Quote Originally Posted by 401don View Post
It's a real stretch though to apply for a brownfield credit on a site where the gov't already removed all of the contamination years ago, including the entire building which contained it, and replaced it with a new usable concrete garage. Re-reading the Det News article, no gov't official or Cullen are actually quoted as mentioning the Hudson site. I wonder if the writer took the liberty of including it just because it's a big Gilbert project which is still pending.
Right you are, Don, but for the word "perceived" in the definition I provided. So a brownfield doesn't have to be contaminated; it just has to be thought of as contaminated. That is a loophole big enough to drive a, oh, let's say, a streetcar through

Agreed the site wasn't mentioned but it's a reasonable speculation. No idea if true.