A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMresearch, and technical assistance on many issues of...

Local Government andCommunity Engagementin BrownfieldsRedevelopment

A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is the profes-sional and educational association of more than 8,000 appointed executiveadministrators serving local governments. Members manage cities, counties,

towns, townships, boroughs, regional councils, and other local governments in theUnited States and throughout the world with populations ranging from a few thou-sand to several million people.

Founded in 1914, ICMA pursues the mission of enhancing the quality of local govern-ment through professional management. Its members turn to ICMA for information,research, and technical assistance on many issues of special interest. ICMA’s manage-ment assistance includes a wide range of publications, training programs, research, infor-mation, and training services. ICMA’s Research and Development Department seeks toenhance the quality of local government management through information sharing, tech-nical assistance, research, and partnership building among concerned stakeholders.

ICMA’s Research and Development Department has been studying the role that localgovernment can play in a variety of brownfield issues through a cooperative agree-ment with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement No.CR-R-82870801.

Other ICMA publications made possible by this and prior cooperative agreementswith the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency include:

All Aboard for Revitalization: How Local Governments Can Restore America’s HistoricTrain Stations

Beyond City Limits: Best Practices from ICMA’s 1998 Brownfield Peer Exchanges

Beyond Fences: Brownfields and the Challenges of Land Use Controls

Brownfields and Utility Sites: A Primer for Local Governments

Brownfields Blueprints: A Study of the Showcase Communities Initiative

Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local Governments and Communities—Second Edition

Building New Markets: Best Practices from ICMA’s 1999 Brownfield Peer Exchanges

About ICMA

iv Local Government and Community Engagement in Brownfields Redevelopment

Getting the Job Done: Strategies and Lessons Learned in Facilitating Brownfields Job Training

Growing Greener: Revitalizing Brownfields into Greenspace

ICMA Base Reuse Handbook: A Navigational Guide for Local Governments

Measuring Success in Brownfields Redevelopment Programs

Navigating the Waters: Coordination of Waterfront Brownfields Redevelopment

Old Tools and New Measures: Local Government Coordination of BrownfieldsRedevelopment for Historic and Cultural Reuses

Partners in Planning: Strategies from the 2001 Brownfields Peer Exchange

Putting the Pieces Together: Local Government Coordination of Brownfield Redevelopment

Righting the Wrong: A Model Plan for Environmental Justice in Brownfields Redevelopment

Small Spaces, Special Places: Coordination of Rural Brownfields Redevelopment

For more information about ICMA’s Brownfields Program, please contact:Danielle Miller WagnerDirector, Brownfields ProgramInternational City/County Management Association777 North Capitol Street, NESuite 500Washington, D.C. 20002-4201

Acknowledgments

This report was written by Dorothy Morrison, Project Manager and Katrena Hanks,Assistant Project Manager, of ICMA’s Brownfields Program, and Lenny Siegel,Executive Director, of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO). CPEOis an organization that promotes and facilitates public participation in the oversight ofenvironmental activities, including but not limited to the remediation of federal facili-ties, private “Superfund” sites, and brownfields. The authors would like to thank RitiDhesi, Assistant Project Manager, who conducted background research, and DanielleMiller Wagner, Director of ICMA’s Brownfields Program, who provided valuable edi-torial comments. The contributions of local officials, nonprofit representatives andcommunity members interviewed for this report are also appreciated.

Special thanks are given to Dawn Leland, Will Kemp and Carol Earnest of theICMA Publishing and Data Services Department for their assistance with the layout of the publication. Thanks also goes to Barbara de Boinville for her thoughtful editing.

The opinions in this report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Printed in the United States of America, 2003.

03-200

Part 1 Introduction 1

Importance of Community Engagement in Brownfields Redevelopment 3

Part 2 Observations from the Field 5

Communicating about Brownfields in Jersey City, New Jersey 5

Community Profile 5

Redevelopment Program and Process 5

Communication Methods Employed by the City Government 8

Factors Influencing Communication between City Officials and Residents 9

City Officials’ Perceptions 11

Community Residents’ Perceptions 11

Recommendations for Effective Communication 12

Communicating about Brownfields in Bridgeport, Connecticut 15

Community Profile 15

Redevelopment Program and Process 15

Communication Methods Employed by the City Government 16

Factors Influencing Communication between City Officials and Residents 18

City Officials’ Perceptions 19

Community Residents’ Perceptions 19

Recommendations for Effective Communication 20

Part 3 Conclusion 23

Part 4 Resources 25

Table of Contents

Brownfields are real properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which maybe complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollu-tant, or contaminant.1 Brownfields redevelopment has become an important means ofrevitalizing communities and a topic increasingly discussed by local governments. Yetthrough its ongoing brownfields research, ICMA has learned that community resi-dents and other stakeholders are not always aware of these discussions.

Realizing the need for better communications on brownfields redevelopment,ICMA, through a grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),launched the Local Government and Community Engagement in BrownfieldsRedevelopment Project in two selected communities—Jersey City, New Jersey andBridgeport, Connecticut.

Scope of the Project

The project studied local government policies and practices in conducting communityoutreach and education about brownfields and their redevelopment. The goal was tolearn about communication strategies that were already in place– what worked andwhat posed challenges. Based on input from local officials, community residents, andother stakeholders, the study determined strategies that would improve communica-tion and public participation in brownfields redevelopment planning. These strategieswere presented at information sharing forums held in Jersey City and Bridgeport. Theinformation sharing forums provided an opportunity for local officials and commu-nity residents to engage in dialogue to address their brownfields issues and concerns.

Scope of the Report

This report discusses the findings of the study concerning the brownfields activities ofboth local government and community groups and what can be done to enhance cur-rent communication methods. The report also presents community residents’ percep-tions of decision making by the local government as well as the local government’sperceptions of community participation.

Introduction

Part21

34

1 As defined by Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869), the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields RevitalizationAct, signed into law January 11, 2002.

To determine the communications dynamicsin the field, ICMA conducted case studies inJersey City, New Jersey, and Bridgeport,Connecticut. The research methodology detailshow these communities were selected.

Research Methodology

This one-year study was conducted by ICMA andthe Center for Public and EnvironmentalOversight (CPEO). The research involved site vis-its to selected communities and backgroundresearch on other communities.

In November of 2001, a press releaseannouncing the Local Government andCommunity Engagement Project and solicitingparticipants was prepared and distributed onICMA’s Website and numerous listservs.Applications were received from fourteen locales(see box above). Twelve applicants were localgovernments, and two were nonprofit agencies.

ICMA and CPEO staff evaluated the applica-tions using the following criteria: the quality ofthe application, the commitment to brownfieldsredevelopment of the local government, the over-all engagement of the community in land useplanning, and the presence of a formal brown-fields program. Applications submitted by localgovernments had to show evidence of a workingrelationship with community groups, and appli-cations submitted by nonprofits had to include aletter of support from the local government. Ofthe fourteen applicants, Jersey City, New Jerseyand Bridgeport, Connecticut, were selected toparticipate in this study. Both are older northeast-ern industrial cities that are similar in historicland use, form of government, population demo-graphics, and per capita income.

Selection letters were sent to Jersey City andBridgeport to reconfirm their willingness andavailability to participate in the project. Initial sitevisits were arranged to meet with local govern-ment officials and staff working on brownfieldsredevelopment issues and to tour the community.A subsequent visit was made to each location tomeet with community residents to discussbrownfields redevelopment and to follow upwith local government officials. Additionally,numerous interviews were made with commu-nity residents, nonprofit organizations, and localofficials, and a questionnaire was distributed tocommunity residents.

An information sharing session with localgovernment officials and community residentsdiscussing the findings and recommendations ofthe project and possible next steps for expandingeffective communication strategies in brownfieldsredevelopment was held in Jersey City in March2003 and in Bridgeport in October 2002.

2 Local Government and Community Engagement in Brownfields Redevelopment

Locales of Applicants for the Local Government and

Community Engagement Project

Allegan, Michigan

Chicago, Illinois

Coralville, Iowa

Denver, Colorado

Gary, Indiana

Hudson County, New Jersey

Hyattsville, Maryland

Jersey City, New Jersey

Little Rock/North Little Rock/Pulaski County,Arkansas*

Maysville, Kentucky

Bridgeport, Connecticut*

Tacoma, Washington

Waterloo, Iowa

Wilmington, Delaware

* = Nonprofit applicants.

One way for a local government to counteract environmental inequities and themalaise of economic, environmental, and social decay in urban areas is to improvepublic participation in land use decision making. Local government officials are contin-uously looking for innovative and effective approaches to increase community involve-ment and facilitate good working relationships among all stakeholders.

Meaningful community engagement is achieved by raising awareness and educat-ing citizens about issues of concern to them. As a result, they are empowered to partic-ipate in the planning and implementation of programs and policies. The greatestbarrier to community engagement is an unspoken one of fear or distrust. Public offi-cials may fear a negative reaction to their polices by citizens and the media; citizensmay fear that they will be embarrassed if they take action or that they will be unable toinfluence the plans of government officials. Often officials are unsure of the public’sability to deal with difficult issues, such as contaminated sources, and the publicdoubts that officials will pay attention to their input.

Rationale for Community Engagement

Local decisions that are made with citizens’ input and active involvement are morelikely to be acceptable to community residents. Citizen participation in communityaffairs serves as a check and balance to politicians’ pursuit of their own interests.Participation allows fuller access to the benefits of a democratic society. Active partici-pation in the decision-making process by a cross-section of citizens reduces the likeli-hood that government leaders will act based on factors other than the well-being of thecitizens at large.

There are three rationales for citizen participation. First, merely knowing that onecan participate in local affairs promotes dignity and self-sufficiency within the individ-ual. Second, engagement in civic activities taps the energies and resources of individ-ual citizens within the community and affects the decision-making process. Finally,citizen participation provides a unique source of insight, information, knowledge, andexperience that contributes to the soundness of community solutions. The result is anemphasis on problem solving to eliminate deficiencies in the community.

Additionally, citizen participation can legitimize a program— its plans, actions,and leadership— by bringing together the stakeholders to discuss the issues. Suchlegitimacy can often mean the difference between success or failure of communityefforts. Support from citizens can lead to a stronger, more solid program, whereasunsupported leaders often become discouraged and drop activities that could be bene-ficial to community residents.

Local government officials are, with few exceptions, committed to serving con-stituents’ interests and providing high-quality, and efficient government services. Yet there is much evidence that citizens do not feel that they are being heard or thatgovernment is addressing their priorities. It is increasingly difficult in growing and

Importance of CommunityEngagement in BrownfieldsRedevelopment

diverse communities for local government offi-cials to stay in touch with their constituents. Arapidly changing world means that traditionalapproaches for gathering feedback may be lesseffective today than in the past. Formal publichearings have their place, but they can be intimi-dating. Such hearings may not be the best way toencourage comments from a wide cross-section ofcommunity residents, and busy schedules oftenlimit attendance.

Local governments are trying new approachesto make it easier for citizens to express their opin-ions and for local officials to understand theirneeds. The most effective community involvementprograms use a combination of approaches toreach residents of different races and backgrounds.Advanced technology offers new opportunities forquick and cost-effective ways to get out informa-tion. Pressed for time, busy community memberswill appreciate convenient and quick ways to stayinformed about, and contribute to, governmentservices and community issues.

Opportunities for face-to-face exchangesbetween citizens and local government officialswill facilitate understanding and balance officials’diverse interests. By scheduling convenient timesfor meetings and providing comfortable settings,officials will encourage participation. Finally, com-munity members must feel that their concernshave been acknowledged and will be considered,rather than feel that they have not been heard orhave been manipulated.

Local governments that encourage citizens tobecome directly involved in community improve-ments can reap further rewards. Programs thatencourage shared responsibility for communityproblem solving and improvement not only takeadvantage of the energy and ideas of citizengroups to address community needs, they alsoprovide citizens with a sense of ownership in thecommunity. Neighborhood programs and volun-teer opportunities can directly involve citizens incommunity improvement. The voluntary partici-pation of citizens can also reduce the cost for per-sonnel needed to carry out many of the dutiesassociated with community action.

Benefits of Community EngagementCommunity engagement means that residents areinformed about civic affairs and actively involvedin making decisions that ultimately affect theircommunity. Meaningful community engagementis beneficial in several ways. For example, it:

• Promotes environmental justice. EnvironmentalJustice is the fair treatment of all people—regardless of race, culture, and income—when itcomes to the development of environmentallaws, regulations, and policies. It is consideredto be an injustice when disadvantaged commu-nities do not have a voice in policy making.

• Fosters collaboration. Parties who see differentaspects of a problem can constructively exploretheir differences and search for solutions that gobeyond their own limited vision of what is pos-sible. Collaboration is mutually beneficial,enabling two or more parties to work towardcommon goals by sharing responsibility, author-ity, and accountability for results.

• Minimizes conflicts. When there is ongoing dia-logue between the government and the commu-nity, and all parties are clear about what isgoing on, potential conflict decrease.

• Improves information flow. It is much easier toprovide information and solicit input from citi-zens who are engaged in local decision makingthan from citizens who are unaware of what ishappening in the community around them. Thisis because relationships exist between the publicand local officials, and channels of communica-tion are in place.

• Improves community understanding of localgovernment. One of the greatest barriers tocommunity involvement is citizen’s lack ofunderstanding of the civic process. To thelayperson, the civic process may appear techni-cal and complex. Therefore, many citizenschoose not to get involved.

• Improves the quality of life for citizens. A citi-zen’s quality of life is determined by his or hersocial, cultural, and economic values. If localdecision makers take these values into accountwhen setting laws and policies, they help citi-zens achieve the quality of life that they seek. Totake into account personal values, a local gov-ernment must listen carefully to citizens andask them to participate.2


2 Kirk Sorenson. Citizen Engagement for a Better Community(Martin County, Florida: Martin County, 2000).

Communicating About Brownfields in Jersey City, New Jersey

Jersey City has a long history as an industrial community. Beginning inthe 1830s, Jersey City served a railroad terminus. As the city grew, theshoreline became filled with garbage, ash, and slag from industrial by-products. By the 1960s, Jersey City was suffering from the same prob-lems that industrial downturns and suburban development brought toother cities in the northeastern United States. The demise of the rail-road in the 1960s coincided with the departure of local industrial giantsas well as major chemical companies from Jersey City.

Of the more than 200,000 acres that form the landmass of JerseyCity, approximately one-fifth of the acreage has been identified as suit-able for brownfields redevelopment. Sites range in size from 15’ by100’ lots to 240 acres. Most of Jersey City has been affected by contam-ination of the land. Many brownfields properties include former railyards, vacant buildings, and underutilized deteriorating facilities. Theabundance of contaminated properties and the pattern of ownershipcomplicate the marketability of the sites for redevelopment.3

Redevelopment Program and Process

In Jersey City, the cleanup and reuse of brownfields are part and par-cel of its redevelopment efforts and are not treated as a discrete function or program.At least four local departments are involved in brownfields redevelopment in JerseyCity: the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency (JCRA); the Department of Housing,Economic Development and Commerce (HEDC); the Environmental Commission;and the mayor’s office. Their coordination in terms of promoting citizen involvementin brownfields issues is uncertain.

In April 1997, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selected JerseyCity as an EPA National Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot. The selected

Observations from the Field

Part32

41

3 Brownfields Assessment Pilot Fact Sheet, Jersey City. See http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/jerseyct.htm.

Community Profile

LocationHudson County

Form of GovernmentMayor/City Council

SizeTotal area: 21.06 square milesLand area: 14.87 square miles

Population andDemographicsTotal: 240,055Hispanic: 28.3%Black: 26.8%White: 23.6% Asian: 16.1%

Per Capita IncomeCity of Jersey City: $19,410Hudson County: $21,154New Jersey: $27,006

area for Jersey City’s Brownfields Pilot Programconsisted of former industrialized and rail sitessurrounded by residential communities.Specifically, the city chose a portion of theLafayette neighborhood for initial redevelopmentbased on its mix of industrial and residential landuses, its large concentration of industrial proper-ties (abandoned properties or properties with sub-stantial municipal tax liens allowing foreclosureby the city), and its high level of unemployment.

The Brownfields Pilot Program in Jersey Cityfunded by EPA was designed to achieve the fol-lowing objectives:


Morris Canal Redevelopment Area

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’sBrownfields Assessment Demonstration PilotProgram Grant awarded in 1997 to Jersey Cityprompted the city to engage in a community-based planning process. A Stakeholders AdvisoryCommittee (SAC) was formed to ensure commu-nity inclusion in developing the Morris CanalRedevelopment Area Plan (Plan). The SACassisted in selecting the sites for assessment andin planning charrettes that were coordinated bycity staff to gain community input. After the Planwas developed, the planning board recommendedapproval by the City Council. The Plan wasadopted by the City Council in March 1999.

The Plan reflected community concerns. Itcalled for a separation of industrial uses from res-idential areas. The Plan also proposed the cre-ation of a major park and encouraged theconstruction of subsidized housing for senior citi-zens. Perhaps most significant, the Plan, ratherthan encourage wholesale redevelopment andgentrification, reinforced the existing residentialneighborhood, a multiracial area where somefamilies had resided for generations.

The Plan included a community empowermentclause that provided for open lines of communica-tion between the city government and the MorrisCanal community. The clause mandated creation ofthe Morris Canal Redevelopment Area DevelopmentCoalition (MCRADC), made up of representativesfrom the Morris Canal community including busi-ness and property owners. The Coalition’s primaryrole is to review all redevelopment proposals toensure compliance with the Plan.

Community residents felt that the cityreduced its communications with the neighbor-hood once the plan was adopted. Fewer largecommunity meetings were held than in the past.City staff expressed their view that publicinvolvement was less needed in the “deal-mak-ing” phase of assembling properties and financ-ing projects. Community members worried thatconstruction would add or modify details in waysthat did not serve the neighborhood’s interests.

Because of cultural factors, including lan-guage, the Latino community did not fully partici-pate in the planning phase, according tocommunity members. However, city staffreported that Latino youngsters who attendedcommunity meetings to translate for their eldershad the opportunity to influence the plans forpark play areas, and advocated new soccer fields.

The city’s Planning Division andEnvironmental Commission assigned a staffmember to serve as liaison to the MCRADC. It isthe responsibility of the liaison to ensure that thecoalition is kept apprised of events as they occurthroughout the investigation, remediation, andredevelopment process.

The Morris Canal Redevelopment AreaDevelopment Corporation (Corporation), a not-for-profit Community Development Corporation(CDC), was awarded $100,000 for a project at 406-420 Communipaw Avenue and $150,000 for acqui-sition of a vacant building at 319 Pacific Avenueto convert into its headquarters. The Corporation,which does not have any paid staff, will use aconsulting firm for project management.

Redeveloping abandoned brownfields sites canimprove and revitalize neighborhoods in Jersey City.

• Complete inventory of brownfields sitesthrough a Comprehensive Data and GraphicInformation Retrieval System.

• Complete assessment of eligible brownfieldssites in the target area and select, assemble andreconfigure them into marketable sites forindustrial development.

• Fund a community-based environmental edu-cation and participation program focusing ontarget area and sites selected for assessment.

• Increase the municipal tax base by adding tothe tax rolls properties in tax lien or publicownership and by increasing the use and valueof underutilized properties.

Observations from the Field 7

Morris Canal Redevelopment Milestones

1998

The Stakeholders Advisory Committee was established.

City-sponsored planning charrettes were conducted.

1999

The City Council of Jersey City adopted theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area Plan and theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area DevelopmentCoalition (MCRADC) was established.

Jersey City and the MCRADC named MorrisCanal Industrial Park Area and Conrail propertyas sites for Preliminary Assessment and SiteInvestigation (PA/SI).

HUD awarded Jersey City a $1.75 millionBrownfields Economic Development Initiative(BEDI) grant and $8 million in Section 108 loanfunds for development of the Morris CanalIndustrial Park.

2000

Preliminary Assessment is completed at MorrisCanal Industrial Park and site investigation initi-ated on several properties pursuant to PreliminaryAssessment Report recommendations.

2001

Jersey City organized a site selection workinggroup with representatives from the MCRADC,Jersey City Redevelopment Authority (JCRA),Jersey City Housing Authority (JCHA), U. S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), andNew Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NJDEP). The selection of the first twosites— the Morris Canal Industrial Park andConrail properties were reconfirmed at the work-ing group meeting of April 5, 2001.

New administration begins with the inaugurationof a new mayor of Jersey City.

Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham toured MorrisCanal Redevelopment Area with city staff andmembers of MCRADC.

HUD awarded the Jersey City Housing Authoritya $34 million HOPE VI grant to fund developmentof mixed-income housing in the Morris CanalRedevelopment Area and the Lafayette neighbor-hood.

Developers gave presentations to MCRADC onthree projects: 900 Garfield Avenue, Ercel Webbaffordable housing development for veterans andadaptive reuse at 300 Communipaw Avenue.

2002

Jersey City Redevelopment Authority (JCRA)selected Hampshire Companies as developer of900 Garfield Avenue, a chromium contaminatedsite complicated by the presence of a former coalgasification plant. The responsible parties for sitecontamination are cooperating with the JCRA,the city, and the developer and working towardsite remediation.

JCRA selected Woodmont Industries as devel-oper of the Morris Canal Industrial Park.

JCRA issued Request for Proposals for develop-ment of market-rate housing on approximately 42acres in the Morris Canal Redevelopment Areas.

Mayor designated HEDC staff person as city liai-son to MCRADC to ensure that the coalition isinformed on public sector development activitiesin the redevelopment area.

JCRA designated Urban League AffordableHousing and Community DevelopmentCorporation as developer of Ercel Webb VeteransHousing.

JCRA heard proposals from three prospectivedevelopers for a 42-acre market-rate housingdevelopment.

Reinstatement of the Stakeholders AdvisoryCommittee.

• Create new industrial jobs for Jersey City residents through the existing “First Source”job placement and job training programs main-tained by the city (not funded by pilot grant).

• Reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants for the residents of adjacent neighborhoods.

The EPA pilot grant provided seed moneythat helped facilitate community involvement inredevelopment planning and improved commu-nications between Jersey City’s government andits residents. The creation of the Morris CanalRedevelopment Area prompted additional directgrants from the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD) and private invest-ment in problem properties that had been dor-mant for years.

Visible signs of the city’s community out-reach efforts include planned community char-rettes, distribution of informational flyers, youthinvolvement in local decision making and theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area Plan with itsmandate for community involvement. Like mostlocal governments, Jersey City’s government isfaced with numerous and complex challenges. InJersey City, these challenges include local govern-ment policies and procedures that do not requireas much involvement from citizens as communitymembers would like; a highly charged politicalatmosphere; unclear roles of stakeholders; projectinitiation and site selection led by developers;inadequate notification strategies; insufficientstaffing for community outreach; lack of under-standing about brownfields; and other issues.

The challenges facing residents in their deal-ings with local officials include lack of under-standing of the civic process, confusion about themeaning of “brownfields”, and work and familyobligations that hinder their ability to attend pub-lic meetings hosted by their local government, toname a few.

Matters are further complicated by stake-holders’ perceptions of each other and aboutprocesses and procedures. Activities of one partythat are not transparent may be misconstrued bythe other. Distrust as a result of past misunder-standings also appeared to hinder a collaborative

partnership in the present between a localgovernment and residents.

Despite these challenges, local officials aswell as community residents can take specificsteps to improve communications. Subsequentsections of this report outline recommendationsto Jersey City officials and community residentsfor developing effective communication and com-munity involvement strategies.

Communication Methods Employedby the City Government

This section describes both the required ways inwhich Jersey City has tried to involve the com-munity in brownfields redevelopment as well assome of the extra steps the local government hastaken to reach out to residents, both propertyowners and tenants.

Planning Charrettes

The city government held three planning char-rettes in the Morris Canal community to developthe vision for land use and building design forthe Morris Canal Redevelopment Area Plan.During the charrettes, residents were divided intoeight subgroups, and input from each subgroupwas later consolidated into a redevelopmentvision plan. Some funds from EPA were used topurchase supplies for the meetings, and staff timewas city funded. The charrettes were held inschools to make them accessible to the commu-nity. During the planning charrettes, translationswere provided for Spanish speakers.


Redevelopment of brownfields sites will haveeconomic, environmental and social benefits.

Notification Strategies

To comply with state law and to ensure that itscorrespondence reached intended parties, JerseyCity sent mail by certified delivery to propertyowners in areas in need of redevelopment to alertthem about public meetings. For the benefit ofrenters who did not receive notification by mail,notices of meetings were published in the localpaper with maps of the proposed redevelopmentareas. These maps gave citizens a pictorial viewof the current status and future plans for theareas as well as a better understanding of theissues that would be discussed at the meetings.

In addition to the city’s notices, the LafayetteNeighborhood Association went door-to-doordistributing 1,200 bilingual flyers produced bythe Division of City Planning. City staff also usedchurches as a venue for outreach activities. Byusing multiple modes of dissemination of infor-mation, the city was able to reach broader audi-ences within the community.

Community Empowerment Clause

The community empowerment clause in theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area Plan requirespublic involvement in redevelopment activitiesand the creation of the Morris CanalRedevelopment Authority DevelopmentCoalition to provide comments to the city ondevelopment proposals. The clause states, “Toestablish and maintain community empower-ment in the redevelopment area, it is recom-mended that the redevelopment area communityestablish a single community-based developmentcoalition, for the purpose of community inclusionin the decision making process of the redevelop-ment plan....”4

Community Meetings

The city proposed monthly meetings with theMCRADC to keep it abreast of redevelopmentactivities in the city. At these meetings, atten-dance has historically been low, perhaps becausecommunity members have conflicting obligationsor doubt they have power to affect change.

Factors Influencing Communicationbetween City Officials and Residents

Following is an explanation of the factors thatinfluence interactions between the local govern-ment in Jersey City and community members.These factors were noted as a result of detailedinterviews with neighborhood residents and localofficials. Taken together these procedural andpersonal issues can impede a collaborative partnership between the local government andthe community.

Policies and Procedures for Community Engagement

The types of policies and procedures in place inlocal government can influence the degree towhich a community is involved in redevelopment.Before Jersey City received its EPA pilot grant, nolocal government staff had been assigned respon-sibilities for community outreach. Planning stafffollowed state procedures for public notification(of pending redevelopment efforts) but did nottake additional steps to engage the public. Publicnotification is just one way to reach out to citizens.True public engagement requires a two-way dia-logue between government and residents, andinput from residents in decision making.

Highly Charged Political Atmosphere

The past practices of previous leaders of JerseyCity appear to have created distrust of local gov-ernment among residents. The previous adminis-tration focused on waterfront redevelopmentalong the Hudson River and did not seek out oraccept public input. This practice was seen bysome in the community as compromising publicinterest while catering to developers’ interests.Proactive in seeking community participation inthe redevelopment process, the current mayorhas personally visited neighborhoods to talk withresidents about their concerns.

Unclear Roles among Stakeholders

The Morris Canal Redevelopment AreaDevelopment Coalition, established to reviewredevelopment proposals for projects within theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area, has not met


4 City of Jersey City. Morris Canal Redevelopment Plan (JerseyCity, New Jersey: City of Jersey, 1999).

the city’s expectations that it would continue thework of organizing stakeholders’ meetings onredevelopment in the community. From the per-spective of local government officials, the coali-tion’s current agenda extends beyond the originalscope of its mission. They perceive the MCRADCas acting in the capacity of a developer ratherthan as a reviewer of developers’ proposals, andthey believe this is setting the stage for conflict.Jersey City and the MCRADC have failed toaddress the lack of transparency in motives andactions, and unless this issue is addressed, therelationship between the government and thecoalition may become antagonistic.

Developer-Led Project Initiation and Site Selection

On projects initiated by developers, communityinput is limited because the city works on prede-velopment agreements to ensure the projects’ fea-sibility. In Jersey City, this has always been anarea of contention between local government andthe public because the community feels disen-franchised by the process. However, the newadministration, which came to office in 2001, ismaking public participation a priority for siteslocated in residential areas of the city.

Inadequate Public Notification Strategies

Notification of redevelopment efforts and solici-tation of input are often restricted to propertyowners, who may not be community residents ifthey lease their property. Indeed, the actual resi-dents of the community may be excluded fromthe notification process if they are tenants. Thisstrategy disadvantages low-income residents,since they are less likely to own their homes.

Insufficient Staffing for Community Outreach

The scarcity of staff members dedicated tobrownfields activities hinders community out-reach. The Department of Housing, EconomicDevelopment and Commerce currently has onlyone community liaison, whose job is to coordi-nate community meetings to explain the redevel-opment process to the public. The city realizesthat having only one staff member with theseresponsibilities is insufficient, and it is in the

process of recruiting a community developmentplanner who possesses both the technical knowl-edge of planning and the necessary training incommunity outreach.

Additionally, the local government staff’slack of racial diversity may make it challengingfor them to interact with a diverse community.The Jersey City Division of Planning is entirelyCaucasian, although half are bilingual (Englishand Spanish). It serves a brownfields redevelop-ment area with African American, Latino, andAsian residents. In an effort to address diversityissues throughout the city, Jersey City has beenrecruiting people of color in significant roles.

Lack of Awareness and Understandingabout Brownfields

“Brownfields” is a relatively new and confusingconcept for most Jersey City residents. For this rea-son, it is hard for the local government to rallyparticipation in discussions about brownfields andthe process of redevelopment. The city needs tounderstand the community’s pressing needs forjobs, health care, and public safety, and tie thoseneeds into the discussion about brownfields. Forexample, brownfields redevelopment can bring innew business and create jobs locally.

Additionally, it appears that there is some con-fusion regarding the scope of Jersey City’s brown-fields program. Jersey City is an old industrial city,and virtually all nonresidential development con-struction involves potentially contaminated prop-erty or brownfields redevelopment. EPA’sBrownfields Assessment Demonstration PilotProgram Grant is linked to the Morris CanalRedevelopment Area, however, much of the city’sactivity— such as redevelopment planning, hasbeen funded from other sources.

Conflicting Work Schedules PrecludingCommunity Involvement

Because a majority of residents have day jobs,scheduling community meetings during the dayis not practical, and residents with evening jobsor family obligations have found it difficult tocommit to evening meetings. Jersey City sched-ules community meetings during the evening, yetfaces challenges attracting significant numbers ofresidents to these meetings.


Compartmentalization of City Government

To some degree, the city’s difficulties with imple-menting all of the activities listed in the brown-fields grant application to EPA may be aconsequence of the compartmentalization of itsgovernment. As noted earlier, at least four JerseyCity departments—the Jersey City RedevelopmentAgency (JCRA), the Department of Housing,Economic Development and Commerce (HEDC),the Environmental Commission, and the mayor’soffice— participate in brownfields redevelopment.Community members expressed different levels ofsatisfaction with each as well as different levels ofconcern with past and present administrations.

Allocation of Resources

Leaders of MCRADC expressed concern that theMorris Canal Redevelopment Area was not see-ing the benefits of the funds Jersey City receivedfrom EPA’s Brownfields Pilot Program, eventhough the funding was based on the conditionof this community. Jersey City insists that 100percent of the EPA funds are being directed tothese neighborhoods, but to date not all of thefunds have been expended. Authors’ note: It hasbeen determined that grant funds have beenexpended on non-pilot activities, but the moneywill be replenished such that all grant funds willbe spent on grant activities.

City Officials’ Perceptions

Government officials in Jersey City’s acknowl-edge disparities between the city’s brownfieldsredevelopment efforts and the agenda of some ofthe community representatives on the MorrisCanal Redevelopment Area DevelopmentCoalition. The local government wants todevelop a working partnership with Jersey Cityresidents. Brownfields proposals have beenopposed by some in the community, and this hascreated friction with the municipal government.It is the local government’s perception that devel-opment projects are delayed because some mem-bers of the community expect to gain financialbenefits from private projects on the one handand because of private developers do not under-stand the importance of communicating with thecommunity on the other hand.

From the local government’s perception, theMCRADC does not appear to have a clear visionof what it wants to accomplish. The MCRADCwants to manage development projects and servein the capacity of a developer—a possible conflictof interest since any application for developmentmust go through the coalition.

Community Residents’ Perceptions

When first interviewed, residents of the MorrisCanal Redevelopment Area of Jersey City indi-cated deep mistrust for their local government.However, on a more thorough exploration of theirviews, the same residents expressed mixed feel-ings about their relationship with the city. Theyexpressed satisfaction with the planning phase ofthe city’s brownfields program in the MorrisCanal area. The city, with the help of the LafayetteNeighborhood Association, notified communitymembers about the process, and meetings wereheld in the community at convenient times.

While today both the city government and thecommunity residents are focused on the imple-mentation of a successful neighborhood revitaliza-tion program, community members warn thatsuccess could bring failures as well. Slightly northof the Morris Canal area is a large high-rise devel-opment designed, built, and operated by NewportAssociates Development. A mixed commercialand residential complex built over former railyards along the Jersey City waterfront, it benefitshigh-income residents who commute to jobs, justacross the Hudson River, in New York City.

Like many other brownfields developers,Newport Associates, with regulatory approval,relied upon containment of contamination andinstitutional controls to reduce risks to humanhealth. A company representative reports that thisstrategy led to a minor and easily correctable prob-lem; residents want more recreational open space.The company intends to oblige, but it will be moredifficult, at least more costly, since the site waspaved over as part of the environmental response.

The success of Newport Associates’ high-risedevelopment illustrates that the Hudson Rivershoreline, including the Morris Canal area, is avery desirable place for highly paid professionalsworking in New York City to live. If the efforts to


redevelop the area succeed—that is, if contami-nated properties are cleaned and redeveloped,then widespread rapid gentrification may result.Active members of the area made it clear thatthey want not only to clean up and improve theirneighborhood, but also to retain its essential fab-ric and affordability for current residents.

This, perhaps, is the strongest argument fordirect community participation in area redevelop-ment projects. Such participation, on a significantscale, was not feasible at the Newport propertybecause there was no pre-existing residential com-munity. But in the Morris Canal RedevelopmentArea, projects could be designed to improve com-munities and prevent unwanted gentrification.

Health issues related to redevelopment inJersey City prompted little concern among localresidents. They showed a general lack of interestin current contamination levels, health impacts,and plans for cleanup of brownfields sites.However, the community residents expressed con-cerns about negative health impacts from mobilesources of pollution such as heavy trucks. Thecommunity seemed unaware of the relationshipbetween future uses for contaminated sites andcleanup strategies. At least one large site withinthe redevelopment area, the PPG Industries site,has extensive, hazardous chromium pollution.

Recommendations for Effective Communication

Based on lessons learned during the researchstudy, the following recommendations were for-

mulated to assist the local government with itscommunication strategy and to help the commu-nity recognize what it can do to become moreinvolved in the civic process.

Recommendations for Local Government Action

Educate Community Residents

While certain sectors of Jersey City are somewhatknowledgeable about brownfields, planning andother redevelopment issues, it would be benefi-cial to the city as a whole to educate all of itscommunities about brownfields redevelopment.Citizens of Jersey City realize that the whole cityis literally one big brownfields site because ofpast industrial uses, but they would benefit froma better understanding of the associated healthrisks. By providing technical assistance to com-munity residents, the local government can facili-tate understanding of complex scientific andengineering information. Better understanding ofassociated health risks and the redevelopmentprocess empowers the community to collaboratewith city officials in addressing concerns andreaching mutually acceptable decisions.

Develop Citizen Academies and ResourceEducation Series (CARES) Programs

Citizen Academies and Resource EducationSeries (CARES) programs teach citizens abouthow their local government operates. Classesprovide an overview of each governmentaldepartment and the services it provides. Learningoccurs in an informal setting that may includefield trips or site visits, as well as in a classroom.Citizens who complete a CARES program arepresented with certificates to recognize theknowledge they have gained and the time theyhave invested in learning about their govern-ment. They become ambassadors for the localgovernment because they have developed anunderstanding and an appreciation of what thelocal government is doing for them.

Utilize Community’s Experience

Residents have the best knowledge of what isgoing on within their community. They are eye-witnesses to past activities and know firsthand


Efforts are underway in Jersey City to redevelop areaslike this brownfields site.

about contamination and other issues of concern.Local officials in Jersey City can build on thisvaluable source of information in two ways: (1) byestablishing neighborhood peer exchanges,wherein residents educate each other based ontheir personal experiences and (2) by interviewingcitizens as part of environmental site assessments.

Develop a Communication Strategic Plan

A communication strategic plan is a unified policythat specifies in detail how the local governmentwill communicate with community residents. Itsgoal is to improve citizens understanding of gov-ernment functions and services, as well as theiraccess to them. The plan can also empower staffto be more effective in communicating with citi-zens, other departments, and agencies. This canalleviate the confusion caused by multiple agen-cies working on similar issues and help create amore consistent approach to problems.

Reinstate Stakeholders Advisory Committee

The Stakeholder Advisory Committee wasformed to ensure community inclusion in devel-oping the Morris Canal Redevelopment AreaPlan. The committee assisted in selecting the sitesfor assessment and in planning a charrette to gaincommunity input. Reinstating the SAC and link-ing it with the Morris Canal Redevelopment AreaDevelopment Coalition may provide a mecha-nism for increasing public participation in thebrownfields redevelopment process. Author’snote: On October 30, 2002, Jersey City reinstatedthe Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC).

Define Appropriate Roles and Responsibilities

Although Jersey City and the MCRADC havespecific roles to play in the Morris CanalRedevelopment Area Plan, those roles andresponsibilities are not clear. Roles and responsi-bilities should be clearly defined to avoid thepotential for confusion and a breach in trust.

Utilize the Media

Early involvement of the media can provide posi-tive results for Jersey City and spread the wordabout its brownfields redevelopment programsand initiatives. City staff could author op-ed

pieces as updates to what is occurring with thecity’s redevelopment efforts or provide the mediawith information on contamination and otherbrownfields-related issues for articles in the localnewspapers. Public service announcements(PSAs) on local radio and television stations areanother potential strategy.

Assist the MCRADC

The redevelopment plan for Morris Canalrequires the submission of development propos-als to the Morris Canal Redevelopment AreaDevelopment Coalition for review. Developmentproposals are complicated and cumbersome doc-uments and, without clarification by a trainedprofessional, may be difficult to understand.Jersey City staff could prepare short and easy-to-read staff reports on development proposals forreview by the coalition. The staff report couldbriefly summarize the proposal, its consistencywith the redevelopment plan, and the staff’s pro-fessional opinion on its merits. With this informa-tion, the MCRADC can more effectivelyparticipate in the dialogue between developersand local government officials.

Coordinate Government Departments

By coordinating the efforts of its different depart-ments, the Jersey City government can leverageresources to address brownfields issues in thecommunity. For example, the city’s HealthDepartment can partner with the PlanningDepartment to develop a strategy for educatingthe public about health risks at contaminatedsites slated for redevelopment. By becomingknowledgeable about the process and the riskinvolved in redevelopment of brownfields, thepublic will be in a better position to evaluate sce-narios and participate in decision making.

Form Partnerships

Through nontraditional partnerships with uni-versities and nonprofit organizations, Jersey Citycan gain valuable insight and expertise or benefitin its efforts to communicate about brownfieldswith citizens. In addition, state and federal agen-cies can provide human and financial resources,as well as technical assistance, for the local gov-


ernment. Together, these partners can implementcommunication strategies that consider the cul-tural, social, economic, and environmentalaspects of the community.

Rebuild Trust

The trust built through effective public involve-ment in the planning process was hindered whenJersey City reduced its communications with thecommunity. Restarting the information flow—public outreach, newsletters, community meet-ings—will go a long way in restoring the positiverelationship between Jersey City and its residents.

Leverage Federal Resources

In Jersey City, as in cities across the country, com-munity groups want to lead, rather than simplyoversee, some of the projects in their neighbor-hoods. However, community groups in mostinstances lack the expertise and resources to playthat role. Federal agencies, such as the EPA andHUD, and private foundations can support com-munity-led brownfields redevelopment by pilot-ing models that include training, assistanceattracting investment, and legal frameworks forsharing project leadership with experienced pub-lic sector or private sector developers.

Clarify the Scope of BrownfieldsRedevelopment Strategies

Local governments’ brownfields redevelopmentstrategies are not limited to activities funded bythe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Theycan include redevelopment planning and imple-mentation, housing construction, and park devel-opment. Community involvement should bedesigned to support the entire strategy, not justEPA’s piece of the puzzle. The EPA BrownfieldsAssessment Demonstration Pilot Program Grantawarded to Jersey City funded community-basedplanning—one element of a much larger picture.

Recommendations for Community Action

Form Partnerships

One of the main challenges facing communitygroups in Jersey City is how to become knowl-edgeable and credible when discussing brown-fields redevelopment issues. In order to learnmore about redevelopment issues and processes,community groups can partner with CommunityDevelopment Corporations (CDCs). When multi-ple stakeholders are engaged, they have astronger voice and more resources than a singleadvocate of brownfields redevelopment does.Communities and nonprofit organizations shouldlearn to coordinate their efforts for the purpose ofachieving common goals.

Train Community Leaders

Jersey City has a Community Partnership Centers(COPC) Program that trains community leaders.Jersey City’s community groups should look intothis training for their members, if they have notalready done so.

Gather Resources

Numerous grant-making organizations includingfoundations, universities, and federal and stateagencies can provide assistance to grass-rootscommunity efforts to redevelop brownfields.Jersey City’s community groups can researchfunding opportunities to help sustain the activi-ties of their members and help build capacity.


Communicating About Brownfields in Bridgeport, Connecticut

Bridgeport, Connecticut is located on Long Island Sound at the mouthof the Pequonnock River. First settled in 1665, incorporated in 1821,and chartered in 1836, Bridgeport is the largest city in Connecticut andone of the most economically distressed.

Bridgeport is the perfect setting for urban rebirth. It has a highlyskilled workforce, one of Connecticut’s three deep-water ports, andexcellent access to New York City and Boston. Despite those advan-tages, the city of Bridgeport has found it difficult to compete with sur-rounding areas. Industrial employment dropped steadily in each ofthe past three decades, and unemployment in the industrial corridorremains significantly higher than the citywide rate. Many businesseshave left the city in search of clean sites and modern buildings, whichhas resulted in several hundred acres of abandoned land that may becontaminated.5

Redevelopment Program and Process

To date, the city of Bridgeport has received three Brownfields PilotProject grants from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: anAssessment Demonstration Pilot (ADP) grant, a Job Training Pilot

Grant, and a Targeted Brownfields Assessment (TBA) grant. Monies from these grantshave been used to establish an inventory of contaminated properties, collect environ-mental and economic data for the sites, and create redevelopment strategies for theselected pilot sites. To accomplish this task, Bridgeport hired a team of planning, envi-ronmental, real estate, and marketing consultants to screen properties with the high-est potential for redevelopment. The Community Linkage for Environmental ActionNow (CLEAN) Task Force was established by the City of Bridgeport to serve as asounding board and informational resource for the consulting team. The task forcewas composed of representatives of affected neighborhoods, government officials,potential investors, educators, and business leaders in the community.

The goal of the program in Bridgeport, as one of the nation’s first three brown-fields pilot communities, was to promote safe and appropriate redevelopment bypulling together diverse individuals and groups, and assembling a database of crucialenvironmental and economic information. Through a cooperative effort, Bridgeporthoped to demonstrate that it was possible to return contaminated urban industrialproperties to productive uses that benefit and involve the community. The city recog-nizes that to succeed, each redevelopment project must be firmly anchored to the localneighborhood. Locally-driven strategies tailored to community needs are essential forsuccessful implementation of brownfields programs.

Historically, Bridgeport had not involved until recently citizens in the brownfieldsredevelopment process. Its large brownfields redevelopment projects were city-spon-sored, using a top down approach that informed neighborhoods only after a project


Community Profile

LocationFairfield County

Form of GovernmentMayor/City Council

SizeTotal area: 19.4 square milesLand area: 16.0 square miles

Population andDemographicsTotal: 139,529Hispanic: 31.9%White: 30.9% Black: 24.4% Asian: 3.2%

Per Capita IncomeCity of Bridgeport: $16,306Fairfield County: $38,350Connecticut: $28,766

5 Brownfields Assessment Pilot Fact Sheet, Bridgeport. See http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/html-doc/bridgepo.htm

had begun. Within the last four years, Bridgeporthas begun pursuing redevelopment at the neigh-borhood level and incorporating the views of thecommunity into the process. Additionally, thecity has introduced a community involvementelement in its redevelopment plans and an envi-ronmental education project is being created.

To help make the community aware of theopportunities that will result from the brown-fields redevelopment projects, the city hosted anenvironmental job training and education forumfor neighborhood leaders, state officials, educa-tors, and business leaders. The city also has aneighborhood coordinator on staff who worksclosely with the planning office to keep residentsinformed. The Went Field Park restoration projectexemplifies the close collaboration that is possiblebetween citizens and their local government inbrownfields redevelopment (see box on page 17).

Communication Methods Employedby the City Government

As the recipient of EPA pilot grants that mandatecommunity participation, Bridgeport is realizingthe positive outcome of meaningful communityinvolvement and taking new strides to engage itscitizens in redevelopment planning. In additionto its strategies to support civic participation inthe Went Field Park project, Bridgeport hasemployed the following means to communicatewith residents about brownfields redevelopmentand involve them in the decision-making process.

Community Liaison

Bridgeport’s Office of Planning and EconomicDevelopment Department (OPED) has a neigh-borhood coordinator who is responsible for con-ducting outreach to residents on redevelopmentactivities. The coordinator attends communitymeetings and holds public forums to inform resi-dents of the city’s redevelopment efforts. Theneighborhood coordinator has been with the cityfor over a decade and has established a goodworking relationship with the community.

Quarterly Community Conferences

Public safety concerns in Bridgeport promptedthe Office of Planning and Economic Develop-ment and the police department to convene com-munity conferences every three months. After theinitial public safety concerns had been addressed,the residents continued to sponsor the quarterlycommunity conferences themselves. At theseinformal gatherings, residents meet with localgovernment officials. The locations for the confer-ences rotate among neighborhood associations.Agendas are preset by community residents, andcity officials attend to answer questions.

Interpreters

To lower the language barrier and reach more ofits population, Bridgeport translated informationin newsletters, and flyers about brownfields rede-velopment into Spanish. Interpreters also havebeen present at community meetings. Theseefforts have been appreciated by residents. A par-ticipant of one bilingual meeting noted that eventhough translations were simultaneous, noteverything being said could be translated.However, she believed that “knowing some, ifnot all” was important.

Multistakeholder Collaboration

To devise and implement a plan to restore WentField Park, the City of Bridgeport brought togetherlocal residents, businesses, and nonprofit organiza-tions. The Went Field Park effort also promotedinterdepartmental cooperation among variouslocal government entities, including the Parks andRecreation Department, the Police Department,and the Board of Education. Neighborhood resi-


Bridgeport seeks community involvement in revitalizingsites like this vacant property.


Went Field Park Restoration and Expansion Project

Went Field Park, adjacent to an Interstate 95ramp, is a gateway to the 200-acre West EndIndustrial Area currently under redevelopment.The park served as winter quarters of the P.T.Barnum Circus for more than fifty years. Horses,tigers, and other domestic and exotic animalswere housed on the property, and performersand trainers resided in the surrounding homes.

Revitalizing resources like the park are essen-tial to improving the overall image of Bridgeport.The nearby Elias Howe Elementary School island-locked with no outdoor play areas. BassickHigh School, located a few blocks away, is one ofthe few high schools inthe state without adjoin-ing athletic facilities. Boththe schools and the resi-dents of the neighborhoodwill be able to use theexpanded and improvedrecreation facilities at theWent Field Park.

Bridgeport was one ofthe first cities in thenation to use stakeholder’sparticipation togetherwith the redevelopmentprocess to revitalize wholeneighborhoods rather than parcels of land.Stakeholders included residents and businessesin the West End neighborhood, city departments,state and federal agencies, neighborhood schoolsand other groups such as the Went Field ParkAssociation, the Barnum Museum, the BridgeportRegional Business Council, GroundworksBridgeport, Bridgeport Neighborhood Trust, andthe Latino Softball League.

Issues related to crime, funding, and the envi-ronment were all resolved by the meaningfulinvolvement of these stakeholders in decisionsabout the restoration and expansion of WentField Park. Stakeholders participated in designworkshops, public safety meetings, and otherpublic gatherings.

The expansion of Went Field Park requiredthe city to assess, acquire, and clean up twoadjacent commercial sites: the Exmet site andthe Swan Engraving site. Exmet, a former metalextrusion company, had left its site vacant since1989. Bridgeport used part of its $200,000 EPAAssessment Demonstration Pilot (ADP) grant tofund environmental assessments of the Exmet

site from 1997 to 2000. In 2000, EPA also con-ducted a $75,000 Targeted BrownfieldsAssessment (TBA) on the site of SwanEngraving, a former printing company.Subsequent work at the site funded was by thecity’s ADP grant.

The assessments identified the presence oflow-level solvents in the groundwater. The con-tamination is being addressed in accordancewith the standards set by the ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection. As partof the applied study component of the JobTraining Pilot, local students of the environmen-

tal training program willbe trained in groundwatermonitoring and data man-agement using the exist-ing monitoring program atthe site.

On May 1, 2002, thePark City BrownfieldsRedevelopmentPartnership was awardedan EPA New EnglandEnvironmental MeritAward for its work torestore and expand WentField Park.

By integrating funds from the EPAAssessment Demonstration Pilot Grant program,the EPA Job Training Pilot program, and an EPA-conducted Targeted Brownfields Assessment,the partnership leveraged an additional $4.4 mil-lion to achieve its twin goals: (1) providing openspace, educational opportunities, and betterrecreational facilities for the residents of theWest End neighborhood, and (2) improving theoverall image of Bridgeport.

The Park City Brownfields RedevelopmentPartnership is an umbrella group for a numbernonprofit agencies, community groups, and gov-ernment entities working to restore and expandWent Field Park.

The Went Field Park restoration is the largestcommunity-based project in the city and one ofthe largest in the country. The project expandedthe park from six to ten acres by revitalizing theExmet and Swan Engraving sites. Municipal, cor-porate, state, and federal sources were pooled,and West End businesses and residents joinedforces to achieve success.6

6 Success Stories. See http://www.epa.gov/region1/brownfields/success/bridgeport.htm.

A picnic gazebo at Bridgeport's revitalized WentField Park.

dents used the project to open up communicationswith the police, and they established activitiessuch as a Neighborhood Watch Program, to bene-fit the entire neighborhood.

Interdepartmental Coordination

Even without a formal communication policy inplace, Bridgeport’s city departments worktogether to keep residents informed about brown-fields redevelopment programs. The Board ofEducation has worked with the Department ofHealth to sponsor educational sessions at com-munity meetings, and the Office of Planning andEconomic Development and the ZoningDepartment work to coordinate the city’s redevelopment efforts.

Risk Communication

During the cleanup and development of WentField Park, city officials met with residents to com-municate the risks involved in its restoration. Atthe session, residents were presented with the his-tory of the site and preliminary findings about itssafety. The city sought residents’ input and feed-back, but residents did not believe they could initi-ate a dialogue with the city for two reasons. First,they believed the city’s presentation was exces-sively technical and they were not able to under-stand it. Second, the information presented tothem brought about feelings of anxiety. Many feltit was too early in the process to predict the out-come of the cleanup. They told the city they pre-ferred to hear the actual findings rather than thepreliminary findings, and asked for a reworkedpresentation that was easier to understand.

Factors Influencing Communication Between City Officials and Residents

The effectiveness of communications between theCity of Bridgeport and the residents aboutbrownfields issues is determined by numerousfactors. These include residents’ priorities, fund-ing and resources available, the character of theneighborhoods, and residents’ feelings aboutlocal government.

Residents’ Priorities

During the best of times, most Bridgeport resi-dents have little understanding of the phrase“brownfields redevelopment” or its relevance toeconomic development and the creation of newjobs. Under current economic conditions inBridgeport, it is also difficult for local govern-ment to pitch brownfields redevelopment to thepublic as a priority. Local officials will find ithard to rally citizens for discussions aboutbrownfields unless there is widespread aware-ness of the issue and an understanding that rede-velopment can promote economic development,create jobs, and protect community health.

Inadequate Financial and Staff Resources

Insufficient financial and staff resources in thecity government make it difficult to communicateeffectively with local residents, keep theminformed of the city’s progress, and hear theirconcerns regarding brownfields redevelopment.Bridgeport currently has only one neighborhoodcoordinator who is responsible for conductingoutreach to communities on redevelopment activ-ities. Fortunately, residents and business ownershave formed community organizations that playa role in disseminating information on brown-fields redevelopment and other issues. Whilethese community groups serve a vital role,increased coordination with the city’s staff willhelp to ensure that timely and accurate informa-tion reach area residents.

Fragmented Neighborhoods

Neighborhoods in Bridgeport are somewhat frag-mented. The population is often transient, andthe residents have not organized themselves topresent a unified voice on issues. The formationof neighborhood groups in Bridgeport is a rela-tively new occurrence. The Unity Council doesnot represent the majority of neighborhoods inBridgeport. Many neighborhoods are left “out ofthe loop” in terms of the brownfields redevelop-ment process.


Distrust of Officials

In many cities, there is an inherent distrust oflocal governments, charged with making deci-sions and spending tax dollars, and this is alsotrue in Bridgeport. This skepticism impairs theway residents interact with their local officials andserves as a barrier to effective communication.

City Officials’ Perceptions

As mentioned earlier, Bridgeport has usednumerous techniques to involve residents in thebrownfields redevelopment process. The cityfeels confident about the progress it has made inimproving communications on redevelopmentactivities, but officials acknowledge there is fur-ther work to be done to educate more membersof the community about brownfields and theredevelopment process.

Community Residents Perception

Bridgeport’s Went Field Park project is a modelexercise in public involvement for brownfieldsredevelopment. Bridgeport residents outside ofthe West End neighborhood, however, remainuninformed of the city’s strategy for revitalizingbrownfields elsewhere in the community.Virtually all nonresidential development in

Bridgeport is brownfields redevelopment, yet res-idents are unfamiliar with the city’s brownfieldsprogram because of confusion about terminology.

Like many other cities that have receivedEPA pilot grants, Bridgeport is marshalingresources from a number of programs to supportits efforts to redevelop brownfields. Bridgeport’sbrownfields funding from EPA represents a smallportion of the city’s formal brownfields funds.The EPA-funded program is referred to as thebrownfields program, yet brownfields through-out the city are being redeveloped with non-EPAfunds. Most residents are not aware that Bridge-port’s brownfields also includes these projects.


Remington Woods

Remington Woods is a 430-acre parcel of landthat straddles the border between Bridgeportand Stratford to the East. Formerly a munitionstest site, the parcel is the largest undevelopedpiece of land in the area. It is currently owned byDuPont, which plans to develop the property asan office park.

The city’s Office of Planning and EconomicDevelopment supports DuPont’s plans for com-mercial and office development. BecauseBridgeport needs jobs and nonresidential tax rev-enue, a majority of the community activists whowere interviewed also seem to favor develop-ment. However, there is an active local group,Friends of Remington Woods, that wants the siteto remain as relatively undisturbed habitat. TheFriends of Remington Woods would like to see

the property become an eco-tourist destination,but they have no concrete plans for acquiring theproperty. The group supports redevelopment ofother Bridgeport brownfields as an alternative todeveloping Bridgeport’s last, relatively naturalacreage of greenspace.

Neither the opponents nor proponents ofdevelopment of Remington Woods have focusedon the health and public safety aspects ofreusing a site contaminated with ordnance, aswell as other contaminants. Contamination andrelated health and public safety issues seem tobe secondary concerns in Bridgeport. The focusis on reuse and redevelopment, and environ-mental concerns seem to be related to futureuse, not exposure to contamination caused bypast uses.

Redeveloping abandoned and deteriorating structuresis a priority for the city of Bridgeport.

Recommendations for Effective Communication

From the research study of Bridgeport, the fol-lowing recommendations were formulated in anattempt to help the local government communi-cate more effectively with citizens and help thecommunity become more involved in decisionsabout brownfields redevelopment.

Recommendations for Local Government Action

Clarify Confusion Surrounding BrownfieldsRedevelopment and EPA Grants

Bridgeport’s community groups are confused bythe city’s brownfields redevelopment plans. LikeJersey City residents, Bridgeport residents do notunderstand that the city’s brownfields strategiesgo far beyond EPA-funded activities. The city cando a better job of informing residents and dis-seminating information about the scope of itsbrownfields program.

It should explain to residents how EPA’sbrownfields grants allowed Bridgeport not onlyto target specific properties, but also to leverageadditional funds from federal and state agencies.These funds, obtained as part of the brownfieldsprogram, helped to support a broad redevelop-ment initiative that encompassed numerous com-munity development and economic developmentgoals including site characterization, land assem-blage, and property remediation activity.

Manage Community’s Expectations

Community members expect a speedy turn-around with redevelopment projects and seem tobe unaware of the long planning process thatmust precede restoration of brownfields sites.This timing is extended if properties are contami-nated and have to go through the remediationprocess before they are developed. The city canhelp manage the community’s expectations bymaking clear all the steps and possible setbacksthat are involved in redevelopment activities, soresidents will not believe that the city is failing totake action.

Communicate Health Risks

Bridgeport’s residents seem unaware of or uncon-cerned by the potential hazards of brownfieldscontamination. The city and its environmentaland health agencies should better communicateinformation about health risks. Such informationis essential in planning the future use of contami-nated properties, particularly Remington Woods.

Utilize the Press

As a proactive step to inform the community, thelocal government of Bridgeport can keep themedia apprised of what is happening with thecity’s brownfields redevelopment efforts.Uninformed about the numerous steps that mustbe completed in the development process, resi-dents often complain about the “lag time”between project development and project com-pletion. By writing articles or providing informa-tion to the media, city staff can update Bridgeportresidents on progress. As a result, they willreceive needed feedback from the community.

Utilize Nontraditional Methods ofDisseminating Information

The mass media are not the only way for local gov-ernments to spread the word. They can use credi-ble leaders in the community to educate the publicon brownfields redevelopment issues. Residentswho have attended a program about local govern-ment can serve as ambassadors to their commu-nity. And communities themselves can act asleaders in educating other communities about con-tamination issues. Through neighborhood peerexchanges organized by the city government, resi-dents who have experience with redevelopmentissues and processes can educate other residentswith less experience. As an example, residentsinvolved in the design and implementation of theplan to restore Went Field Park can assist residentsin the city’s next designated brownfields redevel-opment project, a proposed housing and mixed-usedevelopment in Black Rock, a residential areawithin the City of Bridgeport.


Expand Community Outreach

Land use planning is a difficult and complicatedprocess that may baffle citizens unless a trainedprofessional explains the technicalities. By havingappropriate staff available to answer residents’specific questions about brownfields redevelop-ment, a local government can go a long way inmaking sense of the process. In Bridgeport, theOffice of Planning and Economic Developmentemploys a neighborhood coordinator who servesin this capacity for the entire city. Bridgeportshould consider expanding the city’s outreachprogram or diversifying the current staff posi-tions to include a greater emphasis on outreach.One-on-one contact with community members isessential for successful local government.Additionally, Bridgeport should consider hiring afacilitator to ensure that complicated technicalinformation is conveyed to residents clearly.

Publicize Funding Opportunities

Local governments should publicize fundingopportunities for brownfield projects to make thecommunity aware of the various programs avail-able to assist with redevelopment. In Bridgeport,this is happening. Through the Grow BridgeportFund, financing is available for local businesseslooking to start up or expand. The fund is a part-nership of public, private, and not-for-profit enti-ties, and it has two financing options to supportthose who would like to redevelop properties,purchase equipment, or expand their currentbusiness. The Brownfield Remediation RevolvingLoan Fund (RLF) is provided through a coopera-tive agreement with the EPA and is intended togive developers of environmentally impactedproperties a low-cost and flexible financingmechanism. The Grow Bridgeport Fund assistssmall businesses and community-based organiza-tions obtain capital to expand their operations ordevelop commercial real estate.

Pursue Additional Federal Assistance

Bridgeport should seek sources of funding, inaddition to the U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, to support community involvement onbrownfields redevelopment. The U. S. Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), the Economic Development Administra-tion (EDA), and the National Park Service (NPS)are among the other federal departments thatcould be pursued by the city to address the fullrange of brownfields issues in Bridgeport.

Develop a Communications Strategic Plan

A communications strategic plan provides a coor-dinated policy for local government communica-tion with residents. The plan’s goal is to improveaccess to and understanding of government func-tions and services. The plan can empower localofficials to be more effective in communicatingwith citizens, other city departments, and federaland state agencies. By developing a communica-tions strategic plan, Bridgeport can increase theeffectiveness of its Office of Planning andEconomic Development, as well as other depart-ments, by ensuring that underrepresented com-munities receive the same information asneighborhoods actively engaged in the city’sbrownfields redevelopment efforts. The plan alsocan help make sure that consistent communica-tion approaches are used across departments.

Develop Citizen Academies and ResourcesEducation Series (CARES) Programs

Alone, Bridgeport cannot educate every citizenabout local government services; it must rely onthe trickle-down approach of educating commu-nity leaders and using them spread the messageto other members of the community. CitizenAcademies and Resource Education Series(CARES) programs are an ideal opportunity toeducate the citizens of Bridgeport. CARES pro-grams invite participants to learn more abouttheir community and how the local governmentoperates. Courses provide an overview of eachdepartment and the services it supplies. Thisknowledge can be shared through the communityand will foster a greater understanding andappreciation of what local governments do fortheir citizens.

Use Visual Reminders of Redevelopment Efforts

In addition to articles in the local press, visualreminders such as videos, photographs,


brochures, and posters can keep the communityinformed of Bridgeport’s ongoing redevelopmentefforts. For Went Field Park, a video andbrochure were produced – communication toolsthat can be replicated for other redevelopmentprojects in the city.

Recommendations for Community Action

Enhance Existing Partnerships

The Unity Council, a coalition of neighborhoodgroups and other community organizations,serves as an information resource for the resi-dents of Bridgeport. The Unity Council canexpand its coalition by seeking out newly formedcommunity groups or disenfranchised residentsin an effort to inform them of the city’s redevel-opment initiatives.

Gather Resources

Existing community groups can research fundingopportunities to help sustain the activities of theirorganization and build capacity. Foundations,universities, federal and state agencies, and otherorganizations provide grants to assist grassrootscommunity efforts.

Organize and Coordinate Existing Resources

Communities should learn to coordinate the mul-tiple stakeholders in brownfields redevelopmentin order to achieve common goals. Where multi-ple stakeholders are engaged, they will have astronger voice and use resources more effectively.


Effective communication in any setting involves an interactive flow of information.Interactive communication should occur both within government and outside govern-ment in its relations with citizens and other institutions. This type of interactionenhances the principle of community problem solving, calling on the best thoughtsand ideas of everyone involved, rather than those of a few people at the top of theinformation pyramid.

All too often interactive communication becomes complicated because of misun-derstandings by the parties involved. Insufficient knowledge of the nuances of thedecision-making process can foster citizens’ distrust of local government.

From the Local Government and Community Engagement Project in Jersey City,New Jersey and Bridgeport, Connecticut, ICMA identified the following obstacles toeffective communication about brownfields redevelopment:

• Local officials’ lack of understanding of citizens’ interests and needs;• Political pressure to favor or exclude the needs of some;• The expense of reaching a broad public and maintaining a feedback loop; and• The time required to reach a broad cross-section of the community and foster effec-

tive communications.

Communities are increasingly made up of diverse groups that have diverse interestsand obtain information in different ways. The most effective community involvementprograms use a combination of approaches to reach a cross-section of citizens. New tech-nologies offer valuable opportunities for quick and cost effective ways to get out infor-mation. Busy schedules mean that citizens will appreciate convenient, comfortable, andquick ways to stay informed about government services and community issues.

Local governments’ communications programs should focus on keeping citizensinformed, consulting with citizens about important issues and needs, and involvingthem in making community decisions. By encouraging citizens to become directlyinvolved in community improvements, these programs reap numerous rewards. Theyharness the energy and ideas of citizen groups to address community needs. Theyalso provide citizens with a sense of ownership in the community. Neighborhood pro-grams and volunteer opportunities can directly involve citizens in communityimprovement. Some jurisdictions are creating programs that encourage sharedresponsibility for community problem solving.

Local governments should not forget to get information out and to tell their ownstory about their accomplishments within the community. Allowing others to tell theirstory could result in assumptions and inaccurate interpretations.

Conclusion

Part43

12

Opinion polls and a growing docket of initiatives signal that citizens do not feel thatlocal officials listen to them. Many citizens doubt they can significantly influence com-munity decisions. Government officials may need better tools for gauging the prefer-ences and needs of constituents in increasingly diverse communities. Polls alsoindicate that the average citizen is acutely aware of government shortcomings, but farless conscious of the day-to-day benefits government provides. The message aboutgovernment failures has been more vigorously promoted than the story of successesand the services offered by government. Cities and counties need to be more vocalabout the value of government and the mutual responsibility of local officials and citi-zens to make it work.

The resources listed below can help local governments, (1) keep citizens informedabout community issues and services, (2) obtain feedback about citizens’ concerns,and (3) engage citizens in shaping the direction of their communities and the qualityof governmental programs and services. The information and techniques are pre-sented aid in better communicating what local government is all about. Of benefit tocitizens as well as local government officials, these resources emphasize communica-tion approaches that deliver a clear, focused, honest message in convenient and com-fortable settings.7

1 Community Leadership TrainingThe Dudley Street Initiativewww.dsni.org

The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) is a nonprofit community-based planning and organizing entity based in the Roxbury/North Dorchesterarea of Boston. DSNI’s approach to neighborhood revitalization is comprehensive(physical, environmental, economic, and personal). The initiative began in 1984when residents of the Dudley Street area came together out of fear and anger torevive their neighborhood and protect it from outside speculators. At the time,arson, disinvestment, neglect, and redlining practices had nearly devastated theneighborhood. DSNI is the only community-based nonprofit in the country thathas been granted eminent domain authority over abandoned land within its boundaries.

Resources

Part14

23

Municipal Research and Services Center, http://www.mrsc.org/about.aspx.

2 Citizen UniversityHighland Park, Illinoishttp://www.cityhpil.com/citynews/citizen.html

The program was implemented in 2000 as ameans to educate residents on the many services, workings, and operations of their citygovernment.

3 Communications Strategic PlanMartin County, Florida CommunicationsStrategic Plan www.martin.fl.us/GOVT/depts/adm/communications/index.html

The Communications Strategic Plan of MartinCounty sets forth the county’s communicationsactivities in order to improve citizens’ access toand understanding of county government func-tions and services. Its goal is to empowercounty departments and staff to be more effec-tive in communicating with citizens, countydepartments, and other governments and agen-cies, thus attaining fulfillment of the MartinCounty Vision Statement.

4 Public Participation Toolbox/PublicParticipation SpectrumInternational Association for Public Participationhttp://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/toolbox.pdfhttp://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/spectrum.html

The association offers a Matrix of tools and techniques to keep community residents informed.

5 Municipal Research and Services Center

The Municipal Research and Services Center(MRSC) of Washington is a nonprofit, inde-pendent organization. Its mission is to promoteexcellence in local government through profes-sional consultation, research, and informationservices. The MRSC provides Internet links forthe following information:

Strategies for Reconnecting Citizens andGovernmenthttp://www.mrsc.org/focuspub/strategiesmrscfocus.aspx

Creating a Sense of Value: Building CitizenCommitmenthttp://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Seattle_Community_Value.ppt

Effective Approaches for Getting the WordOut to Citizenshttp://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx

Focus on Feedback (Is Anyone Listening?)http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx#Focus

Involving Citizens in CommunityImprovementhttp://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx#Involving

Communicating about Government Spending(What We Get for Our Dollar)http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx#Communicating

Communicating about Government Services(What’s in It for You?)http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx#Communicating2

Comprehensive Citizen Involvement/PublicRelations Programshttp://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/Participation/Effective.aspx#Comprehensive


42981

03-200

A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMresearch, and technical assistance on many issues of...

Documents

Transcript of A PUBLICATION OF ICMA’S BROWNFIELDS PROGRAMresearch, and technical assistance on many issues of...