Determining if a VCP is incentivizing brownfield redevelopment is an arduous task because agencies rarely have sufficient data to do so. As explained above, it is relatively easy to gain access to information on the number of sites enrolled in a VCP. High enrollment in a VCP is indicative of success in a very narrow sense. Robust enrollment confirms that, when given the opportunity to take advantage of this type of program, redeveloping a site under the VCP is more attractive than doing so without government intervention. This is a significant accomplishment. VCPs require the approval of certain documents by the supervising agency,228 which will inevitably delay the investigation and cleanup process. The fact that a developer is willing to take on this burden voluntarily strongly suggests that the incentives that the program offers outweigh the delay and other inconvenience that dealing with the agency may entail.229 From a public health standpoint, increasing the number of supervised cleanups is also a laudable goal, as this is likely to result in greater compliance with the applicable remediation standards and best practices.230
However, as noted above, enrollment figures alone cannot support the conclusion that the program has been successful in spurring brownfield redevelopment.231 Without more information, one cannot rule out other possible explanations for high enrollment in the program. For example, the plausible possibility that most of the observed redevelopment would have also occurred without the VCP—which is likely to be true in areas where real estate markets are thriving. There are, of course, intermediate options. Thus, the VCP may have increased the redevelopment of brownfields by 20%, 50%, or any other percentage.
How, then, should we evaluate if a VCP is spurring brownfield redevelopment? Another option could be to rely on vacancy periods—the number of years during which a property was vacant before joining the program. If we are examining the
Anna Alberini et al., The Role of Liability, Regulation and Economic Incentives in
Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment: Evidence from Surveys of Developers, 35
REG’L SCI.&URB.ECON. 327, 349 (2005). 228 Bacot & O’Dell, supra note 221, at 148.
229 It is important to note, however, that in some cases the option of conducting an
unsupervised cleanup may not exist, if the property has been flagged by the federal, state, or local governments as being potentially contaminated. This could occur, for example, if a previous owner reported a spill of hazardous substances in the past.
230 EPA Principles for Greener Cleanups, U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY,
https:/www.epa.gov/greenercleanups/epa-principles-greener-cleanups [https://perma.cc/BV W7-LAEZ] (last updated Sept. 5, 2018).
231 Hula & Bromley-Trujillo, for example, conclude that data indicating that a program
has been widely used “is evidence that, at a minimum, the [program] has created a viable market in [brownfields].” Hula & Bromley-Trujillo, supra note 115, at 280 (emphasis added). However, this market could have existed before the programs were put into place.
success of a new program, long vacancy periods followed by enrollment in the VCP would seem to suggest that the program is triggering the redevelopment of sites that would otherwise still be vacant. However, the vacancy period approach presents serious limitations. First, it focuses on a particular type of brownfield: those that are vacant. The vacancy period approach does not consider sites that, while not being vacant, are underutilized because of the contamination. As explained above in Section I.B.1, these properties also fall within the scope of EPA’s definition of brownfield.232 Second, there are many reasons, other than the effect of the program, that could explain why properties that had been vacant for several years are now being redeveloped. For example, the real estate market could be rebounding after a recession. This could spur the development of properties that were not attractive to developers a few years earlier.233 A similar phenomenon could occur as a result of a rezoning process. If a certain area is up-zoned—meaning that higher-value or denser uses will now be permitted—sites that had been vacant for a long time could suddenly become more appealing to developers.234 In short, as with enrollment numbers, an analysis of vacancy periods alone does not provide enough information to evaluate whether a VCP is incentivizing brownfield redevelopment.
An alternative strategy would be to determine whether there has been a noticeable change in brownfield redevelopment in a particular jurisdiction since the agency launched the program. While this methodology can lead to sound conclusions, it presents a number of practical challenges. First, to make such a comparison, it is necessary to have an inventory of the existing brownfields in the jurisdiction, or a significant portion thereof. VCP enrollment data is insufficient because it provides information on which properties are, or have been, in the programs but does not indicate which brownfields have been redeveloped outside of a program or the number of brownfields that were being redeveloped before the program was created.235 Having data on the redevelopment of brownfields before the inception of the program is necessary to establish a baseline to determine whether there was a significant increase in the redevelopment rates for brownfields after the launch of a program.
Second, determining if a particular VCP is spurring brownfield redevelopment can be challenging due to the existence of multiple layers of incentives and regulations—federal, state, and local—that could mask or enhance the perceived
232 See supra Section I.B.1.
233 Joseph Nguyen, 4 Key Factors that Drive the Real Estate Market, INVESTOPEDIA,
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/mortages-real-estate/11/factors-affecting-real-estate- market.asp [https://perma.cc/4MA7-JLUY] (last updated June 25, 2019).
234 See Up-zoning, THE WORLD BANK, https://urban-regeneration.worldbank.org/node
/21 [https://perma.cc/DY7B-458T] (last visited, Aug. 19, 2019).
235 As noted in the literature, “[o]ne key difficulty in adequately evaluating brownfield
programs is the lack of capacity to track the existence and redevelopment of sites.” Hula & Bromley-Trujillo, supra note 115, at 277. Others have also noted the difficulties of establishing a baseline for comparison. See Alberini & Segerson, supra note 17, at 160.
effects of the program that is being evaluated.236 Thus, it is important to have a clear understanding of the most significant incentives—in addition to those offered by the VCP that is being evaluated—that could have affected brownfield redevelopment in a certain geographic area during a given period. Part IV takes on this challenge by proposing a methodology to address these and other practical challenges.
IV. ASSESSING THE SUCCESS OF THE FIRST LOCAL VCP
In 2010, New York City created the first municipally run brownfield cleanup program.237 The City’s VCP has two features that make it a particularly interesting case study. First, developers have used the program widely even though it has only been in place for ten years. Second, and most important, this VCP is a particularly good example of a program whose ability to drive development, if not tested, would be uncertain. This uncertainty results from a combination of factors: the program targets mildly contaminated sites (which tend to have lower cleanup costs), it operates in a geographic area with high property values, and it provides relatively low economic incentives. As explained above, this is the type of context—scenario- B-type cases—in which it is a priori unclear whether the VCP would have an impact on the redevelopment rate of brownfields.238