Measuring Redevelopment Benefits: The Search for Data

"What gets measured gets managed"—Peter Drucker

Across the nation, efforts to characterize the benefits of redeveloped brownfields challenges state government and the brownfield professionals everywhere. While many laudable efforts to capture the potential benefits are legion, there is yet to be a state directed effort to capture the collective benefit. But there is a bright spot on the horizon.

In the spring of 2008, New Jersey, through its Office of Smart Growth and the N.J. Brownfield Redevelopment Task Force, initiated an investigation into developing a statewide database. The National Center for Neighborhood and Brownfield Redevelopment at Rutgers University responded to the challenge to find the data and propose a strategy to capture it in a standard format.

The search began with a review of previous efforts ranging from the 1999 report by the Council for Urban Economic Development and the numerous reports of the Conference of Mayors, to academic research such as that from colleagues at Rutgers and from the George Washington University review of benefits and greenfield preservation. From there, the National Center looked at federal, state, local and regional efforts, including the recent examination of economic and environmental benefits by the Northeast Midwest Institute.

Taking a cue from New Jersey's own report on its major funding source, the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund, and the excellent work in Wisconsin's annual report to the legislature, the Rutgers' National Center team recognized the pressing need to coordinate state data. In a time of constrained resources, both in state agencies and in the private sector, it is more critical than ever to capitalize state data assets.

One of the first things investors look for is context: are others investing here? Is there a market emerging? Am I going to add value? Will I be welcome? Is the municipality focused on redevelopment and do officials see the benefits? If there aren't clear encouraging answers to these questions, investors move on.

Developers interviewed for this study indicated that they look at the structure of the systems that support their efforts. State environmental protection and permit requirements are high on their list, but they also recognize the value of a protected environment as part of market attraction, so it matters that they know how the systems work and can see that their timelines are achievable. They see a picture, and most commonly, that is extracted from good data. But it isn't just state data.

Greater involvement
Municipalities and developers need to be involved, too. Tax information and housing starts can be cross-referenced with remediation approvals and distributions of cash incentives from state brownfield funding, but it won't capture the universe of sites because not every developer uses the incentives. In fact, developers indicated that obligations to follow prevailing wage discourages use of the state funding programs. In other instances, like the case that will be presented from Jersey City, remediation investigation was done and found to be low enough not to require state oversight, so it is not in the state system. To capture the true benefit of brownfield redevelopment will take other key partners; municipalities, counties and developers.

In the process of identifying how best to engage municipalities in a comprehensive approach to capturing the benefits of remediation and reuse, the Rutgers team spoke with local managers and found some potential answers. Those municipalities who capitalized their assets; who dedicate staff time to this effort, have inventoried their sites and developed a municipal-wide approach to redevelopment for which they have public support, will compete successfully. In Woodbridge Township, the collective benefits spurred a completely new effort to capitalize on their unremediated lands, and it promises to be a major benefit on all fronts: economic, environmental and social.

So how can we engage the municipalities? In the process of developing a model survey for collecting the data at the municipal level, it was found that municipalities were more than happy to assist us, but it was a time-consuming process because even when the municipality had staff dedicated to economic development, the data was never in one place. A systemic approach to gathering the data and some incentives for collecting that data locally is key.

Stakeholders interviewed in this project identified six high-value categories of data to effectively track benefits of remediation and redevelopment. Taxes generated and real numbers on jobs created with an understanding of the pay grades of those jobs as the top categories. Benefits to the neighborhood in terms of street canopy and open space that was provided were valued. The reduced cost of carrying the unremediated land as a municipality was a value: this requires the time and resources of police, fire and public works departments, which saps neighboring properties of their values.

Sustainability received high recognition as a future value, but few have integrated energy or environmental efficiencies into site planning to date. Most sites added landscaping amenities, but sustainability was a major factor in only one municipality.

Of the major measures of benefits, tax information is the only one routinely gathered at the municipal level. But, absent independent measures of economic benefits of remediated sites, the value from data submitted as part of certain reports is quickly lost. A simple suggestion from one county interview was the development of a "project completion sheet" that would capture the data at the time of highest value. That still leaves the matter of how to capture the data the municipality doesn't have and the need to incentivize data collection.

As for the costs of development, results were mixed. While some developers were open about sharing the costs, others felt it was proprietary. Such matters need to be reflected in the development of a "comprehensive" system, and decisions on which efforts are worth the time it requires to gather becomes a concern.

Start at the Beginning
There are sources of data that could be captured, but the process needs a common starting point, and that brings the question back to municipalities and to developers themselves. The research suggests that this is a threefold issue. First, municipalities need to be rewarded (through a variety of incentives) for providing the project completion sheets on remediation and redevelopment of brownfield properties. The state needs to create a series of incentives that will provide municipalities with added ‘points' across all data collection functions from taxation to municipal budgets. If municipalities received tangible credits for tracking data, they will do it willingly, but the state needs to act first.

Once incentives are in place, a municipal system could be initiated through a more rigorous version of their standard Certificate of Occupancy (CO) by simply adding a query, "Was this property remediated, or was contamination ever suspected on this site?" If the answer is yes, a copy of the CO could go to a "Sustainability Data Center" to be entered into a database for future tracking. It could also go to the municipal tax office for use in submitting state reports. This same CO, if entered into an electronic system, could interface with any future data collected at the state level associated with the same address or other unique identifier, for purposes of collective review.

There is ample opportunity to improve on the current system of assessing benefits of brownfield redevelopment. Being able to provide municipal and county government with this data, and to use it to promote our state, will be a major help in creating a location-based advantage for future economic growth.

Following are short synopses of the New Jersey communities involved in this initiative:

Woodbridge
Woodbridge lies within thirty miles of Manhattan, encompasses over twenty-four square miles bounded by two major regional waterways; the Arthur Kill, the Raritan River. The Township has risen to the challenge created by a rich industrial history. In the downtown, the focus is on reuse of historic buildings, and in an area with vacant contaminated property, Woodbridge aggressively pursued FedEx, which built its $500 million "Super Hub" in Woodbridge. From a community pool to a new fire truck and support for first aid services, FedEx also brought over 700 jobs to Woodbridge.

Since this time, Woodbridge has built community support for the remediation process and recently announced plans to remediate and redevelopment two additional major abandoned industrial sites including the 176 acre EPEC Polymers site and other parcels in their heavy industrial zone. The remediation of these sites, which will include removal of old waste lagoons, will add significant environmental benefits along with economic values.

Photos courtesy of Woodbridge Township and Heyer Gruel Associates.

Willingboro
In 1997, Robert Stang identified a 56-acre parcel of vacant storefronts in Willingboro. As an acolyte of the renowned iconoclast visionary Buckminster Fuller, Stang wanted to create an ideal mixed-use project that illustrated the principles of good design, environmental quality and social value associated with Fuller. Stang envisioned the Willingboro Town Center as an environmentally conscious hub of community activity.

Strategically speaking, both the township and county government played major roles in getting this project up and running. The county freeholders conducted a study of the whole Route 130 corridor which was sorely in need of redevelopment. In response to this encouragement by county government, the Township Council had already designated the site a redevelopment zone so the developer would have all the legal tools with which to execute the redevelopment. The strategy used a highly admired approach of partnering not with anchor stores, but with county and municipal institutions. Both Burlington County College and Willingboro Library needed new space, and this project had the capacity to house both of these institutions along with an array of stores and services. It incorporated energy efficiency, stormwater reuse, natural areas, additional tree canopy, restoring the band shell and water features. The project created more than 1,000 jobs, improved adjacent properties, increased walkability, increased the residential market, improved community engagement in planning and redevelopment, and most importantly, it restored the vitality of this property that is essentially the front door to the Township.

Photos courtesy of the Burlington County Office of Economic Development and Burlington County College

Jersey City
The Majestic Theatre Redevelopment, developed by Paul and Eric Silverman, captured the essential historic structure of the Majestic Theatre and enhanced it significantly. They carefully examined the site for possible contamination, taking out heating oil tanks and other potential sources in the process. They created more than 150 jobs with 8 commercial spaces, and 50 units of housing, which now generate over $500,000 annually in real estate taxes alone.

They added value beyond measure to the area, working closely with residents to make this part of the community. The Silverman brothers initiated two annual festivals, Oktoberfest and Cinco de Mayo, bringing the neighborhood out to join a parade and celebrate their community. In addition, the old lobby of the theater, which is the entry to the entire space, doubles as art exhibit space for the Jersey City Museum.

Print article | Close window

Copyright 2009 DaVinci Graphics, Inc.
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or any part without the expressed written permission of the publisher is prohibited. ISSN 1947-5594 and ISSN 1947-5608. Downloading and/or printing this article constitutes you agreement to the terms and conditions of service.