IBJNews

WOJTOWICZ: It pays to know environmental requirements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Jean Wojtowicz

Q: Something caught me by surprise when I was buying a piece of business property: I was required to pay for an environmental audit that turned up residual contamination from a long-ago business on the site. My company in no way will contaminate the land, but I can’t open until the property is deemed acceptable. Is this right? And what are my options?

A: Unexpected problems add to the headaches of opening or relocating a business, and we hear a lot about the hang-ups of required, but annoying, environmental investigations.

However, an evaluation is necessary whenever a lender is financing real estate to make sure the property is environmentally clean and will not cause more damage to the environment in the future.

There are plenty of stories about private and public projects that have little or no impact on the environment—such as florist shops or libraries—being delayed or stopped by old environmental contamination.

You might ask the reasons environmental regulations exist and apply to you. After all, your business is not one with the obvious potential environmental impact of, say, a dry cleaner or service station. But lenders, including the Small Business Administration, must guard against being responsible for remediation costs in the future. Decades-old pollution can cause problems years after the offending business is gone from the site.

Environmental regulations are fairly explicit. Most commercial lenders and the SBA have a set of requirements the borrower/business owner must meet. If you are financing property, meet with your lender. Then, locate a licensed and insured environmental investigator to lead you through the process.

It may not seem fair for you, as the current owner of a commercial location, to be saddled with remediation costs from 30 or 40 years ago. But the outcome of a successful investigation and remediation will be worth your respect and your attention.

___

Wojtowicz is president of Cambridge Capital Management Corp.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. First, let me say that I love the idea of communities being self-sufficient and people in the community not needing cars, living, working and shopping all in their neighborhood. To sum it up; I love good urban planning and hate urban sprawl. However, there are two reasons that I am against this development. First, this building doesn't fit. Density can occur in Ripple by building up top the street and better use of land. The scale of this project should be downtown. Secondly, I would be willing to bet that if a whole foods in Ripple is built, the Nora store would be closed. Here's my reasoning. The Nora Whole Foods expansion plans have been put on hold. I'm guessing they are waiting to see what happens with the Ripple proposal. Communities next to each other should work together to end sprawl and not work against each other and take other neighbors assets. Develop something both communities can be proud of and will attract more development and density. There's my soap box for the day.

  2. My apologies, Lou - it was the Indy Star that printed cost for entertaining "celebrities" during Indy 500. Sorry for confusing the always timely IBJ with Indy's Gannett reprint news source.

  3. That's fine if you want a grocery store that has festivals and live music. I guess with the prices they charge, they can afford to host such activities. As for me, I choose to spend my money more wisely and if I want to go to a festival or a concert, I will pay for that separately - not through my grocery bill.

  4. TIF is not just to attract development but to attract a higher use for that development. Carmel wisely is using TIF for numerous public parking garages. Asphalt seas of parking pay little taxes and bring even less value to a commercial area. Also density is what is going to save Indy and Broad Ripple. The days of trying to compete with burbs are long gone.

  5. The Prestige was an awesome movie.

ADVERTISEMENT