Brownfield Redevelopment

Brownfield redevelopment is traditionally associated with private investments and often through public-private partnerships to result in economically beneficial ventures. Public sector investments have, therefore, traditionally not been considered as viable options due to some persistent arguments and general beliefs. This commentary discusses five common arguments against public investments in brownfield redevelopment and addresses each one by presenting approaches, views, and examples that would aim to persuade researchers, practitioners, and local governments to think otherwise. Addressing the argument that brownfield redevelopment has higher costs than benefits and that greenfield development is more economical than brownfield redevelopment, one has to see beyond perceived costs and benefits and understand the true nature of infrastructure costs and the intangible benefits of redeveloping inner-city, deteriorated, and blighted areas to be able to fully justify brownfield redevelopment. Addressing other arguments that state brownfield redevelopment is not an effective use of public funds as it does not generate tax revenue and is too complex an issue for public agencies, is that an effective use of public funds is anything, in general, that benefits residents, be it econommic, environmental, social, or health-related. Even though public investments in brownfield redevelopment might not result in an economic endeavor, it does have a positive ripple effet on nearby communities and leads to increased assessed property values that ultimately result in increased tax revenue. Finally, increasing political interest and local capacity is vital to ensuring successful brownfield redevelopment projects by public agencies.