Mia Petrucci


This article examines Ohio House Bills 168 and 110. These House Bills provide liability protection to purchasers of brownfield sites, allocate $500 million dollars to brownfield funding—with $350 million allotted for investigation, cleanup, and revitalization of brownfield sites and $150 million for demolition of vacant/abandoned buildings—and create a new Building Demolition and Site Revitalization Program, for the revitalization of properties surrounding brownfield sites. In the first three Sections of this article, the concept of brownfield redevelopment is introduced, the associated challenges with brownfield projects are discussed, and attempts by federal and state governments to address brownfield remediation challenges in the past is explained. In Section IV, this article analyzes the legislative framework set forth in House Bills 168 and 110 and discusses how Ohio is attempting to address the associated brownfield challenges. Finally, recommendations are made for future Ohio brownfield redevelopment legislation. This article argues that Ohio should continue to regulate brownfield redevelopment through emulating other state’s low interest loan programs or create brownfield-specific tax credits to developers. While incentivizing development will always be a step in the right direction, not every brownfield site is in an area where developers want to build. Thus, Ohio should further allocate funds for the purposes of revitalizing low-to-no market value brownfield sites in historically underserved communities. This can be done through partnering with land banks, creating community land trusts, or partnering with environmental advocacy organizations. Redevelopment of brownfield sites in such areas would work to create green spaces in historically underserved communities, countering environmental justice concerns and providing further access to clean environment, as well as bolstering community engagement and health.