer travel time reduces pollution. The increased location efficiency of urban sites and greater density of development means that vehicles are traveling less miles, thus emitti ng less pol lutants. B ro wnfield redevelopment in urban areas ov er greenfield redevelopment reduces pollution emissions including greenhouse gases and the human health and environmental costs associated (EPA, 2014). O verall, since it is known that dens ity in urban areas is cheaper for the public than sprawl, in the long run , redeveloping contaminated, vacant, and derelict land which are located in urban areas is more economical than developing greenfields. 4.3 Myth: Brownfiel d redevelopment is not an effective use of public funds. By definition, something that is effective is successful at producing the desired result. Brownfield sites in the US are commonly redeveloped exclusively for industrial or commercial purposes thro ugh private or public - private funds with the intention of spurring economic growth. As discussed in the earlier chapter on funding, in the US, the focus on the private market does not justify public intervention unless it is correcting market failure and p romoting economic development. Therefore, t he public sector currently encourages private development for economic benefits with a focus on job creation and capitalizes on the private sector to redevelop to maximize profit, divest liability ris ks and costs , and take advantage of the devalued property costs (De Sousa, 2000). It is not uncommon for private developers to conduct a market assessment which suggests a land use and proceed with redevelopment. To help accomplish economic development goa ls, g rants are awarded by the public sector to the projects that create the most jobs and reveal the greatest financial improvements . While brownfield redevelopment with public funds can result in economic development, the public funding approach in the US may not be having the most effective result s. 76 The question of redevelopment brings to light the opportunity for cities with a legacy of previous manufacturing success to reconstruct their former selves by encouraging the development of manufacturing jobs . Research highlights the benefits of economic development efforts based on stimulating the manufacturing industry to aid in the return of manufacturing to central cities (Lester, Kaza, & Kirk, 2013). T o understand the brownfield problem and consider redev elopment, it is important to recognize the social and economic forces that ended the former use (Adams et al., 2009). The history of many of these cities is complicated and contested, as benefits and opportunities were not equally distributed. These cities are challenged with moving forward post - therefore, there is amplified effort in developing something new and converting derelict land to other uses. This research suggests that public funding that encoura ges the creation of manufacturing jobs may not be producing the expected economic development effects. The current public funding model may not be effectively encouraging private development for economic benefits. The challenge is that brownfields typical ly come into ownership by a local government when a landowner abandons a property and defaults on property taxes. The local government then must remediate the contamination or motivate a private developer to do so with the provision of direct incentives (M eyer & Lyons, 2000). These site - specific strategies to promote development have not been as successful as intended since many private developers find it difficult to work with municipally owned brownfield sites due to the competitive bidding process, publi c involvement, negative perceptions of sites located in neglected urban areas, and restrictions of use (Meyer & Lyons, 2000). On the other hand, public funding to convert contaminated, vacant, and derelict land to community assets could be effective at pro ducing e nvironmental and social goals , which are 77 linked to economic development . The significance of these goals is evident by c itizen involvement in projects , which has been found to steer redevelopment initiatives in a dire ction that benefits the public. The land use they prefer may be a different land use than suggested by tudies have found that when asked, people prefer public community assets over commercial and industrial uses (Greenberg & Le wis, 2000). Literature suggests that residents desire recreation and other community service facilities that meet educational and health care needs (Greenberg & Lewis, 2000). Research found that residents in a largely Hispanic census tract neighborhood pre fer play areas and parks, community cultural facilities, and health care facilities over warehouses, factories, and stores (Greenberg & Lewis , 2000 ). Community assets include, but are not limited to: green space and parks, renewable energy space, community gardens, and housing. The Utica Community Complex exemplifies the enhancement of a community asset from a brownfield. Since the city of Utica owned the land for the Utica Community Complex, community events such as festivals, activities, and carnivals we re previously hosted on the contaminated and vacant land. By financially supporting the brownfield redevelopment through a public - private partnership, the public funds are cleaning and improving the community space. There are agreements in place to ensure that the city is able to use the stadium and parking space for about 250 days a year when it is not being used by the baseball league . The public funds are helping the city achieve clean, pleasant community space for an ice skating rink, firework displays, graduation celebrations, recreation opportunities. The project is a significant benefit to the community and the public funding or market intervention to support the project was considered an effective use of funds to accomplish place - making goals. 78 The co ncept to explain the German commitment to market intervention with public funding is Kommunale Daseinsfürsorge or municipal general interest. Public funding decisions in Germany are made according to a doctrine that the municipality must provide everything that a resident would need (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). This seems to extend past simply providing public services and infrastructure to a commitment to develop re that each country and narrow the gap between rich and poor communities emphasize how equity goals are shaping redevelopment. The Phoenix - See project fit s wit hin the Aktionsplan Soziale Stadt, which is a funded program After the coal mine and steel - plant closed in the H ö rde district, many residents in the area were left in the dark shadow of indus trial equipment that littered the landscape but was no longer able to provide financial security. The area struggled from a lack of investment and the social issues associated. The Phoenix - West and Phoenix - See redevelopment project transformed the vacant a nd contaminated land into clean places to live, work, and play. With public funding, the residents that were previously lacking services were provided with new parcels for homes, opportunities for employment, public sp ace, and recreation activities. 79 Figure 7 . Western View of Phoenix - See Research has found that there is a strong correlation between the productive reuse of brownfields and social, environmental, and economic benefits (Malek & Matev , 2014). As demonstrated by b oth the Utica Community Complex and Phoenix - See projects, p ublicly funded brownfield redevelopment can successfully help communities achieve holis tic community development goals . Brownfield redevelopment cleans or contains contaminants in the soil and land , chang es neighborhoods, achieves placemaking goals, and develop s the poorest parts of cities . Therefore, this research supports that brownfield redevelopment is an effective use of public funds because it produces social and environmental benefits, and in direct economic development benefits. 4.4 My th: Public projects do not generate tax revenue . In the US , individuals and businesses pay property tax for real property, including land and improvements to the land to finance local services. The tax may b e levied at state, county, municipal, towns hip, and school district levels; but a majority is collected at the local levels. T he 80 property tax , which is based on a percentage of the assessed value of the property, finance s services such as: the operation of local governments, public education, special infrastructure projects, and police and fire protection. individuals and businesses must pay the property tax. When a public entity owns land, the land is conside red a nontaxable entity and exempt from local property taxes (Jones & Welsh, 2010) . For this reason, local governments prefer traditional private development to receive the property tax benefi ts of increased property value from redevelopment. Although brow nfield redevelopment on publicly owned projects may not directly contribute property tax revenue, research suggests that public projects still lead to an increase of tax revenue in the community . Recent studies support a real and perceived increase in prop erty values surrounding a brownfield site as a res ult of redevelopment (De Sousa et al., 2009; Ploegmakers & Beckers, 2014). Contaminated, vacant, or derelict land usually becomes city owned through the property tax foreclosure process. Rather than only fi nding a private purchaser of the land or when a private purchaser cannot be found, given that improvements to the land could increase property values of surrounding properties, i t is beneficial for the public sector to retain ownership of brownfields and c onvert them to public assets . Since property tax is based on the assessed valu e of the property, as the value increase s , additional property tax revenue is generated and the local tax base increases . B y increasing the property value of surrounding properti es, public projects generate supplementary tax revenue. In general , neighboring property values increase with the removal of vacant and blighted structures, the remediation of environmental contamination, and the provision of parks, pathways, and green sp ace. In a study on surrounding residential values in two similar cities, researchers found a significant increase in values after the completion of brownfield projects and 81 that a majority of stakeholder interviewees believe that redevelopment positively im pacts the value of surrounding residential property (De Sousa et al. , 2009). According to a recent Environmental Protection Program study, after a brownfield site was assessed or cleaned up, there was a 5.1 to 12.8% increase in nearby residential property values (2014). Overall, the EPA study found that property values within a one - mile radius of a cleaned up brownfield site can increase by $0.5 to $1.5 million (EPA, 2014). Ho wever, t ch aracteristics, and the new use, as recently studied by De Sousa, Wu, and Westphal (2009). The properties proximity to roads, water, and employment are considered main factors that influence et al., 2009). Redevelopment projects might not be economically successful in terms of increased value possibly due to their location in generally depressed inner - city areas. The type of redevelopment project indeed impacts value. Stakeholder interviewees tha t participated in their study perceive the greatest impacts on the value of surrounding residential property to be made by residential and park projects; compared to a moderate impact by retail and office projects and a negative effe ct by heavy industry (D e Sousa et al. , 2009). According to the respondents, if a project involves neighborhood residents, is compatible with the community, and meets community goals in relation to jobs, recreation, or housing, it can be more effective at increasing property valu es (De Sousa at al. , 2009). The financing method and use of a public - private partnership dynamic for the redevelopment project supports an increase in tax revenue. Consider p ublic - private partnerships , which can be used to increase expenditures in infrastr ucture in exchange for private investment in the redevelopment project . Public - private partnerships can also take the form of TIF incentives 82 where future property tax revenue that would result from development is used to finance the redevelopment project. The developer pays for development activities and the TIF incentives p rovide reimbursement from property tax revenue that w ould otherwise not be generated. In Utica, s ince the land for the Utica Community Complex is owned by the city and rented for $1 per year by General Sports and Entertainment, the city will not see an increase in property tax from the development or collect TIF . According to the application, t he city is hoping to see ancillary development in the community as a result of this project. The project is proposed as a place - making project that will be a catalyst for entertainment venues. With an increase in visitors to the commercial center, the existing restaurants and shops will benefit from additional patronage. The development of a public c ommunity complex will lead to an increase in sales tax revenue and increase in property tax revenue as neighboring propert ies increase in value (M. Bakun, personal communication, October 21, 2015). Similar to the US, Germa n residents and companies pay prop erty tax and income tax. The publicly funded Phoen i x - See project has and will continue to generate increased tax revenue. The residential properties that were developed were sold to private landowners who are now paying property tax on the properties. T o p revent gentrification and forcing financially constrained residents out of the region, the city is capturing taxes on the original land value rathe r than the increased land value. The upsc ale residential properties are being used to attract wealthy residen ts. Ideally these residents will be attracted to the high quality of life offered by the mixed use community on the lake and will bring their businesses and innovative ideas to the region (J. Woelki, personal communication, October 26, 2015). In the long r un, this will lead to an increase in property tax and income tax revenue. Therefore, as evidenced by practical 83 application in this project and the Utica project, public investment in brownfield redevelopment projects can increase tax revenue in the communi ty. Figur e 8 . Phoenix - See: New Commercial and Residential Spa c e, and a Reminder of the Old Land Use 4.5 Myth: The challenges and barriers to brownfield redevelopment are too complicated to be handled by public agencies . B rownfield r edevelopment projects face numerous challenges and barriers. A ll outcomes are affected by market, environmental, regulatory, administrative, and political con ditions and risks (Howland, 2003 ). There is much uncertainty related to the risk asse ss ment, financing problems, and high costs of insurance due to issues related to contamination . Time is a challenge. T he slowness of the regulatory review process alone has been mentioned to be a significant obstacle (De Sousa, 2000). T he redevelopment proce ss may take years , and it may be numerous years before the full benefits are realized (Jones & Welsh, 2010). Projects require the consideration of funding, collaboration across institutional differences, accountability, and balancing human development and economic goals ( Seamon, 2014). The fear of the unknown regarding the presence of contaminants is real and there is a need for innovation in determining 84 an appropriate reuse for the site. For the project to be successful, c ommunity and political involvement and consensus - b uilding are potential barriers to address (Adelaja et al., 2010). s with the greatest impact on the success of redevelopment projects are community support and consistency with t he master plan. Even though community residents, organizations, and business owners are often the main supporters for brownfield redevelopment, they do not always participate in the process or take ownership of the project . Considering their support is a p otential barrier to the success of the project, on top of all the other barriers, their lack of participation intensifies the challenge . These challenges and barriers are significant, but the German model of public agency involvement in brownfield redevel opment demonstrates they are not insurmountable. Local units of government including cities and agencies work independently within the local authority , par tner with private companies, and form subsidiary groups to oversee small and large - scale brownfield r edevelopment projects in Germany . The Phoenix - See project is an example of such public agency involvement in a project. The city of Dortmund purchased the brownfield propertie s and gave them to a subsidiary of the Dortmunder Stadtwerke AG, the public devel oper Phoenix See Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH. The city was involved in the formation of the agency, plan - making for the redevelopment project, cleanup, and redevelopment. Additionally, in Germany c ontamination assessments are standard practice and city l and registers provide information to minimize the fear of the unknown, and ensure that information is readily available to both public and private developers. S ite passports or certificates are granted to provide detailed information and make brownfield si tes more transparent to developers (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). The document contains essential property data, evaluation and financing, economical type of location, general construction conditions and 85 restrictions, contamination and ground charac teristics. To aid in determining reuse , r edevelopment activities are experimental and non - traditional. Numerous research programs are funded by all levels of government and dedicated to exploring models of public investment in reuse and renewal. Innovative r edevelopment a ctivities include public campaigns to advertise living and working in the city, pilot projects to test new brownfield regeneration concepts, and work tools to aid in the redevelopment process (Federal Environmental Agency, 2005). The IBA Em scher Park Initiative further highlights creativity and innovation in public redevelopment. The regional authority that oversaw the project set specific environmental, social, and cultural goals and principles with a focus on regional modernization , but di d not design all of the projects. P ublic and private developers , and local government agencies participated in a proj ect design competition. The winning projects were unique, creative, and innovative. These examples support that public agencies in Germany are able to overcome the challenges and barriers to brownfield redevelopment. The perception that the challenges and barriers to brownfield redevelopment are too complicated to be handled by public agencies in the US may question the approach to redevelop ment and capacities of public agencies. T he current approach in the US may be hindering the ability of public sector actors to overcome barriers. Similarly, p ublic sector actors could be limited in innovation and entrepreneurial brownfield re development by a lack of national level policies, funds, and incentives and a developed organizational network (Alexandrescu et al., 2014). This could be reflective of the lack of political interest in redeveloping urban cores in the US. According to Short and Mussman ( 2014), the lack of investment in industrial cities in steady decline speaks to the political climate. In addition, f raming brownfield redevelopment as solely environmental remediation could be preventing 86 involvement and consensus - building in the seemingly complicated and technical project. The project seems complicated because very little information on the land, history, contaminants, costs, funding mechanisms, and regulatory process is available. Despite these challenges, s ome public agencies in the US h ave been successful at bringing about change and supporting redevelopment. The Utica Community Complex projec t demonstrates the ability of a public agency to overcome redevelopment challenges. T he city of Utica was the real champion of the project. A proje ct champion is an individual, group of individuals, or organization that is involved in the project from the beginning and sees the project through to successful completion. The city acquired the parcels , retained ownership of the land , demolished the buil ding that was on the property, and pursued a developer for the project . The public agency fought for the project, ensured that their internal regulatory process was not a limiting factor and made development a priority, contacted MDEQ to investigate enviro nmental remediation funding, and involved the community. According to M. Bakun, the city , specifically the Downtown Development Authority , has been cooperative and instrumental in the success of the project so far (personal communication, October 21, 2015) . This example suggests that pu blic agencies in the US can overcome the barriers and challenges to redevelopment by increasing capacity in terms of knowledge, experience, enabling laws and regulations, and community and political involvement. 4.6 Conclusi on T rading the myths identified above for truths in Michigan could promote public investment in brownfield redevelopment. The tangible and intangible benefits of redevelopment for the environment, the residents, and the overall community exceed the costs of redevelopment. These benefits can be recognized by determining measures for evaluation purposes. Local 87 governments and public agencies should begin the brownfield redevelopment process with a community needs assessment that involves local residents to i dentify holistic community goals. Then measures should be determined to recognize benefits to the environment including the amount of green space, improvements to public health and well - being, the enhancement of neighborhood aesthetics, and the creation of a sense of community or place. Assigning values to these benefits would demonstrate their ability to exceed the costs of redevelopment. Recognizing that brownfield redevelopment is more economical that brownfield redevelopment , the redevelopment of prev iously used urban land should be encouraged to save local units of government and the public money. Redirecting greenfield to brownfield redevelopment is a challenge today because local governments are willing to extend city services and infrastructure at less than full cost to the recipient which creates a market for sprawl, people have a personal desire for this development, and policies support the tax deductions of mortgage costs and real estate taxes , and low prices of gasoline (Burchell & Mukherji, 20 03). To capture economic benefits, l ocal governments should charge full cost to extend city services and infrastructure , raise property taxes, and offer incentives for development at greater densities in urban areas to help people and developers realize th e real costs of sprawl. Brownfield redevelopment is an effective use of public funds because it can succ essfully bring about change, help s accomplish holist ic community development goals , and indirectly leads to economic development. The evaluation of the effective use of public funds in brownfield redevelopment should reflect social and environmental goals other than direct economic development. Currently, in the US, public funds are allocated based on the number of jobs that project create and the increa se in property tax revenue that would result from development. As public funding for projects increase, it becomes harder to prove significant economic gains (De 88 Sousa, 2003). Projects that create c possible; as the job multiplier of such a land use is much lower. Therefore, these projects may not be awarded funds. Recognizing that brownfield redevelopment effectively produces social and environmental benefits which are indirectly tied to economic ben efits, funding allocation should include measures of social and environmental development. Brownfield redevelopment also leads to an i n increase in tax revenue. Addressing this myth suggests the need for an evaluation mechanism that recognize s long term ch anges in property, income, and sales tax revenue generated in a community following brownfield redevelopment to defend public investment in such projects. Brownfield redevelopment can be a catalyst for development in a community which would lead to the gen eration of additional tax revenue. Lastly, public agencies in the US could overcome the barriers and challenges to brownfield redevelopment by increasing capacity, altering the development approach, improving political and community involvement, and encou raging innovatio n in redevelopment practices. Making information readily available through programs like the Redevelopment Ready Communities program can help accelerate the planning and approval process and simplify the regulatory process. Local agencies i nterested in undertaking development projects can h ire environmental consultants to assist wi th the redevelopment process. Consultants that a re knowledgeable of environmental remediation, real costs, and financial and incentive pieces are commonly used by private developers. Their aid could increase the success of public agencies with limited knowledge and experience in brownfield redevelopment (M. Bakun, personal communication, October 21, 2015). 89 Increasing capacity could help conquer obstacles. In weak m arkets, to increase the development capacity of public agencies, researchers recommend restructuring the system of community development to enable non - profit developers to reuse vacant, abandoned, and contaminated property with enabling laws and regulation s, strong positive political leadership, the development and empowerment of major city - wide institutions, and positive personal relationships (Dewar, 2009). Aside from developing properties, there are opportunities for nonprofit developers to become involv ed in the reuse of contaminated sites as a facilitator, pre - capacity of agencies such as non - profits, could minimize the challenges and barriers to development in a community. Finally, for public agencies to overcome the community and political involvement and consensus - building barriers to redevelopment, citizen participation should be made a priority. Currently, t he strategies and requirements for public involvem ent in the US differ by city and state , do not guarantee participation or stakeholder involvement, and lack permanent funding for participation efforts (Thornton et al., 2007). This leaves room for improvements. Since community and political involvement an d consensus - building are required for successful brownfield redevelopment, redevelopment projects should ideally be viewed from a less scientific and technical approach than they are currently. Framing the project as a neighborhood revitalization or urban redevelopment initiative with positive benefits for the community encourages involvement and collaboration from members of the community. Research has found that resident participation and ownership of redevelopment projects increase when projects are fram ed this way. There are opportunities for increased public participation in redevelopment projects if the public is involved in the process from the beginning, they feel that the issue is 90 important, they trust the developer, and they perceive a direct benef it to the community (Greenberg & Lewis, 2000; Solitare, 2011). With these changes, successful brownfield redevelopment projects will be attainable for US public agencies. 91 CHAPTER 5 : Conclusion 5.0 Limitations of this Study This study is limited in sco pe due to research design, information availability, and language and geographic boundaries. Since the primary method of research was collecting information from scholarly journals and articles, and existing public documents and records, the study is limit ed by the i nformation available. A s is typ ical of case study research, q ualitative results only consider the contexts of a limited number of projects. Only two projects in two specific locations within two countries were investigated. In addition , language and geographic boundaries limit this international comparison from a practical and contextual standpoint. Research primarily conducted in the US in English via an American IP address to access the internet may have excluded some German sc holarly journals and articles, and existing public documents and records. Finally, although the researcher did visit Phoenix - See and the Ruhr r egion in Germany, extensive time was not spent in the area to de velop a profound understanding. The understandings of the German c ontext and the American context are not equal in this international comparative research. 5.1 Recommendations It is known that the barriers and challenges, both real and perceived, of urban brownfields stem from health concerns from the contaminated soil, the issue of liability, high demolition and remediation costs, policies and regulatory mechanisms, negative social perceptions, financing, additional time and costs added to the development process, uncertainty of future risk, and pressure from competing land - uses (De Sousa, 2003; Adams et al., 2009; Medlen, 2012; Bacot & 92 McKeown (2010) point out that these large barriers may be responsible for the relatively slow pace of brownfield redevelopment in the US, despite the policies, t ools, and incentives in place. This research highlights that these barriers are not solely responsible for the relatively slow pace of brownfield redevelopment in the US. The policies, tools, and incentives in place may not be having the desired effects at stimul ating brownfield redevelopment. The international comparison between the US and Germany suggests that the slow pace of brown field redevelopment in the US is due to numerous factors. It is partially a result of the abundance of land resources which encourage greenfield development over the reuse of previously developed brownfields. In Germany, the population density is 231.25 people per square kilometer, whereas in the US, it is only 33.7 7 according to the U nited N ations . As the land resources to accommodate t he population in Germany became scarce, the societal costs of sprawl increased and created a demand for the productive use of land. Today, l and reuse and redevelopment is a priority f or the German public sector, supported by equitable development goals, strict land use regulations, policies that limit sprawl, and available funding for redevelopment . The demand for land is increasing in the US as value is placed in preserving undevelope d land resources and the adaptive reuse of previously developed land. To explain the slow pace of brownfield redevelopment in the US, specifically in the Midwest, it is also important to recognize the role of the political climate. Short and Mussman (2014 ) attribute the steady decline of industrial cities in the Midwest to a lack of investment in infrastructure, suburbanization, and the difficulties that limit annexation. To increase the pace of brownfield redevelopment, specifically public redevelopment i n the US, this research reveal s the following recommendations. The broad ideas presented here are only reflective of the policies, 93 programs, incentives, funding practices, and misconceptions explored in this research and do not consider the complexities of the federal, state, and local political climate. Consider the carrot and stick model of government intervention in a free market system in relation to the government approach to brownfield redevelopment (Lyons & Hamlin, 2001). The laws related to contamin ated soil have served as sticks to set a minimum standard of behavior and the programs and fiscal incentives that reward private investment , or carrots, have encouraged des irable behavior. Both should now be used to change the brownfield situation in the U S by encouraging urban development and community revitalization, as well as to remedy environmental, economic , and social problems in post - industrial area s . Policies and incentives should encourage the adaptive reuse of all contaminated, vacant, or dereli ct land to redirect growth and development to urban areas. US federal policies could encourage redevelopment on highly contaminated sites or where there is a weak real estate market. They could be used to require or incentivize specific reuses, such as the creation of green space or renewable energy production on brownfields (De Sousa, 2003). Financial incentives could encourage the retention and adequate reuse of buildings and infrastructure on sites or the sustainable reuse of brownfield soil and waste (T hornton et al., 2007). The a vailability of resources including grants and technical assistance could be increased at the national, state, and local levels . At the national level, funds could be made available for equitable redevelopment . At local or region al levels , public sector s should be empowered to take initiative to purchase parcels, remediate the contamination if necessary, and inv est in infrastructure to improve the value of brownfields. Funding should be available to encourage local units of govern ment to proactively increase the competitiveness of brownfields, regardless if there is committed private investment or if the project has a high profit margin . After all, r esearch reveals that public 94 investment in brownfield redevelopment has an urban rej uvenating effect that eases the burdens Government activities such as these laws, policies, programs, and incentives would nudge private activity to perfect the m arket . In post - industrial cities market demand is weak, public services are lacking, and residents are struggling from economic, social, and environmental forces. Even with adjustments, the funding programs may not provide enough of an incentive to change the market since the system is lacking national laws related to land use and development. There could be a need for i ncreas ed government intervention or for the government to take over the market to create demand for previously developed urban land. The go vernment could invest in communities with an abundance of brownfields, provide opportunities for housing, recreation, and employment, and meet community development needs. Contaminated, vacant, and derelict land can be a problem. It can be a social, enviro nmental, and economic problem, but it is indeed an opportunity. If the redevelopment potential of vacant land was recognized when assessing its value and urban development was encouraged, then struggling post - industrial with an abundance of available prope rty would have an extensive urban resource for the future (Pagano & Bowman, 2004). Vacant land and abandoned structures offer potential, the potential for a city to reinvent itself; for community revitalization. It offers opportunities for the creation of a new cit y and for Michigan and the Ruhr r egion to embrace culture, art, industrial heritage, and public space. 5.2 Implications for Planning in the United States This research brings to light the need for changes in public outlook, government policies an d incentives in the US to encourage redevelopment: development that encourages innovative practices to restore usabilit y to land previously used. The hottest topic in urban and regional 95 planning practice today is sustainability, yet r edevelopm ent has not y et been made a priority . Redevelopment that creates community assets should be a priority, a national priority. However, assuming that the current planning, development, and land use system in the US is not going to change , this research suggests numerous implications for planning professionals to encourage brownfield re development at local levels. The American Institute for Certified Planners in the US holds urban and regional planning professionals under a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Under t he Code, planning professionals aspire to the principle of serving the public interest. Planners are responsible for attaining community consensus, and making decisions and taking action to ensure the well - being of the general public. This research suggest s that brownfield According to research , the community consensus is that residents o f urban neighborhoods would support public investment in contaminated, vacant, and derelict land to meet neighborhood revita lization goals . Therefore, it is the job of planning professions to encourage the creation of community assets from brownfields. In the creation of arts, entertainment, sports, culture, and services in post - industrial cities, planners are responsible for p lanning for current residents. While brownfields should be used to create venues that promote development and tourism, plans should begin with community - need assessments to identify how brownfields can be used to accomplish holistic community goals. From a n individual project perspective, it is important to recognize that t here i s not a one - size fits all approach to redevelopment. Local planners should develop customized approach es for project s that encourage public spending and maximize community benefits. Planners are responsible for advancing local public health, safety, and welfare. Redirecting growth would promote these 96 value s by reducing land consumption and encouraging the spending of public dollars on community assets. Since development plans and de cisions are made locally, to encourage brownfield redevelopment, local governments should ensure that appropriate plans are in place. Master plans, zoning ordinances , and regulations should promote redevelopment. Community master plans should have flexible local zoning and reflect local understandings and political culture. Opportunities to e stablish a BRA, develop brownfield plans , and participate in programs such as the Redevelopment Ready Communities program should be taken to encourage redevelopment and attract developers. To incorporate shared goals, the resulting BRA plans should connect to ma ster plans and other local plan s . A detailed inventory of city land that includes a history of uses, contaminants, and other details could complement redevelopmen t plans. While the US lacks a framework for regional planning, local municipalities should take it upon themselves to collaborate at a regional level. Local units of government could partner with neighboring units of government to fund innovation and resea rch in redevelopment strategies and solutions or incorporate county or state goals and objectives in redevelopment plans . It could be the role of the planner to bring these organizations together with local community groups, existing regional entities, and universities to share information and opportunities. Regional collaboration could simply provide an opportunity for neighboring communities to share the resources that worked for them to promote redevelopment within their own community. Additionally, c oll aboration could reveal opportunities for larger scale redevelopment and encourage recognizing the positive benefits of planning at a regional scale. 97 5.3 Implications for Planning in Germany This paper focuses on recommendations based on German practices that can be adapted to the US context. On the other hand, US practices offer lessons for urban planners in Germany. Although there are many benefits to the German regional planning model, it may not be addressing all local government concerns. The US model of local planning highlights the benefits of empowering local units of government to direct their own future in terms of development. There could be opportunities for local planners in Germany to seek consensus, and write local community development plans and comprehensive plans to encourage redevelopment and attract the attention of the regional planning entity. This also brings to light opportunities for increasing local community involvement or public input in redevelopment plans. In the US, although lo cal residents are not necessarily involved in the formation of individual projects, there are many opportunities for citizen involvement in the preparation of community plans , which promotes bottom - up planning based on local consensus. Rather than only bri nging redevelopment projects to the public for comments after plans have been made, the planning process in Germany could include innovative public input sessions that encourage participation from individuals and local community organizations. Finally, as public funds in Germany are over extended and the use of public - private partnerships in redevelopment projects becomes the dominant practice, the development model is more reflective of the US context. The German government could adapt US methods of incent ivizing private investment and encouraging additional private sector involvement. In that case, t here could be a need for stricter evaluation of public investments and greater rewards for private developers. However, it is recommended that the German gover nment retain federal 98 development goals and objectives, regional planning practices, the public funding model, and a commitment to research programs. 5.4 Future Research There are numerous opportunities for future research to expand the information gain ed in this study. To continue an American - German comparison, ideally a future researcher would be fluent in both the German and English language and live and conduct research in both countries. Future research could explore numerous redevelopment projects in each country from a quantitative perspective to evaluate public versus private investment in projects. From a quantitative perspective, detailed case studies on actual costs of redevelopment and remediation could support an assessment of costs and benef its. In addition, f uture research could evaluate the success of public redevelopment projects in terms of property value increases and jobs created. Or the researcher could work with community residents to evaluate increases in quality of life that result from the creation of community assets on contaminated, vacant, or derelict land. Since the effects of remediation and redevelopment are not immediately perceived in communities, there are opportunities for future research to evaluate the long term results of creating community assets. Further research in the US could develop a regional framework for planning or brownfield approaches or a public funding model for redevelopment projects. 99 REFERENCES 100 REFERENCES Adams, D., De Sousa, C., & Tiesdell, S. (2009). Brownfield development: A comparison of North American and British approaches. Urban Studies , 47(1). 75 - 104. Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W., McKeown, J. D. C. (2010). Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: A c ase study of Michigan. Energy Policy , 38(2010), 7021 - 7030. Alexandrescu , F., Martinat, S., Klusacek, P., & Bartke, S. (2014). The path from passivity toward entrepreneurship: Public sector actors in brownfield regeneration processes in central and easter n Europe. Organization & Environment , 27(2), 181 - 201. American Planning Association. (2010). Reuse: creating community - based redevelopment strategies . Chicago, IL: R. Hersh, D. Morley, J. Schwab, & L. Solitare. g indicators to evaluate brownfield redevelopment. Economic Development Quarterly , 20(2), 142 - 161. Brachman, L. (2004). Turning brownfields into community assets: Barriers to redevelopment. In R. Greenstein and Y. Sungu - Eryilmaz (Eds.), Recycling the city : The use and reuse of urban land (pp. 68 - 87). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act of 1996, 125 Mich. Code §§ 2651 - 2672 (2009). Burchell, R. W. & Mukherji, S. M. (2003). Conventional Development versus managed growth: The costs of sprawl. Am J Public Health, 93(9), 1534 - 1540. CABERNET (Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network). (2003). State of the art country profile Germany. Retrieved from http://www.cabernet.org.uk/ resour cefs/136.pdf City of Stuttgart Department for Environmental Protection. (2012). City Chlor: Economic perspectives of brownfield development in Germany . Stuttgart, Germany: J. M. Doerle Craig, H.B. (2006). Detroit Transit History.info. Retrieved Septembe r 19, 2014 from http://www.detroittransithistory.info/index.html De Sousa, C. A. (2000). Brownfield redevelopment versus greenfield development: A private sector perspective on the costs and risks associated with brownfield redevelopment in the greater To ronto area. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 43(6), 831 - 853. De Sousa, C. A. (2003). Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape and Urban Planning , 62, 181 - 198. 101 De Sousa, C. A., Wu, C., & Westphal, L. M. (200 9). Assessing the effect of publicly assisted brownfield redevelopment on surrounding property values. Economic Development Quarterly , 23(2), 95 - 110. Dewar, M. (2009). What helps or hinders nonprofit developers in reusing vacant, abandoned, and contamina ted property? Findings from Detroit and Cleveland. CLOSUP Working Paper Series , 4. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. (2008). Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment Authority. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://www.degc .org/about - degc/detroit - brownfield - redevelopment - authority - 1 Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau. (2015). Fast facts: Why Detroit rocks. Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.meetdetroit.com/fast - facts Dortmund Tourismus. (2014). Discover Dortm und. Retrieved March 12, 2015 from http://www.dortmund - tourismus.de/en/home.html EAA (European Environment Agency). (n.d.). Retrieved July 30, 2015 from http://www.eea.europa.eu/ Eisinger, P. (2003). Reimagining Detroit. City & Community , 2(2), 85 - 99. E ncyclopedia Britannica. (2014, March 20). Ruhr: River and region, Germany. Retrieved July 14, 2015 http://www.britannica.com/place/Ruhr EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, United States) . (20 02). Brownfields definition. US EPA Brownfields and Land Revita lization. Retrieved 18 November, 2014 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/ glossary.htm EPA. (2009). The Davis - Bacon Act and brownfields. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/davis_bacon_and _brownfields.pdf EPA. (2011 ). Brownfields and land revitalization: Other brownfields - related laws. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/other_ bf_related_laws.htm EPA. (2012). Laws & Statutes. Retrieved March 14, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ laws/index.htm EPA . (2014). The EPA Brownfields Programs produces widespread environmental and economic benefits. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/OBLR_Brownfield%20postcard%202014_v4 _web.pdf 102 European Commission. (2013 ). Science for Environment Policy: Brownfield Regeneration. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/ pdf/39si_en.pdf European Commission. (2015). Retrieved July 30, 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm Federal Environmental Agency. (2005). The future lies on brownfields: Reactivation of urban land reserves redevelopment potentials and practical information for investors, builder - owner and real estate owners (English ed.). Dessau, Germany: A. Kälberer, S. F. Kl ever, & T. Lepke (Eds. ). Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (n.d.). Paths to sustainable land management: Topics and projects in the REFINA research program. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/cmmeitl/Downloads/DF12392.pdf Garczynski, L. (1997) . Brownfields national partnership action agenda: Quick reference fact sheet . Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Gillings School of Global Public Heal th, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering. (2013). A compar a tive risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990 2010: A systematic analys is for the global burden of disease s tudy 2010. Lancet , 380, 2224 - 2260. Goodstein, M. D., Trinward, K. J., & Lynch, A. (2011). Pushing the envelope on brownfield remediation: Strategies and case studies that maximize limited resources through alternative funding sources. Environmental Practice , 13(2), 130 - 142. Greenberg, M. & Lewis M. J. (2000). Brownf ield redevelopment, preferences and public involvement: A case study of an ethnically mixed neighborhood. Urban Studies , 37(13), 2501 - 2514. Grieshaber, K. (2014, November 6). Germany after Berlin Wall: Not always best in west. Burleson Star . Retrieved fro m http://www.burlesonstar.net/ci_26880028? source=rss_viewed Hoffmann, A., Gruehn, D., & Ziegler - Hennings, C. (2010, May 18 - 20). Old brownfields, new parks of tomorrow. Chances to improve the environment of the cities. M. Schrenk, V. V. Popovich, & P. Zei le (Eds.). Paper presented at REAL CORP 2010, Vienna, Austria. Intereconomics , May/June, 147 - 156. Howland, M. (2003). Private initiative and public responsibility f or the redevelopment of industrial brownfields: Three Baltimore case studies. Economic Development Quarterly , 17(4), 367 - 381. 103 Hula R. C. & Bromley - Trujillo, R. (2010). Cleaning up the mess: Redevelopment of urban brownfields. Economic Development Quarterl y , 24(3), 276 - 287. Internet Commercial Informations Services. (2015). The Times: Dortmund. Retrieved March 12, 2015 from http://bcg.thetimes.co.uk/Europe/Germany/Dortmund#/Europe/Germany/ Dortmundoverview Jones, R. A. & Welsh, W. F. (201 0 ). Michigan bro wnfield redevelopment innovation: Two decades of success. Eastern Michigan University, Department of Geography and Geology. Retrieved from https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq - rrd - GRANTS - EMUReport - 9 - 2010_333050_7.pdf Kotval, Z. & Mullin, J. (2009). The revi t s small town mills: Breathing new life into old places. Local Economy , 24(2), 151 - 167. Kunzmann, K. R. (2004). Creative brownfield redevelopment: The experience of the IBA Emscher Park Initiative in the Ruhr in Germany. I n R. Greenstein & Y. Sungu - Eryilmaz (Eds.), Recycling the City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land (pp. 201 - 217). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Lange, D. & McNeil, S. (2004). Clean it and they will come? Defining successful brownfield deve lopment. Journal of Urban Planning and Development , 130, 101 - 108. Lester, T. W., Kaza, N., Kirk, S. (2013). Making room for manufacturing: Understanding land conversion in cities. Journal of the American Planning Association , 79(4), 295 - 313. Levy, J. L. (2013). Contemporary urban planning (10 th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Lyons, T. S. & Hamlin, R. E. (2001). Creating an Economic Development Action Plan . Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Macomb County. (2015, June 4). Brownfield Redevelopmen t Grant and Loan Application submitted to MDEQ Remediation and Redevelopment Division. Malek, M. & Matev, C.V . (2014). The economic, social, and environmental benefits derived from the redevelopment of brownfields. Management Science and Engineering , 8(1 ), 1 - 5. Mallach, A. & Brachman, L. (2013). . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Mansfield, T. J., Rodriguez, D. A., Huegy, J., & Gibson, J. M. (2015). The effects of urban form on ambient air pollution an d public health risk: A case study in Raleigh, North Carolina. Risk Analysis , 35(5). 901 - 918. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). (2011, March). Brownfield redevelopment assessment, remediation and redevelopment division, superfund sectio n: 104 Information bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq - rrd MDEQ - SiteAssessmentInfoBulletinEQC4469_491244_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq - rrd - Part201CitizensGuide_247033_7.pdf MDEQ . (2013 b , July). Brownfield redevelopment grants and loans: Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/Files/Brownfields/5 - DEQ - Brownfield - Contacts - Map.pdf MDEQ. (2015). Brownfield Redevelopmen t. Retrieved July 7, 2015 from http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7 - 135 - 3311_4109_29262 --- ,00.html thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest. (1512761). MEDC (Michigan E conomic Development Corporation). (2015 a ). 2015 Communi ty development guide. Retrieved http://www.michiganbusiness.org/cm/Files/ Community_Development/2015 - Community - Incentive - Guidance.pdf MEDC. (2015 b ). Community Development and Assistance. Retrieved Jul y 9, 2015 from http://www.michiganbusiness.org/community/development - assistance/#section1 Meyer, P. B & Lyons, S. T. (2000). Lessons from private sector brownfield developers: Planning public support for urban regeneration. Journal of the American Plannin g Association , 66(1), 46 - 57. Michigan Legislature. (2001). A Brief History of Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001 - 2002/2001 - mm - 0003 - 0026 - History.pdf Midtown Detroit, Inc. (2015). Brownfield Developme nt. Retrieved July 7, 2015 from http://midtowndetroitinc.org/incentive - programs/brownfield - development National Brownfield Association. (2014). Retrieved December 2, 2014 from http://www.brownfieldassociation.org/AboutUs/BrownfieldDefinition.aspx Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, 324 Mich. Code §§ 101 - 90106 (2009). OECD (Organization for Economic Co - Operation and Development). (1999). Urban Policy in Germany Towards Sustainable Urban Development . Paris, France: OECD Publication s. Pagano, M. A. & Bowman, A. O Greenstein & Y. Sungu - Eryilmaz (Eds.), Recycling the City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land (pp. 15 - 32). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 105 Persky, J. & Wiewel, W. (1996 , May ). Central city and suburban developm ent: Who pays and who benefits? Paper presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 1996 - 97 project Assessing the Midwest Economy . Ploegmakers, H. & Beckers, P. (2014). Evaluating urban rege neration: An assessment of the effectiveness of physical regeneration initiatives on run - down industrial sites in the Netherlands. Urban Studies , 2014(August), 1 - 19. Rastorfer, D. (2015). 21 st century smokestacks. The Magazine of the American Planning As sociation , 81(9), 40 - 45. USA Today . Retrieved September 19 from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance /2013/12/02/19 - facts - about - detroit - bankruptcy/3823355/ Ryan, manufacturing landscape. Journal of Planning History , 12(2), 95 - 132. Schmidt, S. & Buehler, R. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: A Comparative analysis . International Planning Studies , 12(1), 55 - 75. Schoenbaum, M. (2002). Environmental contamination, brownfields policy and economic redevelopment in an industrial area of Baltimore, Maryland. Land Economics , 78(1), 60 - 71. Seamon, J. (2014). The Dudley G reenhouse: Brownfield redevelopment towards a more just and sustainable food system in Roxbury (1552997). Short, J. R. & Mussman, M. (2014). Population change in U.S. cities: Estimating and explaining the exte nt of decline and level of resurgence. The Professional Geographer , 66(1), 112 - 123. Land Lines , October 2014, 8 - 17. Solitare, L. (2011). Prerequisite conditions for meaningful par ticipation in brownfields redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 48(6), 917 - 935. Stadt Dortmund. (2015). History of Dortmund. Retrieved March 11, 2015 from http://www.dortmund.de/en/about_dortmund/history/index.html Stadt Dortm und. (2015). Leisure and Culture: Phoenix See Dortmund. Retrieved October 26, 2015 from http://www.dortmund.de/en/leisure_and_culture/phoenix_see_1/index.html 106 Stadt Dortmund. (2004). Stadterneuerung in Dortmund von 1990 bis Huete . Retrieved from http:// www.dortmund.de/media/p/stadtumbau_hoerde_zentrum/downloads_stadtumbau_h oerde_zentrum/Bericht_Stadterneuerung.pdf Sugrue, T. J. (2007). Motor city: the story of Detroit. History Now on American Cities . Retrieved September 18, 2014 from http://www.gilderl ehrman.org/history - by - era/politics - reform/essays/motor - city - story - detroit properties. Economic Development Quarterly , 1994(8), 329 - 337. Thimm, K. (2010, March 5). Cul Spiegel Online International . Retrieved July 14, 2015 from http://www.spiegel.de/ international/culture - of - steel - germany - s - ruhr - valley - looks - back - to - its - future - a - 681791.html Thomas, J. M. (199 0). Planning and industrial decline: Lessons from postwar Detroit. Journal of the American Planning Association , 56(3), 297 - 310. Thornton, G., Franz, M., Edwards, D., Pahlen, E., & Nathanail, P. (2007). The challenge of sustainability: Incentives for brow nfield regeneration in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy , 10, 116 - 134. Vanhuesden, B. (2007). Brownfield redevelopment in the European Union. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review , 34(3), 557 - 575. Vanhuesden, B. (2009). Recent development in European policy regarding brownfield remediation. Environmental Practice , 11(4), 256 - 262. Winston - Geideman, K., Simons, R. A. & Pendergrass, J. (2004). Tracking remediation and rede velopment trends of brownfield clean - up programmes: The Cook County experience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 47(3), 393 - 405. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, I nc.