Gilbert Leads Push For New Tax Incentives

[401don]

I'm not familiar enough with the details of the full proposal to get into the weeds, and I haven't time right now to familiarize myself, but I did want to comment on the word "brownfield". The usual definition is simple and broad: "a former industrial or commercial site where future use is affected by real or perceived environmental contamination". Unarguably, there was asbestos a'plenty in the old building, and God only knows what else. So I think it is very reasonable to consider the site a brownfield for the purpose of whatever legislation is under consideration.

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.

[professorscott]

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.