|
Green Visions for Brownfields: Policy Coalitions for Urban Redevelopment Author: Sarah S. Gardner Dissertation School: City University of New York Pages: 335 Publication Date: October 2001 Availability: Access Number: 10743 Abstract: Approaching the study of local brownfield decision making through a policy coalition framework, this research is based on the idea that cooperation among heretofore incompatible actors from the public and private sectors, and from cities and suburbs, is essential to produce successful redevelopment of brownfield sites. Issues of social and environmental equity are central to this study, which seeks to explain significant discrepancies across cities regarding the degree of public participation in decision making, the environmental cleanup level, and the quality of redevelopment projects. Brownfield programs to clean and redevelop abandoned, contaminated urban properties were initiated by the states in the early 1990s. Over forty states now have such programs, which have the potential to revitalize distressed urban neighborhoods. However, they are falling short of their promise: many contaminated sites are being reused without being cleaned up, most redevelopment projects are not environmentally sustainable, and revenue maximization is taking priority over neighborhood revitalization in many cities. Brownfield programs can be a catalyst for community-based planning, but localities interpret the program in different ways, producing varying and uneven outcomes. Because the state program devolves decision-making authority to the municipal level and does not provide close oversight, it leaves ample room for such unequal outcomes. The poorest cities and communities are in danger of remaining victims of past environmental and economic abuses. By illuminating the role that local politics plays in state brownfield programs, this research highlights the conditions under which cities and their citizens are most likely to reap the benefit of brownfield programs. Using a regime theory approach, this research will compare the performance of six cities in New Jersey's Brownfield Program. Cities' experiences differ considerably in the brownfields process, especially with regard to who participates in decision making. Outcomes differ as well. The rigor of the environmental standards attained and the social and economic impacts of redevelopment also vary significantly from city to city. This project investigates the origins of these programmatic variances. My first hypothesis is that brownfield coalitions – informal networks of public and private sector actors – exist at the local level. The current wisdom among policy scholars is that objective factors such as the market value of sites and the degree of contamination, rather than political considerations, drive brownfield decision making. My research will challenge the economic determinism of this assumption by demonstrating that the interaction between political and economic forces provides a better explanation of actual outcomes. Comparing brownfield initiatives in cities with similar economic and environmental conditions but differing governing coalitions will test this contention. My second hypothesis is that different brownfield coalitions will produce different outcomes. Specifically, the traditional development coalitions that dominate most New Jersey municipalities will produce market value maximizing outcomes. Coalitions dominated by other interests will be attentive to other values. Through this research I will develop a typology of brownfield coalitions by comparing the political process in the different cities, their operation and outcomes. |
|
|
Last updated: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 HUD USER Helpdesk P.O. Box 23268 Washington, DC 20026-3268 Toll Free: 1-800-245-2691 Fax: 1-202-708-9981 Email: oup@oup.org |
 |
Privacy Statement |
     |
