Determinants and Effects on Property Values of Participation in Voluntary Cleanup Programs: The Case of Colorado

State Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs) were established starting in the 1990s to encourage the environmental remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties. These programs typically offer liability relief, subsidies and other regulatory incentives in exchange for site cleanup. This paper asks three questions: First, what type of properties are attracted to voluntary cleanup programs? Second, what is the interaction between these state programs and other incentives for remediation and economic development, such as Enterprise Zone and Brownfield Zone designations? Third, what is the effect of participation in the VCP on property values? We use data from Colorado’s VCP to answer these questions. We find that most of the properties enrolled in this program were not previously listed on EPA’s contaminated site registries, and that most applicants seek to obtain directly a “no further action” determination without undergoing remediation. The main determinants of participation are the size of the parcel and whether the surrounding land use is primarily residential, while other incentives have little effect. Properties with confirmed contamination sell at a 47% discount relative to comparable uncontaminated parcels, and participation tends to raise the property price, but this latter effect is not statistically significant. Taken together, these findings suggest that the participating properties are those with high development potential, and hint at the possibility that owners or developers may be seeking to obtain a clean bill of health from the State with only minimal or no cleanup efforts. Were these findings confirmed with data from other states, they would raise doubts about the effectiveness of voluntary programs in encouraging remediation and their usefulness in reversing some of the undesired effects of the Superfund legislation.

[1]  A. Alberini,et al.  The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers. , 2005 .

[2]  Timothy Bartik Evaluating the Impacts of Local Economic Development Policies on Local Economic Outcomes: What Has Been Done and What is Doable? , 2002 .

[3]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[4]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Clean It and They Will Come? Defining Successful Brownfield Development , 2004 .

[5]  Peter B. Meyer,et al.  Project scale and private sector environmental decision making: Factors affecting investments in small- and large-scale brownfield projects , 1999, Urban Ecosystems.

[6]  Christopher A. De Sousa,et al.  The greening of brownfields in American cities , 2004 .

[7]  Valerie M. Fogleman Hazardous Waste Cleanup, Liability, and Litigation: A Comprehensive Guide to Superfund Law , 1992 .

[8]  Miriam Schoenbaum,et al.  Environmental Contamination, Brownfields Policy, and Economic Redevelopment in an Industrial Area of Baltimore, Maryland , 2002, Land Economics.

[9]  Thomas O. Jackson,et al.  Environmental Contamination and Industrial Real Estate Prices , 2002 .

[10]  Marie Howland,et al.  The Impact of Contamination on the Canton/ Southeast Baltimore Land Market , 2000 .

[11]  M. Wasylenko,et al.  TAXATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , 1972, The Journal of Modern African Studies.

[12]  H. Herzog Who Benefits from State and Local Economic Development Policies , 1992 .

[13]  D. Haurin,et al.  Sample Selection and Biases in Local House Value Indices , 1998 .

[14]  C. Bartsch,et al.  Coming clean for economic development: A resource book on environmental cleanup and economic development , 1995 .

[15]  J. Heckman Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System , 1977 .

[16]  Rena Sivitanidou,et al.  Urban Spatial Variations in Office-Commercial Rents: The Role of Spatial Amenities and Commercial Zoning , 1995 .

[17]  Marie Howland,et al.  The Role of Contamination in Central City Industrial Decline , 2004 .

[18]  Peter B. Meyer,et al.  Contaminated Land , 1995 .

[19]  Alberto Longo,et al.  What are the effects of contamination risks on commercial and industrial properties? evidence from Baltimore, Maryland , 2005 .

[20]  Robert J. Newman,et al.  Econometric analysis of business tax impacts on industrial location: What do we know, and how do we know it? , 1988 .

[21]  William F. Fox,et al.  Do Economic Effects Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives , 2004 .

[22]  Robert A. Simons,et al.  Regulation of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: Policy Enforcement and Unintended Consequences , 1997 .

[23]  Peter B. Meyer,et al.  Lessons from Private Sector Brownfield Redevelopers , 2000 .

[24]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Brownfield Development: Tools for Stewardship , 2004 .

[25]  Nelson Chan Stigma and its Assessment Methods , 2001 .

[26]  Evaluating the Impacts of Local Economic. Development Policies on Local Economic Outcomes , 2002 .

[27]  D. McGrath,et al.  Urban Industrial Land Redevelopment and Contamination Risk , 2000 .

[28]  Stephen Dobson,et al.  The determinants of commercial property prices and rents , 1992 .

[29]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Attracting private investment to contaminated properties: The value of public interventions , 2006 .

[30]  K. Segerson Liability Transfers: An Economic Assessment of Buyer and Lender Liability , 1993 .

[31]  R. Sivitanidou,et al.  Industrial Rent Differentials: The Case of Greater Los Angeles , 1995 .

[32]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[33]  Laura O. Taylor,et al.  Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets , 2004 .

[34]  Winston Harrington,et al.  The effects of environmental liability on industrial real estate development , 1996 .

[35]  Michael Greenstone,et al.  Bidding for Industrial Plants: Does Winning a 'Million Dollar Plant' Increase Welfare? , 2003 .