Introducing the NBA Property Referral Network

Having trouble finding a suitable property for that next big deal? Do you have a property in your community that you’d like to promote to potential buyers throughout the U.S. and Canada? Then take a look at the NBA Property Referral Network.

 NOTE: Originally posted at EDR (Environmental Resources Data) blog by Dianne Crocker.

Market Maven

EDR’s Managing Director, Market Research Group, shares her insights on the state of the environmental due diligence market, emerging trends and the strategic challenges faced by environmental consultants in today’s market.

The “Rodney Dangerfield” Syndrome

 NOTE: Originally posted at EDR (Environmental Data Resources Inc.) blog by Rob Barber.
Property Talk

EDR’s CEO brings his unique perspective to address topics of strategic interest, including the state of the ESA industry, business management issues, trends in information technology and global developments affecting environmental due diligence practices.

Government 2.0

6/3/2008 | posted by

Name: Rob Barber
Company Name: EDR
Job Title: CEO
Location: Milford, CT, Hidden

For all of this blog’s regular readers, including those who attended the Scottsdale conference two weeks ago, it is no secret that there has been a lot of recent attention paid to the concept of user generated environmental content and how (or even “if”) it should be considered within a Phase 1.  The basic arguement goes like this:  “As an EP, how can I rely on user generated content when I don’t know anything about its contributor or its accuracy?  Aren’t I better off continuing to rely solely on government records and actual knowledge?”

Well, to muddy the waters even further, consider Project Government 2.0.

In From Wikinomics to Government 2.0, L. Gordon Crovitz begins to explain how our government is beginning to employ web 2.0 technologies in response to public and congressional demands to become more inclusive and transparent in decision making.  Two examples of wikis at work are Intellepedia and Diplopedia.  Intellipedia “lets 37,000 officials at the CIA, FBI, NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies share information and even rate one another for accuracy” while Diplopedia “lets State Department staff share information”.

So if government agencies responsible for national security are experimenting (if not outright employing) wikis as data aggregation tools, how long before EPA does the same to collect the public’s environmental information about property?  Well, that too has already begun.

According to Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator of the EPA, a test wiki was launched last fall to collect information about the Puget Sound.  The result?  Mr. Peacock writes that “we (EPA) collected more environmental information on the Puget Sound area in a couple of days than we could previously have done in as many weeks.”

So in the future, when we access EPA data, how will we know if the information found its way into an EPA database the old fashioned way (someone filled out a form and submitted it) or the new way (someone contributed it to a wiki)?

The ground under our feet is moving as we speak and the ESA industry is going to change because of it.  Whether “WE” (EDR and the nation’s environmental consulting firms) together build a national property environmental wiki or not, we’ll still have to deal with the issue.  User generated environmental content about properties is now finding its way directly into the government records. How EPs respond respond in the coming months will be very interesting and exciting.

Note: Information below was from National Brownfield Association.

From: NBA.Market@brownfieldassociation.org [mailto:NBA.Market@brownfieldassociation.org]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: NBA Action Alert–June 9, 2008

CAP-AND-TRADE TOPS NEWS IN US AND CANADA
The most important regulatory debate in three decades took place last week as the US Senate deliberated on cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-Virginia). The debate on a revised version of the Climate Security Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions came amid increased concerns about rising energy prices and a slowing American economy. Provisions include allowing utilities and other industrial facilities to borrow emissions allowances for future years and providing tax relief for consumers who will likely face higher energy costs.
Charles Bartsch, co-chair of the National Brownfield Associations Advisory Board, explained what the implications would be for the industry: “Billions of dollars will be realized through emissions auctions authorized under the proposed cap-and-trade program, available for a wide range of activities,” he said. “These resources will have significant potential to support a range of smart growth and sustainable development initiatives, if creatively applied to meet project needs.”

Please see original article at EPA Region 10 Building On Brownfields Newlsetter

In redevelopment, bigger isn’t always better, Alaska teaches us to let cultural values play role in reuse

Historically, brownfields programs have focused on idle, industrial properties. Add to that the fact that many high-profile brownfield success stories have spotlighted large construction projects, such as retail shopping centers, and the perception may be that brownfields exist only in heavily populated, industrialized cities.

 NOTE: Originally posted at EDR (Environmental Data Resources) blog by Rob Barber.

Property Talk

EDR’s CEO brings his unique perspective to address topics of strategic interest, including the state of the ESA industry, business management issues, trends in information technology and global developments affecting environmental due diligence practices.
user generated content zillow

UGC About Properties

5/27/2008 | posted by

Name: Rob Barber
Company Name: EDR
Job Title: CEO
Location: Milford, CT, Hidden

Recently there’s been a lot of chatter about how our industry would deal with a database of user generated content about properties so I thought I’d try to get a discussion going around the topic.  First, allow me to define what the concept is and is not.

Essentially the idea would be to create a second “copy” of the database and then allow the community to make edits to the copy.  Edits might be things like adding additional information about a property, uploading photographs of a site or correcting an error in the record.  However, it is essential to know that none of this changes anything in the original government database.  Instead, we simply end up with two versions of a database.  The first version is the data as it always has been from the government agencies.  The second version, though, contains additional information as provided by the community.

The first question this idea normally raises is “how can I rely on edited infomation contained in the UGC database when I don’t know who contributed that information?”.   This is clearly a very important question requiring significant thought.  My opinion is that this issue can be handled in several ways:

* First, nobody needs to use the UGC database if they don’t want to.  It’s simply another resource available to those who do.  If someone’s preference is to continue on with only the government database information, then so be it.
* Second, anyone contributing content to the UGC database would have to agree to doing so in an open and transparent way.  No hiding behind a screen name here.  Instead, if you’re going to share information witht the community, it should be clear who you are so that others can evaluate for themselves the credibility of the contribution.  In fact, this scenario probably calls for some type of rating system a la eBay so that incentives for accurate contributions are made.  After all, if you’re not willing to stand behind the contribution, then the contribution probably shouldn’t be made in the first place.

A great example of this idea at work is Zillow.com.  Here, the local registrar’s data about your home is put online.  You can then “claim” a home as your own and begin to add to the information in the name of improving it.  Why would you do so?  Well, maybe if you were going to sell you home and you knew that potential buyers would see it on Zillow, you’d want to make sure that Zillow knew about the deck you recently added to the kitchen remodel.

Obviously this is a fairly provacative and perhaps controversial topic so I’d really like to hear some comments from all the EPs, attorneys and lenders out there.  What does everyone think?

3 Comments

1. By

kmc-japan on 5/28/2008
Rob: The only database available in Japan right now is my company’s proprietary product. We routinely find that the base information documents for the database (including maps, government records and property records) are either incomplete or wrong or both. This is due primarily to (1) the lack of required reporting of information to the government; (2) the fact that much of the historic mapping was performed manually; (3) the general lack of documentation pre-1945; and, (4) current government policies which purge public records after a five year period. As a result, our database contains information that is not available to the general public. The PPSI™ report is available as a private service only and comes with a set of disclaimers for the third-party data even after it has been corrected. It is interesting to note that we have been recently approached by several municipalities and Ministries to assist them in preparing an “official” government database.

2. By

agadoni on 5/28/2008
Rob, Here are a few thoughts on some of the many potential issues that will need to be addressed: 1) Contractual: most project contracts include limitations between the consultant and client regarding disclosure or other usage of any data collected during an ESA project. This may involve consultant confidentiality and client ownership of the work product regardless of whether or not the data is publicly available. A lawyer told me that there could be a breach of contract claim if project information is posted and there is a well-drafted confidentiality provision in the contract. Even in the absence of a confidentiality provision, ethical considerations should dictate getting client permission to post in writing before hand. 2) Marketplace: based on recent conversations, lenders generally seem more open to the idea of “sharing data” with the UGC from ESA reports they have commissioned. Owners have expressed concern or are opposed to a public UGC database. This dichotomy makes sense when you consider the differing goals and liability risks of the two groups. However, a consultant may have to choose sides because some owners may not want to use consultants who post data to the UGC database. Posts to the database could damage or destroy client relationships and establish a reputation within the environmental community as a source of potential leaks. 3) Fact vs. Opinion: posting a copy of a publicly available file with appropriate meta-data (who posted, when, source, etc.) may have an upside as a back-up data resource of last resort, especially if that file is subsequently misfiled or is otherwise unavailable in the future. But relying on a public post of unsupported or unverifiable findings, opinions and conclusions concerning environmental conditions on a property seems to contradict the purpose and intent of ASTM E 1527. A poster could be sued for inaccurate, misleading, or poorly worded comments. 4) Confidential and proprietary information: it is my understanding that information may be considered proprietary if it is owned or controlled by the company and provides competitive value due to it not being known or generally available to the public. Some of the information posted to the UGC database may qualify as proprietary information. If the employer of a poster fails to take reasonable measures to keep trade secrets confidential then such practices could undermine future claims for protection of its proprietary interests in other such information. Also, there could be ethical licensing issues for a PE or PG who disregarded an expressed client desire for confidentiality.

3. By

Name: Rob Barber
Company Name: EDR
Job Title: CEO
Location: Milford, CT, Hidden
rbarber on 5/29/2008
Thanks, Alan. All completely legit points to which I’ll add the following two points to the discussion. First, do things change from the EP/contractual perspective if the property in question is NOT a property that the EP just did the Phase 1 on? For example, if you do a Phase 1 on “123 Main Street”, then there’s no question that your relationship with the client takes priority and you are limited in what you can say about “123 Main Street”. However, what if, in the course of the assessment, you learn something valuable about the site at “456 Smith Street”, a property 4 doors down the road. Might that info be useful in a community database while at the same time honor the relationship you have with your client? Second, within the environmental due diligence industry we’re going to have to tackle these issue perhaps sooner than later. I say this in reponse to NAR’s announcement to build a national property database to serve as a library or archive of information overlaid with MLS data. The plan is to compile info about properties, communities and other factors including environmental. My guess is it is only a matter of time before some “masher” contributes a bunch of environmental content to this database that might include opinions, confidential info, etc. How will our industry respond if/when this occurs? Anyone else have any thoughts on the topic?

Original article posted by EPA Region 10 Building on Brownfields Newsletter

Do you know the major players in Oregon?
Meetings are a chance to build your brownfields network

For about six years, Lon Yandell, the environmental department manager at Kleinfelder, Inc., in Portland has been a faithful regular at the Brownfield Networking Meeting, hosted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

The meetings are an opportunity for Yandell to meet and exchange ideas with people just like him–people interested in brownfields and their redevelopment. Over the years, the meetings have helped him develop relationships with other professionals from the region. They’ve also served as a tool for bouncing ideas around, he says.

Yandell recalls one meeting in particular when officials from a redevelopment project in St. Helens attended. Port officials there presented their project and then opened up the discussion, asking for any advice from attendees.

“I thought that was great,” Yandell says. “Here was someone who was struggling, and they got help.”

Along with providing networking opportunities, the meetings bring attendees up to speed on what’s new with the EPA, DEQ and Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Yandell adds.

“It’s an excellent opportunity to be with other people who share my passion for brownfields,” he says of the meetings.

For nearly 10 years, DEQ has served as host of the Brownfields Networking Meeting. About 25 to 30 people attend the two-hour meetings, held three times a year, typically in January, May and September, says Gil Wistar, DEQ’s brownfields program coordinator.

The meetings were started as a way to get all these people together who have a common interest but approached brownfields from different angles, Wistar says. The meetings pull together people from all professional backgrounds: environmental consultants, public officials, economic development professionals, developers, insurance experts and, at times, property owners. They gather to learn from one another and share stories of not only successes but hurdles as well.

Some important topics, such as state funding sources, have been addressed a few times at the meetings. Other topics covered include insurance, small sites development, brownfields inventory projects, green space vs. brown space, marketing a brownfield, and remediation techniques. One past meeting even included a walking tour of a sustainable brownfields project in Portland’s Pearl District.

Greg Theisen, senior planner for the Port of Portland, has been attending for four years. The meetings are a good forum for sharing the challenges of brownfields redevelopment, he says. “I really appreciate DEQ and the state making the effort to put these on,” Theisen adds.

As for DEQ, the meetings have helped officials there, too. By listening to the various attendees, Wistar has learned that many brownfields issues, and the priorities the different players bring to the project, don’t revolve around contamination.

“It’s helped DEQ have a better idea of what the challenges are for communities in implementing brownfields projects,” Wistar says.

If other states are interested in creating their own networking groups, Wistar recommends they first find someone willing to set up a structure. Then just start calling people until you have a nucleus of key players. Eventually, you will have an e-mail list and can begin soliciting people for ideas and meeting topics. As a facilitator, be open to sharing leadership and pulling ideas from participants, he says.

Wistar hopes the meetings empower people to take on these redevelopment projects. “And not to fear them,” he says.

To receive Oregon DEQ brownfields notification e-mails, including information about the networking meetings, go to http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/brownfields/index.htm.

Note: Published on the EDR Insider

Risk of Vapor Intrusion Materializes

“Vapor intrusion” conditions are a growing concern for commercial real estate lenders as well as property purchasers and environmental professionals conducting due diligence. Many episodes in recent years have shown that a toxic vapor plume underground can behave very differently than the same substance in liquid form. The migration of these toxic vapors from the ground into a structure can create significant health hazards, liability, and adverse impact to the property’s market value. The vapor can originate from toxic substances contaminating the soil of the property itself or adjoining properties.

EPA Region 1- Brownfields What’s New, April 08

Environmental Risk and Insurance Management- Performing Due Diligence in the Era of Climate Change - presented by RTM Communications.

Public and private pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is beginning to have a material effect on deals and developments. Building owners as well as buyers and sellers involved in M & A transactions are witnessing the effects of climate change and its associated risks. Shareholders and stakeholders are pressuring companies to calculate and disclose their GHG footprint. Shareholders believe that greener companies bring more value to the marketplace, to their employees and to the bottom-line. This thinking translates to the world of M & A transactions and divestitures and the due diligence undertaken to measure the costs/benefits and potential liabilities.