Rick Dunn, Executive Director of the Naugatuck valley Council of governments, left, answers questions as Waterbury mayor Neil M. O’leary, right, looks on. O’leary is one of seven white men likely to govern the state’s largest cities after the November election.

Rick Dunn, Executive Director of the Naugatuck valley Council of governments, left, answers questions as Waterbury mayor Neil M. O’leary, right, looks on. O’leary is one of seven white men likely to be

Rick Dunn, Executive Director of the Naugatuck valley Council of governments, left, answers questions as Waterbury mayor Neil M. O’leary, right, looks on. O’leary is one of seven white men likely to govern the state’s largest cities after the November election.

Rick Dunn, Executive Director of the Naugatuck valley Council of governments, left, answers questions as Waterbury mayor Neil M. O’leary, right, looks on. O’leary is one of seven white men likely to be

WATERBURY-the Irony carries great economic consequences: Once the engines of Connecticut’s prosperity, the state’s former factories have long been a huge liability for struggling cities.

Connecticut has found a way to get these sites back in use, and it’s fueled by taxpayer money.

Contaminated industrial sites litter the Connecticut’s struggling cities. Hulking, deserted and crumbling complexes attract crime, trespassers, illegal dumps, and sometimes suspicious fires become spectacular and dangerous fires.

These sites also hold captive desperately needed space for development that will bring new jobs and tax revenue.

Developers shy away from sites that need to clean up an environment that often costs millions of dollars.

But in the past 15 years, Connecticut has developed programs to tip the scales, making these properties worth a second look. This created liability relief to shield municipalities and developers from liability for pollutants dumped by past owners.

Over the past decade, the state has also pumped more than $ 206 million in grants and loans to clean up Brownfield.

Developers and other funding sources, which could include Federal and private dollars, paired that with $ 3.2 billion, said Connecticut Department of economic and community development spokesman James Watson.

That means an investment of $ 15.50 for every dollar spent through brownfield programs, Watson said.

In Bridgeport, the investor behind the renovation of the American graphophone Co unit claims that his company was able to raise $ 33 for every $ 1 the state invested.

An area of approximately 5.5 acres was originally housed in the production of graphophones , one of the earliest mass-produced recorded sound players. This and later uses led to a mixture of toxins in buildings and grounds. Corvus Capital Partners is turning it into a mix of 277 affordable apartments, commercial space and a Charter school.

Total grants and loans distributed under the brownfield state program between July 1, 2009 and December 1, 2018:

Bridgeport: $16.5 million

Hartford: $25.1 million

New haven: $16.5 million

Stamford: $15.8 million

Waterbury: $8.4 million

That’s about $ 150 million of development, said Gary Flocco, managing partner at Corvus. This was made possible by low-interest loans and $ 3.7 million in subsidies from the state.

“Their money gives us the ability to clean up sites, which gives the Bank a level of comfort to move forward with us – not just banks, but other institutions and other sources of funding,” Flocco said. “If not for the brownfield state program it would be very difficult to do the type of development we do.»

The Flocco site is very prominent, located along interstate 95 and the passenger rail line. He said the transformation of the site creates an advertisement for Bridgeport’s potential from what was a visible sign of failure.

Their clearing prices aside, brownfields often have a lot going for them, said Rick Dunne, Executive Director of the Naugatuck valley Council. Many sit in Prime locations along rail and highway corridors, near rivers, near downtown, often served by industrial-grade power, water and sewage, Dunn said.

These benefits alone were not enough to inspire the redevelopment. Many brown fields have been idle since the 1970s and 1980s, Dunn said.

“All this infrastructure taxpayers paid a long time ago,” Dunn said. “And what have we done since we built all this infrastructure for these plants? Connecticut has tried to thrive by sprawling into green fields, farmland and wooded areas, and building new utilities to get out on it.”

These new utilities and roads may be built initially by developers, but maintenance ultimately falls on the backs of taxpayers and utility payers, Dunn said.

“It’s a bad deal all around when all that precious property is sitting there and ready to go,” Dunn said. “This is a missed opportunity over the last 40 years of having all this great infrastructure in all the right places.”

State lawmakers and business advocates have developed tools to entice developers like Corvus into brownfields.

In addition to loans and grants, the state has developed measures to protect the liability of new owners of industrially contaminated sites. If new owners perform cleanup under state standards supervision, they may not be sued by the state if contamination from previous owners is later found to have migrated from the site.

Market values are of great importance. Stamford, a resurgent city, used its coastline and proximity to new York city to attract developers.

Ultimately, brownfields are run by the market. If the developer can handle the cleanup and still make a profit, then the deal makes sense, it’s “pencils in,” as Dunn says. In Stamford,” the value of a new development is greater than the cost of building it, ” Dunn said.

For Bridgeport, new haven, Waterbury and Hartford, those reasons include high tax rates and struggling public schools, Dunn said.

“It takes a little more convincing to get people to invest in these cities because they have systemic problems,” Dunn said.

Connecticut’s economic struggles could undermine the value of land deals and incentives to tackle dirty sites, said David Hurley, an environmental consultant for the General Assembly’s Brownfields Working group.

“We have broad economic issues in the state that we need to address, and at the same time the ability to clean up brownfields is key to us seeing investment in the state,” Hurley said. “These sites are not going to get cleaned up if we have an economic climate in which there is demand.”

These cities along the Interstate 95 corridor and Amtrak passenger rail have an advantage over places like Waterbury, Torrington and New Britain, Hurley said.

On several sites in Waterbury, mayor Neil M. O’leary’s administration decided to take on the role of a developer to begin reusing these properties. The city has acquired massive contaminated sites and is using state and Federal money to clean them up in hopes of redevelopment. This is possible because of the removal of responsibility adopted by state legislators said O’leary.

“These buildings haven’t sat for years, but for decades and longer because before legislation that reduces the liability of cities that acquire them, you couldn’t sell them because the return on investment was always in the red,” O’leary said.

“The return on investment with public money is also in the red, let’s be honest,” the mayor said. “But at least the Federal and state governments have recognized the only way you’re going to get it. It’s a slow crawl.”

The Cities project, a collaboration between CT Mirror, Connecticut Public radio, Hearst Connecticut media, Hartford Courant, Republican-American Waterbury, Hartford Business Jol, and Purple state, will publish periodical articles exploring challenges and solutions related to the revitalization of Connecticut’s cities. Send comments or suggestions [email protected].