What if the resulting reuse recommendations were not financially viable given the high
cost of environmental remediation for the land uses Tina anticipated the Planning
Committee might support, such as parks, athletic fields, and single, family homes?
Typically such committees avoided major commercial uses, which, unlike parks and
athletic fields, did not require such costly cleanup because so much of the site would be
paved or covered with buildings. But committees often worried about traffic, noise and
public safety impacts from commercial uses. Yet the County could not afford major
investment to clean up the site only to convey it for parks and the like. It could not recoup
the clean up cost with the sale proceeds, and parkland would not generate much in real
estate taxes especially if owned by a non-profit entity. Those taxpayers who had not
served on the committee might scream about public assets being squandered
irresponsibly. On the other hand County Commissioners also risked significant ill will if
they were to spurn all the Committee’s reuse recommendations. Tina pondered how to
pose this to Wendell without seeming to challenge the boss’ wisdom?
2. Severe budget cuts at the RPC had eliminated key staff with development expertise to
prepare a viable reuse plan. In addition, political infighting among RPC Commissioners
could complicate the RPC’s reuse planning. Tina wondered how to best share these
concerns about her former employer discretely with Wendell?