Addressing Morality in Urban Brownfield Redevelopment: Using Stakeholder Theory to Craft Legal Process
By Georgette C. Poindexter
INTRODUCTION
How does one “do the right thing” when two visions of morality collide over one piece of real estate? Moreover, what is the role of the law in “doing the right thing” when this conflict arises?
Industrial America has largely abandoned the central city, leaving unemployment and economic devastation in its wake. Factories that once anchored neighborhoods now stand silent as the social and economic fabric of the surrounding areas unravel. Furthermore, the industrialization of suburbs and rural areas has turned green pastures into manufacturing sites. At first glance, it appears that the “right thing” is to bring manufacturing employment back to the city and preserve suburban and rural green space. However, potential environmental liability impedes reindustrialization of abandoned industrial sites called “brownfields.”
“Greenfields” programs recraft environmental laws to remove the environmental liability impediment, thereby promoting the reuse and reindustrialization of abandoned urban manufacturing sites. Greenfields legislation is currently being considered at both federal and state levels. These programs have a two-fold policy directive: first, to preserve undeveloped green space for the good of society as a whole, and second, to alleviate inner-city employment problems.
However, greenfields programs fail to address the moral decision inherent in these policy objectives. In exchange for employment, changes in environmental laws may expose local residents to increased health risks. In essence, the question of whether a health risk should be exchanged for employment and open space requires a moral judgment. Whose vision of “the right thing” should control? That of local residents? That of environmental preservationists? Or that of persons seeking maximum economic revitalization?
In response to economic crisis and a call from preservationists, laws are being enacted and considered without a discussion of their full moral implications. Insofar as these laws fail to address the tension between increased employment and heightened health risks, they are morally invalid.
The resolution of this tension cannot be found in mainstream environmental dogma. Furthermore, neither a market-based theory of urban development nor a theory of environmental equity provides a satisfactory solution. In order to formulate an appropriate course of action, society needs a decision-making model that will bring together the concerns of all interested parties. The stakeholder theory delivers such a model.
In the stakeholder theory, the decisionmaker considers the views of all constituents with a stake in the process, without giving priority to the interests and benefits of any particular constituency. Therefore, when analyzing greenfields programs, the decisionmaker must consider not only the impact on job creation, but also the importance of community environmental standards and regional environmental concerns. Although stakeholder theory is generally applied to corporate managerial decision making, it provides an ideal model for choosing among environmental equity, economic empowerment, and wider environmental goals.
First, this article examines the adverse impact of deindustrialization and manufacturing deconcentration on America's cities. Because American cities were the centers of manufacturing, severe economic shifts particularly affected urban employment. Therefore, this historical analysis provides a framework for understanding the job creation impetus behind the greenfields programs.
This article then discusses current environmental standards. Many former manufacturing sites are environmentally contaminated and cannot be developed according to traditional cleanup standards. Strict environmental cleanup regulations diminish a city's ability to compete with the suburbs in the development market. Thus, a policy discussion of environmental standards (how clean is “clean” and who should be liable for the cleanup) is important when assessing the environmental hurdles to reuse of urban brownfields.
To put this discussion in context, this article also provides a brief overview of federal and state greenfields programs. Although they vary in scope, each program has the same purpose: to facilitate reuse of contaminated urban property in order to spark economic activity and maintain pristine land.
Additionally, this article will analyze environmental equity theory and its implications for siting decisions in greenfields programs. Decisions under the greenfields programs may conflict with the goals of the environmental equity movement because maintenance of pristine land may occur at the expense of the urban poor.
In order to reconcile the conflicting goals of greenfields programs (job creation, preservation of green space, and environmental equity), this article will develop a decision-making model built upon stakeholder theory. This article applies the normative basis of stakeholder theory, which acknowledges underlying moral and philosophical principles, in order to construct a framework which addresses the needs of all relevant constituencies. This will assure formulation of policy guidelines that permit economic growth while addressing environmental and equity concerns.
How does one “do the right thing” when two visions of morality collide over one piece of real estate? Moreover, what is the role of the law in “doing the right thing” when this conflict arises?
Industrial America has largely abandoned the central city, leaving unemployment and economic devastation in its wake. Factories that once anchored neighborhoods now stand silent as the social and economic fabric of the surrounding areas unravel. Furthermore, the industrialization of suburbs and rural areas has turned green pastures into manufacturing sites. At first glance, it appears that the “right thing” is to bring manufacturing employment back to the city and preserve suburban and rural green space. However, potential environmental liability impedes reindustrialization of abandoned industrial sites called “brownfields.”
“Greenfields” programs recraft environmental laws to remove the environmental liability impediment, thereby promoting the reuse and reindustrialization of abandoned urban manufacturing sites. Greenfields legislation is currently being considered at both federal and state levels. These programs have a two-fold policy directive: first, to preserve undeveloped green space for the good of society as a whole, and second, to alleviate inner-city employment problems.
However, greenfields programs fail to address the moral decision inherent in these policy objectives. In exchange for employment, changes in environmental laws may expose local residents to increased health risks. In essence, the question of whether a health risk should be exchanged for employment and open space requires a moral judgment. Whose vision of “the right thing” should control? That of local residents? That of environmental preservationists? Or that of persons seeking maximum economic revitalization?
In response to economic crisis and a call from preservationists, laws are being enacted and considered without a discussion of their full moral implications. Insofar as these laws fail to address the tension between increased employment and heightened health risks, they are morally invalid.
The resolution of this tension cannot be found in mainstream environmental dogma. Furthermore, neither a market-based theory of urban development nor a theory of environmental equity provides a satisfactory solution. In order to formulate an appropriate course of action, society needs a decision-making model that will bring together the concerns of all interested parties. The stakeholder theory delivers such a model.
In the stakeholder theory, the decisionmaker considers the views of all constituents with a stake in the process, without giving priority to the interests and benefits of any particular constituency. Therefore, when analyzing greenfields programs, the decisionmaker must consider not only the impact on job creation, but also the importance of community environmental standards and regional environmental concerns. Although stakeholder theory is generally applied to corporate managerial decision making, it provides an ideal model for choosing among environmental equity, economic empowerment, and wider environmental goals.
First, this article examines the adverse impact of deindustrialization and manufacturing deconcentration on America's cities. Because American cities were the centers of manufacturing, severe economic shifts particularly affected urban employment. Therefore, this historical analysis provides a framework for understanding the job creation impetus behind the greenfields programs.
This article then discusses current environmental standards. Many former manufacturing sites are environmentally contaminated and cannot be developed according to traditional cleanup standards. Strict environmental cleanup regulations diminish a city's ability to compete with the suburbs in the development market. Thus, a policy discussion of environmental standards (how clean is “clean” and who should be liable for the cleanup) is important when assessing the environmental hurdles to reuse of urban brownfields.
To put this discussion in context, this article also provides a brief overview of federal and state greenfields programs. Although they vary in scope, each program has the same purpose: to facilitate reuse of contaminated urban property in order to spark economic activity and maintain pristine land.
Additionally, this article will analyze environmental equity theory and its implications for siting decisions in greenfields programs. Decisions under the greenfields programs may conflict with the goals of the environmental equity movement because maintenance of pristine land may occur at the expense of the urban poor.
In order to reconcile the conflicting goals of greenfields programs (job creation, preservation of green space, and environmental equity), this article will develop a decision-making model built upon stakeholder theory. This article applies the normative basis of stakeholder theory, which acknowledges underlying moral and philosophical principles, in order to construct a framework which addresses the needs of all relevant constituencies. This will assure formulation of policy guidelines that permit economic growth while addressing environmental and equity concerns.
