The author Dan Davidson is Professor of Business Law, Chair of Accounting, and Finance and Business Law at Radford University. In his paper, he argues that superfund sites are the future of brownfields because they can fulfill all pillars of sustainability. He claims that superfunds help the environment because the clean up the land, create jobs, and create areas of economic growth. In essence, supports all three pillars of sustainability. His intended audience is probably skeptics or future urban planners who have to deal with brownfields.
He keeps giving phrase to the superfund (CERCLA) policy. Because of his support for the policy, the paper is biased in a pro-superfund way. The strength in this article is mainly from the statistics that he cites throughout the article. The weakness is that the paper takes a large-scale approach in order to discuss the benefits of superfund sites. It counters my thesis that I have for the Gowanus Canal; however, I can say that the case of the canal, only two out of the three pillars are having their requirements met. Therefore, this paper plans a very relevant role in my project as I can use sources to counter Davidson’s thesis.
Davidson, Dan. “Brownfields Legislation Is Helping Us Stay “Green..” Mustang Journal Of Law & Legal Studies (2011): 9-16.Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Oct. 2012.
http://ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67069257&site=ehost-live
Which two pillars do you think have priority? Environmental and economic I am guessing.