Submitted by Beemonk, Dec 11, 2007 13:07

Is anyone looking into or considering the toxic nature of the land in question? Is it the City's intent to assume all potential toxic liability and clean up costs? Or is there some assumption that economics of this initiative are robust enough for those who will redevelop the land to bare the cost of clean up and the tort risk.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.