ABSTRACT
Brownfield redevelopment is increasingly becoming a strategy of urban development, as planners and policymakers who are concerned with the revitalization of older, deindustrialized communities turn to their local vacant and underutilized land as an opportunity to reverse blight, attract investment capital and boost their local economy. For more than a decade, federal and state programs have responded to the growing concerns about brownfields by providing incentives—including liability protection, grant and loan opportunities, tax credits, and other technical resources—to developers who are willing to invest their dollars in the revitalization of these potentially contaminated, underutilized, and risky sites (USEPA 2007b). This investment has produced significant concrete benefits, but not without criticism. Environmental justice critics argue that brownfield redevelopers should be held more accountable to the residents living in the communities where they operate, both in terms of the participatory process and in deciding on the end-uses of sites (Greenberg and Lewis 2000; Brachman 2004; DePass 2006; Gute and Taylor 2006; Cummings 2007; Eisen 2007). Despite public participation being a central goal of brownfields programs, scholars, practitioners, and government officials repeatedly articulate the need for developing new strategies to promote a more meaningful participation process, one wherein “community groups can be involved in real decision making, not just feedback” (EPA 1999: 18).
