Title The valuation of contaminated land as exemplified by the case

Transcription

Title
Author(s)
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
The valuation of contaminated land as exemplified by the case of
Germany
Langer, Annekatrin
Langer, A.. (2002). The valuation of contaminated land as
exemplified by the case of Germany. (Thesis). University of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3125691
2002
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/37048
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)
and the right to use in future works.
The University of Hong Kong
Faculty of Architecture
Department of Real Estate and Construction
Dissertation
for the
Master of Science in Real Estate
The Valuation of Contaminated
Land as Exemplified by the Case of
Germany
submitted by
Annekatrin Langer
Submitted to:
Ms. Bobby Hastings，RICS
Date of Submission: June 28，2002
Address:
Rheinaustr. 202
D - 53225 Bonn，Germany
ABSTRACT
The valuation of contaminated land became a subject for discussion in the late 1970s，
at a time when the issue of environmental protection arose against the background of
major environmental catastrophes, leading to major contaminations of the ground.
Contaminated land has a lower value than not contaminated land or land that was
formerly contaminated, but has been remedied and cleaned up. The depreciation of
the value depends，inter alia，on the nature and extent of the contamination, its
duration and the degree to which it has eventually been remedied. In addition to the
costs involved to detect and define the exact nature of the contamination and to clean
it up，the value of the site is negatively influenced by the impact of the risks and
uncertainties associated with the environmental problem, as perceived by the market，
generally known as “stigma”.
The objectives of this dissertation are to present an overview of how the topic of
valuation of contaminated land has been treated in the USA and the UK by
legislators，scholars, practitioners and the courts; to elaborate to what extent
legislation concerning contaminated land and rules for its valuation exist in
Germany; to examine the issue of stigma and elaborate how it is handled in Germany
and to present an improved methodology how to measure stigma.
The hypothesis is that, while stigma cannot be calculated with mathematical
precision, the market has developed methods and solutions how to quantify stigma;
therefore the quantification of stigma need not be regulated by the legislator.
In two major chapters, the valuation of contaminated land and the issue of stigma is
presented as handled in the US and the UK and in Germany. In all three countries，
legislation has been enacted，the objective of which is to protect the soil against
future contamination or to prescribe measures aiming to restore the functions of
already contaminated soil.
II
A review of the literature and the jurisprudence in these countries reveals that
scholars，practitioners and judges are well aware of the problems connected with the
valuation of contaminated land.
In a concluding Chapter, a new methodology how to better quantify stigma will be
presented.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
I
L
1
Z
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
1
1.2
OBJECTIVES
4
1.3
HYPOTHESIS
4
1.4
METHODOLOGY
4
THE CONCEPT OF STIGMA AND ITS THEORETICAL
FOUNDATION
2.1
6
THE CONCEPT OF STIGMA
2.1.1
6
Definition
6
27.2
2 J. 3
2.2
7
THE ECONOMIC INCIDENCE OF STIGMA
8
2.2.7
Measuring the Economic Incidence of Stigma
8
2.22
Stigma as Part of Transaction Costs?
9
2.3
3.
Legal Importance of Stigma
CONCLUSION
12
THE VALUATION OF CONTAMINATED LAND AND THE ISSUE OF
STIGMA IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED
KINGDOM
3.1
13
L E G A L CONTEXT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3 J. J
Background
3. L2
Environmental Legislation
3.13
US Standards for the Valuation of Contaminated Land
3.2
13
13
LEGAL CONTEXT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
13
14
15
3.2 J
Background
15
3.2.2
15
3.23
UK Standards for the Valuation of Contaminated Land
3.3
THE VALUATION PROCESS
3.3.1
Literature Review
:
17
19
19
3.3.2
Surveys
24
3.3.3
Review of Jurisprudence
28
3.3.3.1 Jurisprudence
28
3.3.3.2 Assessment of Jurisprudence
3.4
4.
CONCLUSION
33
36
THE VALUATION OF CONTAMINATED LAND AND THE ISSUE OF
STIGMA IN GERMANY
38
4.1
LEGAL CONTEXT
38
4.1.1
BACKGROUND
38
4.1.1.1 Federal Soil Protection Act
40
4.1.1.2 Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance
4.1.1.3
4.2
Legislation Concerning the Valuation of Land
THE VALUATION PROCESS
4.2.1
4.2.1.1 General Remarks
44
4.2.1.2 Methodology How to Ascertain and Remedy Contamination
46
4.2.1.3 Valuation of Contaminated Land
47
4.2.1.4 Reduced Value Due to Stigma
53
£
44
44
5.
42
Review of Literature
4.2.2
4.3
41
CONCLUSION
ANALYSIS
57
57
59
60
61
5.1
PRESENT SITUATION
61
5.2
SCORING MODEL
61
5.3
CONCLUDING REMARKS
66
CONCLUSION
69
LIST OF REFERENCES
71
LIST OF APPENDICES
83
1. Introduction
1.1
Background
The valuation of contaminated land became a subject for discussion in the 1970s，at a
time when the issue of environmental protection arose. Internationally known
environmental catastrophes，like Seveso in Italy，Tshernobyl in the former USSR, or
Bhopal in India, or the problem of contamination through asbestos found in almost
all industrialised countries, drew the public's attention to the handling of such cases，
especially regarding the responsibility of the parties involved; until then，many
industries had simply dumped hazardous wastes on-site (Patchin, 1988, p. 7). This
led to a serious consideration of the matter by many Governments, recognising that
no or little legislation had been enacted so far. Also, professional bodies or
organisations concerned with the valuation of contaminated land recognised the
necessity to develop appropriate valuation methods to satisfy their clients' needs. In
Germany，it was in the 1980s that the first cases of contamination became known to
the public. Faced with legal no-man's-land, the Government organised working
groups uniting Government officials from different ministries and specialists
representing, among others, organisations concerned with environmental protection,
valuation and legal matters (Weyers，1987, p. 493).
Also, at the level of the European Union (see Meyer, Williams and Yount, pp. 103137) and the non-governmental international level，efforts were undertaken to deal
with the problems of contaminated land, including efforts to define internationally
accepted standards of how to value such sites. Thus, the International Valuation
Standards Committee (IVSC) has issued an "International Valuation Guidance Note
No. 7: Consideration of Hazardous and Toxic Substances in Valuation" (IVSC 2001，
pp. 267-275); its objective is “to assist Valuers in preparing valuations when specific
hazardous or toxic substances may have influence on property values".
Champness (1997，p. 41) noted that "markets have become increasingly sensitive to
the economic impact of the existence or perception of environmental factors,
hazardous substances，land contamination, and related latent or actual legal
liabilities. Although often considered as a location specific issue，increasingly more
global concerns and international consensus transcend local legal and contractual
liabilities, and can impact directly on prices realised in property markets".
Contaminated land has a lower value than not contaminated land (Patchin, 1988，p.
7) or land that was formerly contaminated，but has been cleaned up and remedied
(Roller，2000，p. 335). The depreciation of the value depends in particular on the
nature of the contamination, e.g. due to nuclear radiation or chemical contamination,
its foreseeable implications and，even more，implications that presently cannot be
foreseen.
The main problem results from the fact that it was and still is very difficult to define
a qualitative criterion, which would allow to determine the implications on the value
of the land resulting from a given form of contamination, even after the cleanup of
the land. This，however, is of vital importance e.g. in the case of a contamination of
land by toxic chemicals which may，over the years and sometimes decades later,
filter further down and eventually even contaminate groundwater. While the vendor
of land may have an interest to minimise the risk of such later repercussions, the
buyer will have an interest to guard against future liabilities, which he may incur
should such damages materialise.
In an effort to circumscribe such risks，qualified as market resistances, researchers,
starting with Patchin，have proposed the criterion of "stigma" (1988，p. 12). Stigma is
understood as the depreciation of value of the contaminated land that remains beyond
the cost to remedy the contamination (Mundy, 1992，p. 9). However，the use of this
notion remains controversial. Thus, Mitchell (2000，p. 164) sees no need to use the
"inflammatory term 'stigma5 ” ： It is "not necessary for an understanding of economic
loss". Mitchell would prefer to use the term "indirect damages"; other terms
proposed to circumscribe such market resistances are: onus，taint, impairment or
blight (Bell, 1998，p. 3 87). Similarly, in Germany, the term “stigma” which is part of
the German vocabulary in the sense of meaning, as in the English language, “a mark
or sign of disgrace or discredit” (Mitchell, 2000，p. 164) is not used in order to
circumscribe the indirect damages referred to; the German term is “merkantiler
Minderwert", i.e. value reflecting an impaired marketability. Nevertheless, in this
dissertation, the term “stigma” will be used, since it is so widely accepted by
scholars，practitioners and also courts.
Starting in 1980，legislation concerning contaminated land was enacted in the United
States of America，the United Kingdom and Germany (Meyer, Williams and Yount,
1995，p. 9). As a consequence, the issue of valuing contaminated land arose in
practical terms, once real property came up for sale which was suspected or known to
be contaminated (Roddewig，2001，p. 119).
In the USA and the UIC, research on the topic of the valuation of contaminated land
has been undertaken since the 1980s. It seems that Campanella published the first
paper on "Valuing Partial Losses in Contamination Cases，，(1984, pp. 301-304).
Surveys intended to elucidate how surveyors assess the value of contaminated land
have shown that a variety of methods are being applied. In the USA, the issue has
much advanced parallel to legislation concerning the protection of the enviromnent
and the contamination of land, enacted both at the federal and the state levels (below
3.1.2，p. 13). Private organisations, like the Appraisal Institute，have issued
guidelines (below 3.1.3，p. 14). In the UK, legislation has been enacted as of 1990
(below 3.2.2，p. 15) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has
issued a Practice Statement, mandatory for members，and a Guidance Note
concerning issues of contamination of land (below 3.2.3，p. 17).
The valuation of contaminated land is an important issue in the Federal Republic of
Germany, especially in the Eastern, formerly socialist, part of the country. During the
years of the existence of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) from 1949
to 1990，and based on the system of state ownership of the productive means of the
economy，little attention had been paid to industrially induced contamination of the
soil or to soil contaminated by military use. It was only after the reunification of the
countiy and when the state-owned enterprises were privatised in the 1990s，that the
extent of the contamination of the soil and the ensuing problems of its valuation were
realised. However，also in many parts of Western Germany, especially where heavy
industries and industries producing chemical products are located，the issue of the
contamination of land has evolved，mainly in the context of efforts to protect the
environment; and, as a consequence, also the issue of the valuation of contaminated
land has come up.
1.2
Objectives
The objectives of the dissertation are to:
- p r e s e n t an overview of how the topic of valuation of contaminated land has
been treated in the United States of America and the United Kingdom by
legislators, scholars, practitioners and courts;
-elaborate to what extent legislation concerning contaminated land and rules
for its valuation exist in the Federal Republic of Germany;
- e x a m i n e the issue of stigma，as defined in Chapter 2> and elaborate how it is
handled in Germany;
- p r e s e n t an improved methodology how to measure stigma.
1.3
Hypothesis
The hypothesis is that stigma cannot be calculated with mathematical precision,
because its magnitude depends on a variety of factors, including: the particularities of
the site; the nature, extent and duration of the contamination and the perceptions of
the market in regard to these factors. Against the background of the methods and
solutions developed by the market，the quantification of stigma need not be regulated
by the legislator.
1.4
Methodology
The dissertation will be presented as follows: Following the introductory Chapter 1
and Chapter 2 on the concept of stigma. Chapter 3 presents a review of existing US
and UK laws, regulations and
guidelines issued by professional organisations,
followed by a review of the relevant literature and jurisprudence in the USA and the
UK. This will provide the background against which to analyse the prevailing
situation in Germany in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 will:
- d e s c r i b e and evaluate rules，regulations and guidelines applied in Germany;
- r e v i e w literature and jurisprudence;
- t a k e into account personal interviews conducted with selected surveyors,
authors and companies.
On the basis of this research, a model for a more accurate quantification of stigma
will be developed in Chapter 5; conclusions will be summarised in Chapter 6.
Real properties can be divided into the following broad categories, to be subdivided
further and each either vacant or improved: agricultural, commercial/retail,
industrial, residential and public (Schulte，2000，p. 29). While a number of evaluation
techniques may apply to all types of property, as e.g. the sales comparison method，
other methods like the ones based on the capitalisation or discount rate，apply in
particular to improved properties. In view of the complexity of the subject matter it
would be beyond the scope of this dissertation to include other types of properties
than vacant sites intended for industrial or commercial purposes.
2. The Concept of Stigma and its Theoretical Foundation
2.1
The Concept of Stigma
2.1.1
Definition
Stigma，as it applies to contaminated real property, is often defined as "an adverse
public perception about a property that is intangible or not directly quantifiable”
(Roddewig, 1996，p. 376)，or the "impact of the risks and uncertainties associated
with the environmental problem as perceived by the market-place" (Wilson, 1996，p.
161).
Mitchell classifies the compensable damages to real property due to contamination
into two categories: direct and indirect damages. Direct damages are measured by the
"cost to cure, remedy or remediate the physical damage or situation" (2000，pp. 162163). Indirect damages, or stigma, are related "to the increased risk of further
economic loss associated with the contamination or other impairment or defect, and
the effects of this risk on marketability, rentability，mortgageability, insurability,
income，and value of the property after cleanup and approval issued by the
appropriate authority”（ibid.，pp. 162-163).
Bond and Kennedy (2000，p.267，Fn. 1) define stigma as "the blighting effect on
property value caused by perceived risk and uncertainty. Uncertainties relate to
negative intangible factors such as: the inability to effect a total “cure，，；risk of failure
of the remediation method; risk of changes in legislation or remediation standards;
difficulty in obtaining finance or simply，a fear of the unknown” (similarly Wilson,
1996，p. 159; Roddewig，1997b，p. 304). This definition refers to stigma in its
broadest sense and includes contaminated sites that have not yet been remediated. It
thus takes into account that the liability of the owner to the public, due to dangers
connected with the site for public health and security，may be affected by new
legislation; that the remediation costs have not yet been estimated with reasonable
precision and that their financing may cause problems; that remediation standards
may change; that the results of future remediation measures are not yet known and
that the post-remediation, stigma cannot yet be evaluated with reasonable certainty.
More particularly, Bond and Kennedy (2000，p. 268，Fn. 1，confd.) define postremediation stigma as “the residual loss in value after all costs of remediation,
including insurance and monitoring have been allowed for. It equates for the
difference in value between a remediated contaminated site and a comparable 'clean'
site with no history of contamination".
The present work will focus on post-remediation stigma and will discuss how to
value it，taking into account: the value of the site as if not contaminated; the value of
comparable sites，both clean and contaminated; the cost of remediation measures and
the ratio of their amount in comparison to the value of the site as if not contaminated.
The terms “stigma” and "post-remediation stigma" will therefore be used
synonymously, except if otherwise stated.
2.1.2
Risks
The risks associated with remediated contaminated land are manifold. The most
important ones are the risk of recontamination; offsite migration of contaminants
remaining in the soil; heightened public concern as a result of uncertainty linked to
decontamination methods and present legal provisions; and
litigation or damage
claims that may come up in the future (Mundy，1992，p. 10).
2.1.3
Legal Importance of Stigma
Contamination physically damages the land，thus causing a defect of the land and
thereby affecting its quality. Contaminating the land belonging to a third person is
considered as a tort, obliging the polluter to pay compensation to the injured owner
or otherwise to cure the inflicted damages (Court of Appeals，London, Judgment of
10 June 1998，below 3.3.3.1, p.33; for Germany see e.g. Grunewald and Duken,
1995，p, 224;
Roller，2000，p. 335). As will be shown below, the legislation
applicable to contaminated land in the USA (3.1.2, p. 13), the United Kingdom
.
•
-
(3.2.2，p. 15) and Germany (4.1.1.1，p. 40) is rather new; the courts are called upon to
interpret and apply these rules when deciding law-suites. Stigma refers to the
depreciation of the value of contaminated land, even i f remedied，as compared to its
value in a non-contaminated state (2.1.1, p. 8); it is thus linked to the quality of the
land.
2.2
The Economic Incidence of Stigma
2.2.1
Measuring the Economic Incidence of Stigma
Measuring the economic incidence of stigma in money terms or as a percentage of
depreciation of the value of contaminated land remains the crucial unresolved
problem of the whole issue. As Chalmers and Jackson (1996，p. 48) noted, “until the
contamination is characterised and the cleanup strategy and its costs are understood,
there is little that can usefully be said about the effect of the contamination on the
value of the property". In other words: stigma is “the impact of the risks and
uncertainties associated with the environmental problem as perceived by the market
place" (Wilson, 1996，p. 161).
Following the contamination of a site，three distinct phases of the problem can be
identified (Chalmers and Jackson, 1996，pp. 47-48):
- d i s c o v e r y of the contamination
- r e m e d i a t i o n and
麵 post-remediation.
To these three phases are related three different risks which can influence the value
of the site as long as the contamination lasts (Mundy, 1992，p. 10) and which have
been included by Anderson (2001，p. 331) in a "Detrimental Conditions (DC)
Matrix，，: the
- a s s e s s m e n t risk，relatingto uncertainties connected with the assessment of the
direct damages caused by the contamination;
- r e p a i r risk, relating to the risks associated with the implementation of the
remediation measures;
•
ongoing risk or market resistance, including "ongoing perceptions following
completion of remediation".
The risks mentioned
relate to the costs connected with each of these phases
(Roddewig, 1999b, p. 99). The assessment and repair risks relate to the costs of
assessing the contamination and the actions required to remediate it. These costs are
largely dependent on the type of contamination and the appropriate cleanup standards
prescribed by the lawmaker. However, as the law and cleanup methods may change,
costs may evolve either way. As long as the remediation measures have not been
finished，higher costs than estimated may arise because the remediation works may
be more complicated than anticipated. The post-remediation risk may carry such
costs
as:
additional
environmental
monitoring
costs;
additional
legal
or
administrative costs; potential inability to obtain mortgage financing; third-party
claims against future owners of the site due to health or property value risks related
to past occupancy or use; potential delays in the possibility to resell the property in
future. Thus, it is difficult to predict exactly the costs involved. This plays an
important role especially when a plot of land is to be sold before decontamination, as
the buyer will pay only a price that takes into account the cleanup and related costs.
The extent of the depreciation of the value of the land itself, due to stigma, depends
further on such factors as the amount of the cleanup costs seen in relation to the
value of the land in its uncontaminated state and the length of time decontamination
measures will take.
Since measuring stigma may be an important aspect of the decision whether or not an
intending buyer should negotiate for a specific plot of land, it might be seen as linked
to the transaction costs of a sales transaction for the land.
2.2.2
Stigma as Part of Transaction Costs?
Often, a large amount of effort goes into choosing, organising, negotiating
and
entering into the most common contracts. The costs associated with these efforts are
called transaction costs，and are generally independent of the price of the contracted
product or service (Feess, 1997，pp. 586，776)，except for fees or taxes calculated on
the basis of a percentage of the sales price.
The concept of transaction costs was first introduced in the late 1930s by Ronald
Coase (1937，pp. 393-396). Coase developed a concept called "marketing costs" or
what now is called transaction costs，including the costs involved in obtaining the
information needed to take a decision whether or not to enter into a transaction
(Meyer, Williams and Yount，1995，p. 20).
The transaction costs involved to arrive at a decision whether or not to acquire a
specific site and which may be rather high, are influenced by a number of factors
(Schulte, 2000，p. 21)，such as: that
- t h e real estate market is rather non-transparent and inflexible; as such, it does
not exist as a market where offer and demand freely meet and the buyer
might easily choose between different options, as e.g. in the market for motor
cars. The real estate market presents itself rather as a partial market，both
from the regional and the technical point of view. Since land cannot be
moved, each plot of land is linked to a particular region. From the technical
point of view, each site of land offers its own characteristics and therefore
substitution between different plots of land is highly difficult. Thus, an
oversupply of land in a residential area in one city cannot meet an increased
demand for land for industrial or commercial use in a neighbouring city. And
it adds to the difficulties for an investor that，in principle，real estate is
indivisible;
- t h e real estate market is neither standardised nor centralised, as e.g. the stock
market. Real estate is traded on an irregular basis and few institutional
investors are active in this market. Thus，it is a relatively intransparent
market; an investor can compare similar real estate objects only in a given
regional market;
- w h e n concentrating his interest on a particular site，the intending buyer still
has to undertake in-depth enquiries, fraught with costs，relating to this site
and, in particular，to its value, providing him with the information required to
make up his mind as to whether this site can be acquired at a price suiting his
needs. In addition to such costs arising in the pre-contract or enquiry phase，
the potential buyer has to consider all costs relating to the negotiation phase，
such as work-hours for the negotiation, legal and other advice, travel costs
etc.; and finally the costs to implement the contract once it has been
10
concluded, such as: agent's fees, costs for the notarial act, purchase tax on
landed property, cost for registration in the land register. All these costs relate
to the transaction costs of the operation.
In view of the risk，nowadays apparent, that any site offered for sale may potentially
be a contaminated site, an intending buyer is well advised to obtain relevant
information, even if the seller may bona fide tell him，that, to the best of his
knowledge，the site is not contaminated. Thus，in the case of T&E Industries, Inc. v.
Safety Light Corporation (see below 3.3.3.1，p. 29)，the defendant，as a distant
predecessor, was held liable by the court，since he had failed to disclose to the first
buyer in a chain of subsequent buyers，who thus acted bona fide, that it had
contaminated the land by irradiation. An intending buyer wishing to avoid the
troubles that T&E Industries, Inc. went through after having bought the site — once
the contamination was detected，they were barred by state legislation to sell the land
before it was decontaminated; they expected to be ordered by a governmental agency
to clean up the site; and，of course，they had to sue the defendant -，is well advised to
obtain relevant information beforehand. To the extent that contaminated land has
already been registered • relevant legislation exists e.g. in the USA (below 3.1.2，p.
13)，the United Kingdom (3.2.2，p. 15) and Germany (4.1.1.1，p. 40)、the competent
authority may provide such information, if it was already in a position to examine the
relevant site. More often than not，finding out whether contamination exists will
necessitate costly enquiries (see flowchart, Annex 1，p.84).
The costs involved may include:
- f e e s charged by experts commissioned to ascertain whether the site is
contaminated and, if yes，for elaborating a remediation plan;
- f e e s charged for environmental assessments which lenders may require when
asked.to finance the acquisition;
- c o s t s for project delays attributable to site assessments and to the
determination of the costs of cleanup;
- i n c r e a s e d project underwriting and legal costs.
11
The costs of such enquiries, assessments and counselling need to be added to the
costs of preparing for the transaction, i.e. they are part of the transaction costs
(Meyer，Williams and Yount, 1995，p. 20).
However，as stated above (2.1.3，p. 7)，an existing contamination and the stigma
linked to it，are defects of the land, affecting its value. If such a depreciation is to be
considered as a cost element，it would be rather a cost element related to the returns
of the intended investment, as Meyer，Williams and Yount noted (1995, p. 21):
"possible property stigmatisation, associated with publicity over specific sites having
been contaminated or having required environmental mitigation" will inevitably
undermine the perceived potential return on the investment. Thus, stigma cannot be
considered as part of the transaction costs.
2.3
Conclusion
Stigma is an economical factor，indicating a depreciation of value and linked to a
defect of a site, due to its contamination.
12
3. The Valuation of Contaminated Land and the Issue of Stigma in
the United States of America and the United Kingdom
3.1
Legal Context in the United States of America
3.1.1
Background
Contamination of land, especially through industrial activities or activities related to
the energy sector，has happened in the United States since about a century before it
became a political problem as of the 1960s (Meyer, Williams and Yount，pp. 55-56).
Numerous incidents of environmental pollution which became known to the public
through the activities of environmentalists or the media led to a growing awareness
of the population of the hazards and risks pollution and contamination created for
human health, animal and plant life and the natural elements such as air, water and
soil (Meyer, Williams and Yount, 1995, pp. 60-64).
3.1.2
The first environmental legislation concerned with contaminated land was enacted on
11 December 1980 as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA)，amended on 17 October 1986 by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). CERCLA created a tax on chemical
and petroleum industries and initiated a programme, the principal objective of which
is to identify abandoned and inactive hazardous waste sites and to stimulate their
cleanup (Roddewig，1996，p. 381). Thus, CERCLA:
瞧
cleanup measures;
- d e f i n e s the liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste on
these sites; and
-
establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can
be identified.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created in 1970 with the objective to
better coordinate the already then existing environmental legislation at the federal
13
level (Meyer，Williams and Yount, 1995，pp. 58-59)，is the government agency
responsible to enforce this legislation. Reporting directly to the President, it
promulgates the regulations for the implementation of environmental laws. It also
issues the National Priorities List (NPL) which lists contaminated sites for which
long-term remedial actions are necessary. As of mid-2000，the number of sites on the
NPL amounted to 1,295 (Mester, 2000，p. 34).
Under CERCLA, EPA has been entrusted with a number of responsibilities
concerning site remediation enforcement. Site remediation refers to a “cleanup” of
sites affected by hazardous materials. Different statutes need to be observed
depending on the kind of contamination and its provenance. The term enforcement
refers to the duty of EPA to investigate potential contamination and to negotiate with
the potentially responsible parties the necessity of remedial actions or，if EPA itself
has undertaken them, the recovery of the cost of cleanup (Mester, 2000，p. 3 4).
Also several states in the USA have passed legislation concerning contaminated land,
such as Connecticut, New Jersey，Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio or California.
Thus, New Jersey, a state which has more NPL-sites than any other state，enacted in
1983 its Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act; under that law，sellers have to
conduct environmental assessments and prepare plans for cleanup according to the
prescribed standards，before contaminated land may be sold (Meyer, Williams and
Yount, 1995，p. 92).
3丄3
US Standards for the Valuation of Contaminated Land
The US legislation contains no standards for the valuation of contaminated land，but
both the Appraisal Foundation in Washington, D.C.，and the Appraisal Institute in
Chicago, HI, have issued standards for the professional appraisal practice; i.e. the
“Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice” (Appraisal Foundation,
1997) and the "Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice” (Appraisal Institute,
1997); the latter contain a "Guide Note 8: The consideration of Hazardous
Substances in the Appraisal Process”. While the standards contain a number of
relevant definitions, like of the term "hazardous substances”，they are not intended to
14
provide technical instructions or explanations concerning the detection or
measurement of the effects of hazardous substances (Roddewig, 1998a, p. 100).
3.2
Legal Context in the United Kingdom
3.2.1
Background
Until the end of the 1980s，the legacy of contaminated land as a consequence of
industrialisation was recognised only reluctantly in the United Kingdom; it was
rather considered as an inevitable corollary of the industrial economy
(Meyer，
Williams and Yount, 1995，p. 124).
A first step for an improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and
other activities and processes was taken by the enactment of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990. This Act did not yet contain specific rules and regulations for
contaminated land. It provided, however， in Sect. 143，for the maintenance of
registers, open for the general public, of land which may be contaminated and to be
compiled by the local authorities. Having met with heavy criticisms on the grounds
that inclusion of land，especially if later it turned out that it was in fact not
contaminated, would permanently reduce the value of such lands (Meyer, Williams
and Yount, 1995，p. 14)，the Government in 1993 withdrew the requirement to
maintain such registers (see also RICS，2001，Guidance Note 2: Environmental
Factors，Contamination and Valuation under 2.1.2). An ensuing review of the
policies concerning the treatment of contaminated sites, including questions of
liability for such sites and standards of remediation, led to the enactment of the
Environment Act 1995.
3.2.2
The Environment Act of 19 July 1995 (HMSO 1995) introduced two important
features concerning the treatment of contaminated land: It established in Part I the
Environment Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency; furthermore, in Part n，Sect. 57，it provided for the insertion of
15
new rules concerning Contaminated Land in a new Part HA, Sections 78A to 78YC，
of the Environment Protection Act 1990.
According to Part I，Sect. 4 of the Environment Act of 1995，it shall be the principal
aim of the Agency "to protect or enhance the environment，taken as a whole”，thus
making its "contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable
development”（Herbert，1999，p. 170). In relation to contaminated land, the Agency
is the "appropriate Agency", referred to in the Environment Protection Act 1990
(Sect. 78A, Subs. 9). In this respect, the Agency has the following role:
- t o provide site-specific guidance to Local Authorities when appropriate;
- t o act as the regulatory authority for any land designated as a special site; i.e.
contaminated land which might be difficult to remediate due to the specific
nature of the contamination;
- t o publish periodic reports on the state of contaminated land;
- t o
act as a centre of expertise, and to manage a programme of technical
research.
"Contaminated land" is defined in Sect. 78A, Subs. 2，as "any land which appears to
the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of
substances in, on or under the land, that (a) significant harm is being caused or there
is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) pollution of controlled
water is being, or likely to be, caused". "Harm" is defined in Subs. 4 as "harm to the
health of living organisms or other interferences with the ecological systems of
which they form part”； in the case of human beings，also harm to property is
included.
Under Subs. 7，"remediation" means any action to assess the condition of the site and
"(i) of preventing or minimising，or remedying or mitigating the effects of，any
significant harm, or any pollution of controlled waters，by reason of which the
contaminated land is such land; or (ii) of restoring the land or waters to their former
state”，or "the making of subsequent inspections from time to time for the purpose of
keeping under review the condition of the land or watef
16
The Act then lays down the details of how contaminated land is to be identified by
the local authority (Sect. 78B); how remediation of contamination shall be required
by the enforcing authority (Sect. 7BE); how the appropriate person responsible for
remediation shall be determined (Sect. 78F) and the powers of the enforcing
authority, if need be，to carry out the remediation itself (Sect. 78 N).
Replacing the registers of contaminated sites introduced in 1990 (see 3.2.1, p. 15)，
the enforcing authority shall now maintain a register containing particulars of the
remediation notices and the actions taken (Sect. 78R).
The Act relies on the principle that the polluter is responsible for remedying the
contaminated site (Sect. 78F); however, if the polluter cannot be identified, also the
owner or the occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question is an
"appropriate person".
The legislation does not prescribe fixed，generic or other limit values for triggering
off remedial actions; such actions should be directed at controlling，modifying or
destroying the relationship between the sources，pathways and receptors. Likewise,
the legislation does not prescribe cleanup standards. The "suitable-for-use3' approach
is applied when deciding the extent to which contaminated land needs to be treated.
Thus，in the UK, for cost reasons，the objective is to limit the expenditure for
remedial actions to meet only the requirements of the intended future land use, thus
excluding a "multifunctional approach" which would admit several options for future
use (Meyer, Williams and Yount, 1965，p. 133).
3.2.3
UK Standards for the Valuation of Contaminated Land
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has published since 1995，and
by combining earlier separate publications, a
loose-leaflet edition of the new
Appraisal and Valuation Manual，containing both Practice Statements (PS) and
Guidance Notes (GN). The Practice Statements，which are mandatory for members,
and the Guidance Notes, which are not mandatory, but intended to provide further
material and information on good valuation practice, are concerned with the
17
mechanics of practice, including the assembly, interpretation and reporting of
information relevant to the task of valuation (RICS，2001，Introduction, pp. 2-3).
Contamination of land is dealt with
Considerations";
in PS 6 "Inspection and Material
in addition, Guidance Note 2
"Environmental Factors,
Contamination and Valuation" has been issued in December 1995 and, outside the
Manual, a further Guidance Note in September 1997 "Contamination and Its
Implications for Chartered Surveyors，，.
The basic approach in Practice Statement 6 is that "unless instructed by or agreed
with the Client to the contrary，it is necessary to establish the existence and extent of
any contamination so that the likely effect on value of such contamination can be
reflected in the valuation” (PS 6.3.1). However，unless the Surveyor is able to
undertake the necessary environmental investigations himself, it is stated in PS 6.3.4
that the "Valuer will need to recommend to the Client in writing that appropriate
investigations be undertaken by environmental experts'5. According to the Guidance
Note 2，the importance of contamination to Valuers depends upon, among others，
"the state of knowledge of the existence and effect of the particular form of
contamination" and the previous existing and proposed future “uses of the subject
land/buildings and property nearby，’ (GN 2.1.12). The effect on value is
circumscribed in these terms: “The reduction in value attributable to contamination is
generally
measurable using the same methods and techniques that are used to
measure loss in value or depreciation from other causes，for example residual and
'before and after' valuation. Valuers should, however, bear in mind that the market
value of a property after remedial works，less the cost of such works may, for various
reasons，be either greater or less than the simple arithmetic suggests” (GN 2.9.1).
Valuers should also take into account "other influences affecting market value,
which may be referred to collectively as 'stigma', such as”，among others: “inability
to effect a total 'cure，”； "prejudice arising out of the past use(s)”； “the risk of failure
of treatment"; “the risk of changes to legislation or remediation standards"; or “a
reduced range of alternative uses of the site” (GN 2.9.7).
18
3.3
The Valuation Process
33.1
Literature Review
In 1988，Patchin (pp. 7-16) had published an article on "Valuation of Contaminated
Properties”，introducing for the first time the notion of stigma to the valuation of
contaminated properties (Bond, Kinnard and Kennedy, 2001，p. 259). Since then,
authors have approached the subject essentially in two ways. One group, including,
among others, Patchin himself，Mundy and Roddewig，endeavoured to elaborate the
notions of contamination, the stages to deal with the problem, the risks involved and
their effects on the market value of real property. Another group of authors,
comprising e.g. Simons，Bowen and Sementelli, concentrated more on empirical
studies (Jackson，2001a，pp. 94-109).
In the early 1990s, sales data on contaminated industrial or commercial sites were
not readily available, essentially because the market for such properties developed
only fairly recently (Jackson, ibid.，p. 94). The problems relating to contamination,
i.e. how to assess the seriousness of a given contamination, the possibilities of its
remediation and the eventual effects of contamination on the marketability of the
site, were still too fresh as to incite potential buyers to venture the risk of acquiring
such a site (Jackson, ibid.). Empirical studies, on a case by case basis, therefore
became available only rather slowly. It seems that the proceedings in the Exxon
Valdez case in the United States (below 3.3.3.1，p. 32) brought about the turning
point. As Roddewig (1997a，p. 98)，acting as an expert witness for the defendant,
Exxon Corp., reported, the team of experts, acting for the defendant, provided the
Court, on the basis of empirical studies, with conclusive evidence on the question
whether or not post-remediation stigma damages were to be awarded and which was
even accepted by the plaintiffs (below 3.3.3.1，p. 32).
Before such empirical studies could be undertaken usefully, not only was it necessary
to have available sufficient cases that could be investigated, but above all it was
necessary to elaborate the theoretical foundations for approaching such empirical
studies by clarifying which were the problems at issue.
19
Authors like Patchin, Mundy, Rinaldi, Roddewig，Chalmers and Jackson or Bell
undertook basic research to define the problems resulting from a contamination of
real property and to elaborate proposals to solve them. Rinaldi (1991，p. 377)
submitted that the appraisal of contaminated property "involves first the valuation of
the property as if
uncontaminated", using the three most commonly accepted
approaches to valuing, i.e. the sales comparison, the income and the cost methods
(Cannon, 2002，p. 217). Since contamination according to Rinaldi (ibid.) is a loss in
value，“it is a form of depreciation, which must be viewed as a reduction from the
value as if uncontaminated".
Mundy (1992，pp. 7-8) stated, however，that a mathematical formula to the effect
that “value before contamination minus value after contamination equals
compensation，，，and that therefore the “damage should equal the cost to cure (....)
may not correspond with the opinion of the public at large". He developed the thesis
that the damage caused by contamination is the sum of the cost to cure plus a stigma
effect，which depends on the perceptions of uncertainty and risk prevailing in the
market concerning the effects of the contamination and the effectiveness of the
remediation works (1992，p. 9). Also Rinaldi recognised the existence of stigma,
stating even, that an "allowance that provides for stigma of contamination might be
helpful", but he did not include such a provision in his valuation approach which he
based on "the three elements of cost to cure, deferred utility, and excess operating
expenses，，，because he considered that "while the existence of the stigma is a
certainty，the precise measure of the loss caused by the stigma is elusive" (Rinaldi,
1991，p. 380). Roddewig put it like this: "The stigma impact can rise and fall in
harmony with a variety of cycles”（1998b，p. 321).
While such statements, in the light of the writings of other authors and also of the
jurisprudence developed by the courts (below 3.3.3.1，pp. 29-34)，appear to be a
truism - no other author and no court has proposed or applied a generally accepted
mathematical formula how to calculate stigma1 -，it could not be the end of the stoiy
1
Several authors have proposed mathematical formulas; however, they apply to residential real
estate producing income; see e.g. Detweiler and Radigan, 1999, p. 282; Bond, Kumard and Kennedy,
2001, p. 259-260.
20
that Rinaldi decided not to consider the factor of stigma. Other authors have refined
the research by distinguishing between the different stages or cycles of
contamination, relating to the discovery phase of the contamination, the remediation
and finally the post-remediation phases; each phase being afflicted with particular
risks, identified already under 2.2.1
(p. 8) as the assessment, repair and ongoing
risks (Anderson, 2001，p. 331). The magnitude of these risks depends on the
uncertainty with which the calculation of the costs in each phase is fraught, as
Roddewig has rightly underlined (1999b，p. 99). Chalmers and Thomas (1996，pp.
47-48) highlighted the aspect “at which stage in the 'life cycle' of the contamination"
the property is being valued，a question also treated by Wilson (1996，p. 155-170)
and who arrived at the conclusion (p. 166) that the impact of stigma on the value of
the property is "highly time dependent". Stigma is apparently time dependent
because “it is related to market perceptions as well as the state of knowledge
concerning the remediation costs" (ibid.). In line with other authors (e.g. Chalmers
and Roehr, 1993，p. 30), Wilson distinguished three stigma levels: Pre-, during and
post-remediation stigmas. The pre-remediation stigma is highest, because it
combines the during-remediation stigma and the post-remediation stigma (see also
Mundy, 1992，p. 8; Sanders，1996，p. 59). The during-remediation stigma is
characterised in particular by uncertainties about the final costs，comprising costs
related to testing，cleanup, disposal and subsequent monitoring (Chalmers and Roehr,
1993，p. 31) and the ultimate standards for cleanup and, eventually, costs arising out
of any restrictions concerning the future use of the site. Thus, Wilson refers to an
example (1996，p. 161) that a site, the "unimpaired highest and best use” of which
was for light industrial development, could after remediation be used only for
purposes of outdoor storage, with a corresponding loss of value of the site. The postremediation stigma is determined by the market reaction to the remediation measures
and their sustainability and may，if all goes well, "dissipate to an undetectable level
over time" (Wilson, ibid. p. 166); this latter statement is of particular importance for
the purposes of this dissertation. As Mundy also put it: The post-remediation stigma
indeed is intimately linked with the insight that the "value of real estate is based on
the premise that it is marketable" (Mundy, 1992，p. 10).
Stigma exists as long and to such an extent that an uncertainty to which it is linked
exists (Mundy, 1992，p. 10). If the uncertainty disappears, so disappears the stigma.
21
In other words: The pre-remediation stigma ceases to exist as soon as the
contamination has been defined in all its ramifications and the remediation measures
have been identified. The "during-remediation" stigma exists as long as there is
uncertainty about the costs involved and other factors relating to the implementation
of the remediation measures. And finally, the post-remediation stigma arises and
exists as long as there is uncertainty about the success and the sustainability of the
remediation measures. In line with this, both US and U K courts have ruled that there
is no room for a compensation for depreciation of value of a site after the
remediation works have been carried out，if，as happened in two cases reported below
(3.3.3.1，pp. 32-33)，both parties agree that all problems linked to the contamination
had been solved when the remediation works ended. Roddewig has summarised the
relevant points about “temporary stigma” in his article "Temporary Stigma: Lessons
from the Exxon Valdez Litigation" (1997a, pp. 96-101). Against the background of
what has been stated，it seems correct if Mitchell (2000，p. 164) proposes that the
term stigma，"if it must be used，it should be used in the commonly accepted sense as
referring to the losses of value of whatever kind after the completion of the program
of remediation，much as Mundy's 'perceived risks'，，.
Even if，as in the opinion of Rinaldi (1991，p. 380)，the "precise measure of the loss
in value caused by the stigma is elusive”，it is still very useful that other authors have
identified a number of factors which may affect the value of contaminated land even
if remediated. If it is not possible to measure exactly the amount of stigma，still an
assessment of the relative weight of the different factors coming into play may help
to assess any resulting diminution of the value of the land. Anderson (2001，p. 323)
noted: “For a property to be ‘guilty’ of any diminution in value, there must be clear,
relevant, and objective market data that meets the test of market value”. The
following main factors have been identified by Roddewig (1999b，p. 98; see also
Mundy, 1992，p. 12，Wilson, 1996，pp. 156-161) ( quote): the
-type/intensity of contamination;
- t y p e of property (e.g. commercial，industrial, residential);
- e x t e n t to which contamination interferes with current use or most probable
future use during and after remediation;
- s i t e topographical conditions and characteristics;
- g e o g r a p h i c location;
22
- s t a t u s of the site investigation/environmental assessment and the extent of
information about the location of the contamination on site;
- s o u r c e of the contamination (e.g. on-site, off_site，groundwater, air pollution);
- a p p l i c a b l e regulatory review process and the degree to which additional
remediation is mandated by law or regulation;
- s t a g e of the cleanup or remediation plan approval;
- a p p r o p r i a t e past, present，or future cleanup or monitoring methods and costs;
-availability and strength of available environmental indemnities, if any;
-availability and cost of environmental insurance policies and programs，either
public or private;
-availability of mortgage financing for properties undergoing similar types of
investigation, remediation, and ongoing environmental monitoring; and
- p e r c e p t i o n s of the public and knowledgeable buyers in the property's
marketplace.
In view of the multitude of different factors which may affect the value of a
contaminated site，Roddewig (1999，p. 99) concluded that the “appropriate method
for appraising property affected by contamination varies from one valuation situation
to another, depending upon the particular set of factors from the above list that
apply，，. Using the comparative sales method may not be possible due to a lack of a
sufficient number of comparable sites that have been sold. Under these
circumstances, "analysing case studies of contaminated properties to discern
implications for market value arising from contamination is appropriate". Roddewig
could make this statement with added power of conviction, since it was this method
which had provided to the Supreme Court of Alaska the convincing evidence needed
to decide the issue of stigma in the Exxon Valdez case (below 3.3.3.1，p. 32 and
Roddewig，1997a, p. 98).
Only a few empirical studies dealing with contaminated commercial and industrial
properties have been undertaken, since only a limited number of sales transactions
have been conducted (Jackson, 2001a，p. 107). Most of these studies are in the form
of case studies. Thus, Simons，Bowen and Sementelli (1999，pp. 186-194) have
examined the price and liquidity effects of
leaks emanating from underground
storage tanks and belonging to gas stations on adjacent contaminated property. The
23
authors noted that there was a "significant reduction in transaction rates (33% lower)
compared with uncontaminated properties. Further, there is a significant increase
(more than double) in the incidence of seller financing. This increase indicates a
further loss in value to the owner of contaminated property. For those properties that
did sell，a 30% - 40% reduction in sales price occurs" (ibid. p. 193-194).
In other circumstances, Jackson noted, however, a very different picture. Having
examined，on a case-by-case basis, the effects of previous environmental
contamination on real estate prices (2001b，pp. 200-210)，Jackson arrived at the
following result "that the environmental condition of eight previously contaminated
properties had little effect on their ultimate sales price. Indeed, for most of the
properties, their sales price was actually higher on a per unit basis than would be
indicated by the unimpaired comparables. Since most of these properties had been
remediated prior to sale, this would suggest that the subsequent cleanup to
appropriate regulatory standards the market is more comfortable with environmental
risks than it would be for industrial and commercial properties that had no
undiscovered contamination" (ibid. p. 206).
On the basis of case studies, Roddewig (2000，p. 373) proposed an "environmental
risk scoring system” which provides a basis for comparing and adjusting marketderived stigma indicators to the appraisal situation under review. Jackson and Bell
(2002，p. 88) have designed a "Case Study Comparison Chart."
3.3.2
Surveys
In 1998，Kinnard and Worzala (1999) carried out a survey with the aim of obtaining
an overview of the valuation methods used for contaminated property in the USA.
The response rate to the questionnaire was 43%; 40% of the respondents had more
than 10 years of experience in dealing with contamination issues within the
framework of their valuation activity.
A large majority of the respondents has stated using the following methods: sales
comparison analysis (80%), income capitalisation approach (79%)，discounted cash
flow (DCF) models (64%)，and, as adjustment to the income capitalisation, reduced
rental income (60%) and increased capitalisation rate (70%). When faced with
contaminated property with commercial, industrial or retail use, many respondents
24
do not consider any impact on rental income; unfortunately, no explanation for this
answer has been included in the survey. Most consider to be the best approach to the
valuation of contaminated property to compare the value of the property both clean
and contaminated，thus taking into consideration the anticipated remediation costs.
63% of the respondents calculate the impaired value by deducting from the
unimpaired value the amount of the remediation cost as estimated by environmental
experts. At the same time, 52% state that they often do not take into account the
duration of the remediation process, thus deducting the total estimated cost to
remediate from the unimpaired value without discount.
25% of the respondents claim making their own estimates of the expected
remediation costs. For the rest，the survey has shown that the respondents rely
strongly on data provided by environmental engineers, especially concerning
estimates of remediation costs as well as of the duration and the extent of the
remediation process; 80% state they accept the estimates provided by licensed
environmental engineers without independent verification.
Most of respondents stated that they use all information sources available for the
valuation. Among the most used sources are the property tenants or owners (90%)
and the state list of contaminated properties (70%).
55% of the respondents sometimes value the land only as if uncontaminated, while
including a disclaimer in their calculations. In 82% of the valuations，the property is
valued “as if contaminated” if the contamination is known or suspected, and in 87%
it is valued “as contaminated”.
According to the respondents, 85% of the disruptions in net operating income (NOI)
are due to on-site remediation activities, 69% also to legal actions and 50% also to
post-remediation marketing. 77% of the respondents include these disruptions in
their DCF calculations through the means of reduced or zero NOI for specific
periods, less than 50% increase either the capitalisation or the discount rate，or both.
In the 'comments' section of the questionnaire, some respondents included the
observation that if the present value of the estimated remediation costs exceeds the
estimated value as if uncontaminated, the property is not marketable，i.e.，in their
opinion the market value is equal to zero. From a common point of view this
comment makes much sense. The owner would actually have to offer an investor
money so as to reach an agreement over that transaction. In any other case the
investor would loose money.
25
Kennedy (Bond and Kennedy, 2000) has endeavoured to gain an overview of the
valuation methods applied in the UK. The survey has revealed that the level of
experience with contaminated land is generally low in the UK. The reason lies in a
lack of awareness of valuation issues and methods in that field despite a particular
interest in contamination matters. The result is an avoidance of the subject Itself,
translated by either the refusal to accept offers or the inclusion of disclaimers into the
valuation.
From the U K questionnaire results that 50,000 to 100,000 sites，amounting to around
200,000 ha, are considered potentially contaminated，with a predominance in the
more populated urban and sub-urban areas. According to the UK survey，7,200 sites
are suspected to be contaminated. An enumeration list in both surveys shows the
predominance of contamination due to industrial activities on these sites.
The wide range of valuation tools used in the UK has led to inconsistent estimates of
the market value of the contaminated land. As a result, uncertainty concerning these
sites was high，leading to a limited availability of these sites on the open market.
More than 50% of the respondents use more than one valuation method, whereby the
capital based method and three income-based methods, i.e.，the income，profits and
residual methods, prevail 60% have reported that they assess the value "as
contaminated” if the remediation costs are available, otherwise 75% value as if
uncontaminated and include a disclaimer to that effect.
The information sources concerning possible lost revenues and remediation costs
differ. In the first case, mostly forecasts of anticipated revenues coming from more
than one source are used. 75% of the respondents use evidence from uncontaminated
sites in similar location. This fact leads to the question of how valuable the data from
a comparison of contaminated and uncontaminated sites in similar location might be.
The lack, however, of adequate data from comparable sales could be a reason for the
use of that method. Invasive investigation is used by three quarters of the
respondents as a source for remediation costs. 63% of the respondents rely on cost
estimates included in the remedial strategy for the property. In that respect the
authors of the survey have voiced their concern on the willingness in the UK to use
26
comparable data for the assessment of remediation costs. This method is
questionable as remediation costs are site specific (Bond and Kennedy, 2000，p.264)，
depending on many factors such as the site use, extent and the gravity of the
contamination, and the possible danger to the public.
More than 40% of the respondents incorporate the absence of revenues into the
valuation through a reduced or zero income for the specific period. They allow for
the remediation costs in the valuation through cash flow adjustment (42%)，
deduction of the present value of the future costs (more than 50%) or capital
deduction (57%). Bond and Kennedy (2000，p. 264) judge the capital deduction
method too simplistic as it Is used in the UK, as the respondents tend to incorporate
the remediation costs through yield adjustment.
The respondents took advantage of the 'comments5 section to voice several concerns.
The availability of information is very limited in the UK. Thus a strong reliance on
the perceptions of the market and the investors of financial risk, as well as on the
valuer's own judgement is essential. This, combined with the lack of professional
indemnity insurance cover, has led to a disinclination to accept valuation of
contaminated land which resulted in limited expertise.
The surveys in the USA and the UK show that appraisers in these countries are aware
of the need to make allowance for stigma in their calculations. Often they deduct a
percentage for the stigma from the impaired land value, based on the circumstances
of the case in question.
According to the survey of Kinnard and Worzala (1999), US respondents favour the
sales comparison analysis when assessing the stigma adjustment (73%)，followed by
an increase in the capitalisation (66%) or discount (61%) rate. 57% reduce their cash
flow estimates. Basis for these measurements is for 51% of the respondents the own
experience and the opinions of lenders, 83% rely on market data and only 3% ignore
the problem overall.
Most of the respondents have a strong belief in the efficiency of the real estate
market and are satisfied with the availability of necessary market data. However,
27
they recognise the need for more and better data，indispensable for the comparison
analysis. Many have expressed their contentment with the actual valuation tools
especially against the background of their conviction that a single, standardised
method cannot be found.
Two beliefs have been voiced in the survey: first, that the post-remediation stigma
declines over time, i.e. the further the remediation lies back, the lower are the risks
of damages associated with the former contamination. And second，that if there is no
change in use, informed investors tend to disregard post-remediation stigma.
In the UK, the information source for environmental risk is mainly comparative
evidence，i.e. uncontaminated land in similar location (65% of the respondents),
similar contamination in dissimilar location (53%), and similar contamination in
similar location (38%). The problem with the latter, though the best source，is the
lack of available data. Alternatively to the comparisons, few cash flow analyses are
being done.
The consideration of the environmental risk depends heavily on the quantity and
quality of the existing information. More than 80% of the respondents use discount
rate adjustment. Capital value reduction is the next most favoured method in the UK
(44%). The only alternative method used is the reduced rental income. Respondents
account for stigma within that method mainly through the increase of all-risk-yields
and the overall capitalisation rate (Bond and Kennedy，2000，p. 258). This contrasts
with the results in the US survey that states several alternative valuation methods for
the stigma adjustment.
3.3.3
Cases involving disputes over contaminated land take US courts "over the unsettled
waters of toxic-tort Htigation，，，as the Supreme Court of New Jersey (1991，p. 1262)
aptly remarked in 1991 (Case T&E Industries, Inc. v. Safety Light Corp).
The plaintiff had acquired land which, by what the Court qualified as "inappropriate
disposal of radioactive waste”，had been contaminated by the defendant, a distant
28
predecessor in title (p. 1263). The plaintiff found itself in the situation that it was
barred by state law, i.e. the New Jersey Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act of
1983，to sell the site as long as it was contaminated (Meyer, Williams and Yount, p.
92)，and that it expected to be compelled by a governmental agency to clean up the
site，which would include demolishing a building and other improvements,
representing a value of $ 185.000.
The plaintiff had obtained from the trial court a judgment that the defendant should，
in addition to other material damages, indemnify “damages for the diminution in
value of the property", estimated at $ 31.500.
The Court found that the plaintiff as "owner of radium-contaminated property can
hold (the defendant as) a distant predecessor in title that is responsible for the
contamination strictly liable for the damages caused by its abnormally-dangerous
activity" (p. 1251). This against the background that the defendant had failed to
disclose to the first buyer，that in turn would have had to inform the next buyer, "any
condition that involves unreasonable risks to others (....) who had no reason to know
of undisclosed condition or risk, if vendor knew or should have known of condition
of risk as well as of likelihood that purchaser would not discover the condition or
risk" (p. 1250).
The Court then stated "that if plaintiff is compelled to clean up the property, it
should be indemnified" by recovering the cleanup costs ( p. 1263) and that it also be
compensated for the maintenance costs and recover the value of the building and
other improvements to be demolished in the course of the cleanup activities
(p.
1263).
As far as the diminution of the value of the property was concerned, the Court
disagreed with the trial court and found that, when the property will have been
cleaned up，“it will be restored to full value. Plaintiff will then be able to sell the
property at market value. Thus, the declaratory judgment (which awarded the
cleanup costs) precludes plaintiff from recovering $ 31.500 awarded for the
diminution in the value of the land^ (p. 1263; emphasis added). The Court thus
agreed with the argument of the defendant (p. 1262)，that, if the cleanup costs are
29
awarded, compensation also for a diminution in value of the property would amount
to "a double recovery".
The Court did not say，whether it referred to the market value at the time the plaintiff
purchased the site，or by the time the cleanup measures had been implemented. By
adjudicating the compensation of cleanup costs as defined in the judgment, it seems
that the Court referred to the market value of the site at the time of the purchase.
Indeed, the Court did not address the issue whether, after the cleanup, the value of
the site might be affected negatively by the public awareness, created in the meantime, that the site had suffered a contamination problem; it simply stated that the
plaintiff would be able to sell the site at market value.
Other US courts have adopted a different approach. Thus, the Supreme Court of
Wyoming (1984，pp. 1324-1325; Case Anderson v. Bauer) decided in 1984 that
indeed the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for the diminished value of their
properties，in a case involving eight homeowners against, inter al,，the builders,
seeking to obtain compensation for damages to their houses from seepage of water.
The Court started out with a general observation: "The greatest difficulty in stating a
general rule for recovery of damages has been in those cases involving damage to
realty", because so "much is subjective and uncertain in determining fair market
values before and after the damage，diminished values，whether the damage is
permanent or temporaiy，the nature and extent of the damage and methods of repair"
(pp. 1233-34).
However, as far as the “fair market value” at the time of the purchase is concerned
and since the damages through seepage of water had occurred only after the
purchase, the Court found that the "purchase price of each of these homes (....) was
evidence for the fair market value of each home at the time of the purchase in 1978”
(p. 1325).
As far as the diminution of the value of the properties, due to seepage of water, is
concerned, the Court found that “after the installation of the tile and completion of
repair
30
diminished value of their property, because of the reputation of the area for the
water problem
Concerning the calculation of the amount of the diminution of value of the
properties,
defined by the Court as a "percentage described as ‘economic
obsolescence' to the fair market value of each dwelling house，，，and “determined as
of the time of the injury in J978", the Court "recognized that these kinds of damages
cannot be determined with mathematical precision, that they may be inherently
uncertain, that it is sufficient that they be determined with a reasonable degree of
certainty based upon the evidence adduced and the nature of the injury” (p. 1325;
emphasis added).
Being confronted with the situation that the plaintiffs found that "the awards of
damage by the (trial) court were too low”，while the defendants claimed that they
were "too high”，and while the trial court judge had stated that "the awards were
fair”，the Court decided "to agree with the trial court's determination. The damages
awarded were within the range of damages established and are supported by the
evidence" (p. 1325).
The Supreme Court of Wyoming thus clearly limited the depreciation of value to an
amount linked to the market value of the property at the time of the purchase and as
represented by the purchase price，without, however，indicating in the published
version of the judgment what the percentage was in this case.
The Colorado Court of Appeals (1986，p. 78; Case McAlonan v. US Home CorpX in
1986，developed the jurisprudence beyond this point. The purchaser of a
condominium had sued the vendor for 24 enumerated defects to the condominium,
requiring repairs throughout the unit，including severe cracks in the foundation.
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff’ the Court admitted that the
value of the property had appreciated since the purchase and that this appreciation
was reduced or even nullified by the damages that had occurred，even though they
had been repaired. The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover this
31
diminution of the value, the date of the completion of the repairs being the reference
point in time (p. 80).
Assisted by some of the best known US appraisers as expert witnesses — Mr. Mundy
acted for the plaintiffs，Mr. Roddewig for the defendants (Roddewig，1997a，p. 97)-，
the Supreme Court of Alaska (1999，pp. 769-799; Case Chenega Corp. v. Exxon
Corp.) rendered on 29 November 1999 its judgment in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Case. The plaintiffs sought compensation for damages through oil spills having
affected their lands and archeological sites, when the tanker Exxon Valdez, in March
1989，ran aground off the coast of Alaska, spilling about ten million gallons of crude
oil，owned by the defendants, which eventually polluted the shores of Alaska. After
the land had been cleaned up by the defendants and also other material damages had
been settled，the plaintiffs still sought compensation for the reduced market value of
the lands and loss of use of their oiled and adjacent lands (p. 776). During the course
of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had expressly acknowledged "that essentially all of
the land damages they sought were temporary" and that therefore their damage
claims were "temporary lost-use claims” rather than “claims for permanent
reductions in market value” (p. 776). The Court therefore adjudicated compensation
on the basis that the "measure of harm to land，in the circumstances of this case，is
the ‘fair rental value' attributable to any use of the property that could have been
made but for the Oil Spill”. Thus, other measures of damage, such as impaired
marketability or reduction in market value, were excluded (p. 777). As far as the
calculation of the rented value of the land was concerned, the Court underlined that
the "original market value was the starting point for determining fair rental value".
The "impaired rental value was based on fair rental value and an impairment ratio,
which was unrelated to the land's reduced market value，’ (p. 779).
Legal aspects of contamination, including stigma, were at the heart of the Judgment
rendered by the Court of Appeals in London (1998，pp. 1 squ.; Case BLC v. Ministry
of Defence) on 10 June 1998. Caused by storms and heavy rains in July 1989，ponds
situated on the lands of the Atomic Weapons Establishment overflowed and
inundated marshland belonging to an Estate，owned by BLC. The result was that the
marshland was contaminated with radioactive material The full extent of the damage
became known only in late 1992，and BCL was informed in early 1993 at a time，
32
when they conducted promising negotiations with a prospective buyer, who was
considering to acquire the estate for a sum of 10.35m pounds. Having been informed
about the contamination, the prospective buyer broke off the negotiations and B C L
was not able to sell the estate. Cleanup works were conducted from May to
December 1994，at which time the estate was valued at only 3.78m pounds, including
a depreciation of about 10% for post-remediation stigma. The Court of Appeals held
the defendant fully responsible for the damages caused by the contamination;
however, since the Court came to the conclusion that the cleanup works had ftilly
remediated the contamination, it did not award compensation for any postremediation stigma. Some of the salient points of the Judgment can be summarised
as follows: “A defendant is only liable for the damages caused by the injury. Thus
when the causative effect ends, the liabilty to pay becomes crystallised" (p. 11).
Since the parties were agreed that the contamination had made the estate
unmarketable until the end of the cleanup works in December 1994，after which date
the plaintiff could have sold the land, the Court found: "After 1994 the risk of the
market going down passed to BCL and consequently the advantage，if it went up” (p.
12). Agreeing with the Judge of the first instance, the Court of Appeals distinguished
“between stigma from the contamination which would be a consequence of the injury
and the fear of possible (future) contamination" i.e. the post-remediation stigma (p.
13). Referring to two earlier cases of radioactive contamination in neither of which
“did the fact of previous contamination following cleanup to the satisfaction of the
authorities，have any apparent effect on the purchaser's valuation" the Court of
Appeals agreed with the lower Court's opinion, based on the RICS Guide on
valuation after contamination, “that everything depends
upon the facts of the
particular case” (p. 13). Since the Court of Appeals was satisfied that the cleanup
works had solved the problems created by the contamination, it saw no room for
awarding any compensation for post-remediation stigma.
3,3.3,2 Assessment of Jurisprudence
The jurisprudence of courts in the USA does not offer a homogeneous approach to
the issue of valuation of contaminated or otherwise impaired property, including the
assessment of stigma. The Supreme Court of New Jersey had decided that，by
recovering the cleanup costs，the plaintiff had been fully compensated and, since he
33
would be able to sell the property at its market value, could not claim any
compensation for a diminution of the value of the land. In contrast to this, both the
Supreme Court of Wyoming and the Court of Appeals of Colorado, had recognised
that material defects inherent in the real estate - in one case: a water problem
connected with the site; in the other case: cracks in the walls of the building,
including severe cracks in the foundation - affected the value of the property in spite
of the repair works undertaken, since the defects of the properties had become public
knowledge. Or，in other words, these courts admitted that there was a difference in
value between these properties impaired by the defects and comparable properties
without these impairments. Without using the term “stigma”，as defined above (2.1.1，
p. 6)，these courts applied its notion. Similarly, the property acquired by T&E
Industries, Inc.，the plaintiff in the case decided by the Supreme Court of New
Jersey, was afflicted
by a severe problem, i.e. the problem of having been
contaminated through irradiation; this problem was so serious that the plaintiff was
barred by state legislation to sell the property before it had been cleaned up. The
Court had even underlined that the defendant had been under an obligation to
disclose to an intending buyer the fact that the property had been contaminated.
Experience of life proves that any intending buyer in such cases would think twice
before buying the homes in question or indeed the site formerly irradiated; and even
if they would decide to buy these properties, they would negotiate for a reduction of
the purchase price. Thus, one is made to wonder how the New Jersey Supreme Court
could assume that the cleanup action would restore the site to its full market value.
The two other courts did recognise that the value of the property was affected
negatively by the damages in spite of the repair works intended to remove them. The
two latter courts differed, however, as to the date which would be relevant for
estimating the diminution of the value, i. e. the date of the injury or the date when the
repair works had been terminated. The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that the
date of the injury was relevant, while the Colorado Court of Appeals considered the
diminution in market value “as repaired".
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alaska in the Exxon Valdez case is important
in three respects. It confirmed that:
34
-contamination of land diminishes its value, in any case between the dates
when the contamination took place (or was detected) and the termination of
the cleanup measures;
- d a m a g e s caused by contamination through oil spills can be of a temporary
nature; i.e. there might be no stigma beyond the date of the termination of the
cleanup works; and
- t h e measure of harm to the land under such circumstances is the fair rental
value, to be calculated on the basis of the value of the land as i f not
contaminated.
Roddewig rightly underlined the importance of this litigation which took place "at a
time when the appraisal profession was finally becoming comfortable with
assignments involving valuation of contaminated properties" (1997a, p. 96). In fact,
the appraisal profession could draw several lessons from the proceedings. Roddewig
(ibid.) highlighted already in 1997，i.e. before the case was finally decided in 1999
by the Supreme Court of Alaska, that "the nature and purpose of the assignment
determine the most appropriate valuation or evaluation technique"; further, that
market values fixed as of a specific date in time "can change over time，and
traditional techniques from typical appraisal assignments may have to be modified to
fit the realities of the real estate assignment";finally，that"appraisers must look to
the market place for answers and analyse what the marketplace itself is saying.
Scientific conclusions about persistence of contaminations do not necessarily
correlate with the marketplace's conclusions about the duration of economic impact
on real estate".
The Judgment of the Court of Appeals in London endorses the principles of valuation
of contaminated land put forward by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors i.e.
that each case needs to be handled on ist own merits, taking into account the reaction
of the market.
35
3.4
Conclusion
Over the past two decades，an effective legislative framework has been created both
in the US and the UK for dealing with problems of contaminated land. The objective
of this legislation is to prevent, to the largest extent possible, future contamination of
the soil and to ensure remediation of sites which have been identified by the
competent authorities as contaminated sites, hazardous for man and/or the
environment. By enforcing the principle that the polluter pays for the damages
caused by him，strong disincentives have been included in the law for dealing
carelessly with the environment. This has been understood by the public at large, but
also by industry or commerce executives. One US business executive was quoted as
saying: "We can no longer rely on capital outlays and solutions to deal with waste
after it's produced. The new frontier is waste prevention" (Meyer, Williams and
Yount，1995，p. 177).
Once the public awareness was created that contaminated land is stigmatised，it
became evident that transactions concerning such sites became risky affairs，
especially, if the true extent and the repercussions of contamination were not
completely revealed. In this situation, valuers or appraisers as well as environmental
experts，engineers and technicians were called upon to carry out investigations and
make recommendations how to tackle the problems of contamination; they should
offer solutions which not only ensure that the environmental danger is removed, but
also that the sites in question could be objects of business transactions. Case studies
and court decisions in the US and the UK have revealed that the incidence of a
stigma factor on sales transactions，following a remediation of the site in question,
tends to be relatively low, if it exists at all. In any case, the incidence of stigma needs
to be examined in the light of the particular situation of the site concerned.
Professional organisations like the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the
UK or the Appraisal Institute in the US offer since about ten years professional
guidance to their members, advising them that "it is necessary to establish the
existence and extent of any contamination so that the likely effect on value of such
contamination can be reflected in the valuation” (RICS, Practice Statement 6.3.1).
36
However，as Bond, Kinnard，Kennedy and Worzala noted (2001，pp. 260-261), these
guidelines "offer little beyond admonitions to perform competently，acquire technical
assistance and expertise from others where necessary, and reportfolly，，.In particular,
they offer "little substantive direction, few or no details on how the existence of
contamination is best treated，and only limited illustrative materials". However，
articles published by academic
authors and practitioners and also judgments
rendered by courts of justice provide guidance to valuers and appraisers how to
proceed. It is true，not for all aspects of the procedure and methodology clear-cut
rules can be provided. Thus, as the literature review has revealed，including the
surveys，mathematical formulas cannot be provided for every situation; this applies
in particular to measuring the stigma factor which is determined by too many facets
depending on the concrete situation of the given case.
While it seems that in the US appraisers have become quite accustomed to valuing
contaminated sites (Roddewig, 1997a, p. 96) it is noteworthy that in the UK, as the
survey conducted by Bond and Kennedy (2000) has revealed, there seems still to
exist a marked tendency on the side of valuers to avoid being involved in such
valuations (above p. 27).
37
4. The Valuation of Contaminated Land and the Issue of Stigma in
Germany
4.1
Legal Context
4.L1
Background
According to the Federal Environmental Agency (2000)，in Germany，362.689
contaminated sites had been registered by the end of the year 2000, among them
3.240 military sites. Some 10.300 sites have been remedied. Among those remedied，
approximately 3.800 qualified as former waste disposal sites and approximately
6.500 as former industrial sites (Federal Environmental Agency, 2000). As these
figures demonstrate，Germany is faced with a huge ongoing task to handle the
problem of contaminated sites.
The awareness that the protection of the environment, comprising all natural
elements, such as air, water, soil，climate and landscape, is a concern for the modem
industrialised society, started to grow very slowly in the 1960s (Weyers, 1987, pp.
488-491), The discussion got underway after negative impacts，caused by a careless
treatment of natural resources，became more and more apparent. As a first reaction,
the German Parliament adopted，in 1972，an Act setting out strict rules for the
treatment of waste，in particular toxic waste，which formerly used to be dumped，
without any precautions, on waste disposal sites and which led to rather wide-spread
contamination of the soil and groundwater (Kanngieser and Schuhr, 1998，p. 332;
Weyers, 1987，p. 490).
In the following years，and against the background of an intensified public
discussion, animated to a large degree by the newly formed "Green Party", a series
of about 30 laws and ordinances were enacted for the protection of the environment,
supported also, at the level of the European Communities, by a number of legislative
acts intended to harmonise，at the EU-level，efforts to protect the environment (list
in: Advisory Council on Soil Protection, 2000，pp. 87-88).
It was, however，only in 1985 that the Federal Government developed a special
"Concept for the protection of the soil". It decided that the protection of the soil，in
38
fliture，shall be pursued as prominently as conservation of the nature, protection of
the landscape，maintaining the cleanliness of the air，fighting against noise，securing
the water supply and ensuring a safe waste disposal (German Federal Government,
1985，pp. 7 squ.).
This concept was based on seven main principles (German Federal Government,
1985，pp. 9-11)，i.e. that in future:
“precautionary measures shall have first priority in order to avoid future damages;
- t h e party having caused the damage shall be responsible for remedying it;
- a l l parties concerned, both public and private, including non-governmental
organisations and business and other associations, shall co-operate in order to
ensure that the protection of the soil can be implemented efficiently;
- t h e use of the soil is ensured in the most economical manner;
- t h e protection of the soil is the guiding principle when undertaking other
operations, such as applying fertilisers etc.;
-utilisation of the soil shall occur having in mind that it is a commodity serving
the community as a whole and
-co-operation for the protection of the soil at the international level shall be
promoted.
The task ahead was enormous. Not only had new policies to be developed, but, above
all，new techniques how to detect，verify and remedy existing contamination of the
soil. The solutions adopted imposed legal and financial obligations on the owners of
real property, both public and private，and on the public authorities responsible for
the implementation of the new measures. In particular, it had to be decided who
would be responsible for detecting, identifying and removing such contamination,
and who would finance this; and，very importantly, how to value contaminated land.
It soon became apparent that the valuation of contaminated land was strongly linked
to the effectiveness of methods how to identify and to remove contamination of the
soil. Or，in other words: The more cost effective and sustainable the methods for
remedying contamination proved to be, the lesser such operations would have a
negative impact on the value of the land, including the diminution of value due to
stigma, in German termed "merkantiler Minderwert".
39
The results of these efforts are mainly contained in two pieces of legislation, i.e.:
- t h e Federal Soil Protection Act (4.1.1.1) and
- t h e Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance (4.1.1.2).
In addition，other legislation applies, in particular special legislation concerning the
valuation of land (4.1.1.3).
4.1.1.1 Federal Soil Protection Act
The purpose of the Federal Soil Protection Act of 17 March 1998，which entered into
force on 1 March 1999 (Federal Ministry for the Environment, 1998)，as defined in
Art. 1，is to protect or to restore the functions of the soil on a permanent and
sustained basis. By this Act, the multiplicity of legal requirements and standards for
soil remediation in the sixteen federal states are replaced, at the federal level, by
uniform standards and criteria for risk assessment and remediation. Actions to be
taken under this Act include, inter al, measures to prevent harmful impairments of
the soil and measures to remedy contaminations that occurred in the past. In this
context, the following definitions，as spelled out in Art. 2，are relevant (Roller，2000，
p. 336):
- “ s o i l ” is defined as the “upper layer of the earth's crusf，，as far as this layer
fulfils the natural fimctions of the soil;
- " h a r m f u l alterations to the soil” are impacts affecting soil functions and bringing
about hazards, considerable detriments or nuisances for individuals or the general
public;
- " s u s p e c t e d sites’’ are sites suspected to contain contaminations;
- “ s i t e s suspected of being contaminated" or “contaminated sites"
are former
waste disposal or former industrial sites; these terms refer to installations which
have meanwhile been closed down;
- “ r e m e d i a t i o n ” refers to measures aiming either at eliminating or reducing
polluants (decontamination measures); at preventing or reducing the spreading of
polluants in a lasting way, without eliminating the polluants themselves (securing
containment measures); or at eliminating or at least reducing harmful changes in
the soil's physical, chemical or biological characteristics.
40
The state authorities are responsible for the registration, investigation and risk
assessment of all sites suspected of being contaminated, having been closed down;
such sites, in Anglo-American contexts are known as "brownfields" (Meyer，
Williams and Yount, 1995, p. 4). The decisions about the type and extent of action to
remediate the contamination will be made on a case by case basis，taking into
account the present and future use of the land (Kobes，2000，pp. 261-268).
Art. 11 of the Act empowers the federal States to promulgate provisions regarding
the identification of contaminated sites and sites suspected of being contaminated.
According to these regulations, the competent authorities of the communes, where
such sites are located，and on the basis of Art. 9 of the Act, have to carry out，at their
cost，investigations aiming at identifying sites suspected of being contaminated
(Kleiber，Simon and Weyers, 1998，p. 532). If the suspicion
appears to be
sufficiently well founded, the competent authorities，as specified in Art. 13 of the
Act，can require the owner/occupant of the site concerned to carry out and pay for
investigations to be conducted by experts and which are aimed at establishing
whether indeed contamination has occurred; and，if yes，what rehabilitation measures
would be required, according to a rehabilitation plan. Such a plan has to contain
especially:
- a
summaiy of the risk assessment and of the remediation investigations;
- i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the past use of the land concerned and of its future use and
-
a
description of the remediation objective and of the relevant necessary
decontamination, securing, protection, restriction and monitoring measures，as
well as the schedule for the implementation of these measures.
This plan，to be amended if necessary，will be declared binding by the authority
concerned and will form the basis for any remediation measures to be carried out, in
principle, by the owner of the site in question (Simon, 1999，p. 213).
4,1.1.2
Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance
In order to further specify the rules and regulations contained in the Federal Soil
Protection Act, the Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance was
41
enacted on 12 July 1999 (Federal Ministry for the Environment, 1999). It specifies，
in particular，the requirements for the prevention of future soil contaminations. It
applies to the investigation and evaluation of suspected sites, sites suspected of being
contaminated and adverse soil alterations and
lays down the requirements with
respect to sampling, analysis and quality assurance as laid down in the Act (see Art.
1).
4.1.1.3
Legislation Concerning the Valuation of Land
As in the US and the UK and on the basis of the Civil Code，in force since 1 January
1900，realty in Germany is a freely tradable commodity. Natural persons and legal
entities, both private and public, can acquire and own realty.
New legislation on how to determine the market value of real estate was introduced
in 1960 through the Federal Town and Country Planning Code (Baugesetzbuch). It
abolished the system of price controls for real property, introduced in 1936 (Schaar，
2002，p. 30). This law was revised on numerous occasions and was last published in
its version of 27 August 1997 (Federal Gazette，1997 Part I, p. 2148).
In spite of the political decision to abolish price controls for realty transactions and
thus admit the market economy principle that supply and demand should determine
the market price of realty, the legislator decided that，after all，both seller and buyer
should be offered some protection by setting up an independent authority with the
task of monitoring the development of prices and to inform interested parties about
the prevailing conditions. Thus, on a local basis and covering the whole territoiy of
the Federal Republic, Assessors' Boards were established. The main task assigned to
them in Art. 193 of the Town and Country Planning Code is to evaluate the market
value of realty，both built up and vacant (Schlichter and Stich, 1995，p. 2385; Simon
and Kleiber，1996，pp. 37-38). The Boards have to maintain lists of purchase prices
obtained in each transaction; to this end, the notaries public who have to record each
transaction, have to transmit a copy of the sales deed to the local Board (Art. 195).
On the basis of the price information thus obtained, the Boards define，on an annual
basis, approximate values for the land in their jurisdiction and publish them (Simon,
Cors and Troll, 1997，pp. 24-25). This information is nowadays also available on the
42
internet (Schaar, 2002，p. 31). Although having no binding effect for sellers and
buyers, who in any case will
have to take into consideration the special
characteristics of the plot of land put up for sale，the approximate values offer a
reliable guidance for the negotiations to be conducted by the parties (Weyers, 1990,
p. 76). They thus fulfil the very important fiinction of providing to the parties
concerned sufficient market transparency when moving in a market which otherwise,
for lack of competing offers，tends to be rather intransparent (see above 2.2.2，p. 10).
Art. 194 of the Town and Country Planning Code lays down, as a general rule for
defining the market value of realty, that it will be determined by the price obtainable
at a given point in time on the basis of normal business transactions and taking into
account the prevailing legal conditions, factual and other characteristics as well as
the geographical situation of the plot of land, leaving，however，aside, any unusual or
personal circumstances. Thus, contrary to the UK and US practice, the market value
is not determined by the best price obtainable (Thomas，1997，p. 14). In other words，
in Germany the best price obtainable could be well above the market value or，if
circumstances are thus, even below.
It is to be noted, however，that in Germany, as also in other countries, and even
relying for guidance on the approximate values as published by the Assessors'
Boards，it is not possible to calculate, in a mathematically precise manner, the
market value of a given plot of land (Weyers, 1990，p. 76). This becomes evident
when considering the rules laid down by the legislator in the Ordinance concerning
the valuation of land of 6 December 1988，complementing the rules laid down in Art.
194 of the Construction Act，and amended last in 1998. Thus, as far as the
characteristics and factual features of the plot of land are concerned, Art. 5，para. 5 of
the Ordinance stipulates that for the purposes of determining its market value，the
following points should be considered (Simon, Cors，Troll，1997，pp. 44-59): the size
and shape of the plot of land，the characteristics of the soil, such as its quality，its
suitability for construction purposes and its state of contamination，the influences of
the environment, its present use and its usefulness for other purposes. All these
aspects are specific to each plot of land and therefore it is impossible to fix the
market value in a precise manner. As far as vacant sites are concerned, the Ordinance
stipulates in Art. 13 that the sales comparison method should be applied，using the
43
known market value of comparable pieces of land as a reference point (Gottschalk,
1999，p. 352; Simon and Kleiber, 1996，pp. 33-34).
For the purposes of this dissertation, the explicit mentioning of the "state of
contamination" as one of the reference points to be taken into consideration, will be
the starting point for the following presentation.
4.2
The Valuation Process
4.2.1
4.2.1,1
Review of Literature
General Remarks
The fact that, nowadays，across the Federal Republic of Germany，more than 360.000
sites have been identified as possibly contaminated sites (see above 4.1.1，p. 38)，has
made the general public and more particularly those engaged in real estate
transactions aware that it is rather imperative to enquire about the state of
contamination of a plot of land before entering into a real estate transaction.
Already in 1987, Weyers (p. 492)，from the point of view of a credit institution
accepting realty as a collateral for extending credits to enterprises and individuals,
had drawn attention to the fact that possible contamination of the soil will, in future,
have to be considered as a special risk factor when extending a credit. Wichert (1995,
p. 337) qualified in this context contamination of the soil and the cost to remedy it as
a special kind of mortgage，to be taken into consideration when determining the
market value of land. In fact, in the past, credit institutions had not insisted on special
enquiries concerning possible contaminations when accepting realty as a collateral
for credits (Keidel, 1994，p.l). This attitude changed against the background of the
discussions and deliberations leading up to the promulgation of the Federal Soil
Protection Act in 1998 (see 4.1.1.1，p. 40). All parties engaged in realty operations
became acutely aware that，before entering into such a transaction，the question of
contamination and other harmful characteristics of a plot of land to be sold，leased or
to be considered as collateral to raising a loan on，had to be clarified. It is indeed in
the first place the owner of the land or the person or entity using it，that is legally
responsible for the negative characteristics attached to the land.
It was thus
44
recognised and underlined in the literature dealing with the subject that industrially
or commercially used sites - not to forget also sites used by the armed forces
stationed in Germany - offered particularly high risks of contamination (Roller,
2000，p. 337). In addition, it became also apparent that even the individual person
acquiring a plot of land in a residential area had to be aware, that his plot of land
could hide some unexpected surprise and that therefore he would have an interest to
elucidate how this site was used formerly. Thus, the case of
an individual was
reported in the press (Berliner Morgenpost of 28 July 2001，p. I 1) who owned his
home on a piece of land which，at the beginning of the 19th century, had
accommodated a mill. This mill was powered by the waters of a brook which were
conducted to the site through an underground tunnel. This tunnel had, after nearly
200 years of existence, collapsed in the 1990s，causing damages beyond the
boundaries of his land. The competent authority had therefore ordered the owner to
carry out the necessary repairs. Having refused, the owner was ordered by the courts
to abide by the instructions given to him by the administration, since, as the present
owner of the land, he was legally responsible for the damages caused by the broken
tunnel.
The financial liability of the owner for cleaning up a contamination of his site is, in
principle, only limited by the market value of the plot of land, as was decided by the
Federal Constitutional Court (2000, p. 2575; Bickel，2000，p. 2563; Roller，2001，p.
17).
The buyer, if he decides at all to acquire land that is suspected of being
contaminated, will endeavour to guard against the financial risks involved by at least
reducing his price offer. To this end，he will be well advised to ask the vendor to
produce an expertise stating whether the piece of land is free of contamination. In
addition，he may endeavour to obtain a certificate of the commune，stating whether
the plot of land has been registered as a suspected site; however，a certificate saying
that the site has not been registered as such a site may not guarantee that it is indeed
free of contaminants: not all sites may have been registered; in particular, since only
closed down sites are registered and not sites where production still goes oa, the
intending buyer will not be able to obtain information from the administration
concerning sites that are still in use (Dodt, Keith and al., 1997，p. 357).
45
In this context, the expertise of valuers is very much in demand, and indeed not only
the expertise of real estate experts, but also of environmental engineers or
toxicologists (interview with Kleiber, Annex 4，p. 100). However, on the practical
side，it is to be noted that many German valuers tend to avoid valuing the incidence
of contamination, when dealing with a site known or suspected to be contaminated.
In such cases，they include in their expertise a clause stating that the site has been
valued as if not contaminated. The reason for this conduct is that many valuers have
not yet been properly trained how to deal with the aspect of contamination in their
inquiries; this includes also the readiness to involve other experts, like environmental
specialists. This situation is increasingly and sharply criticised by authors like
Kleiber (interview，ibid.; Simon, 2001，p. 257). Indeed，in view of the clause in Art.
194 of the Town and Countiy Planning Code, that all characteristics of a site，
including its state of contamination, have to be taken into account during the
valuation process (see 4.1.1.3，p. 42)，an expertise excluding this aspect simply does
not fulfil the legal requirements (Simon, ibid.).
Authors dealing with the subject have concentrated on the following aspects:
- m e t h o d o l o g y how to ascertain and remedy contamination
- v a l u a t i o n of contaminated land
- t h e special case of stigma.
4.2.1.2
Methodology How to Ascertain and Remedy Contamination
Specialised authors have endeavoured to present to the interested public the very
voluminous legislative texts by way of summaries and comments, even using flowcharts, so that they became more easily understandable. They have，in particular,
stressed the need to proceed in the most cost-effective manner when ascertaining
whether a site was contaminated, since costly investigations are particularly onerous
for the parties concerned (Grunewald and Duken, 1995，p. 228). Thus, it is
suggested, that，to the largest extent possible，plans of former sites，documents，
interviews with neighbours, former employees and other knowledgeable persons，
infrared photography and similar techniques should be utilised before resorting to
more costly sampling, excavations, drillings and
like procedures (veiy detailed
description by Kanngieser and Schuhr, 1998，p. 336; also Dodt，Kerth and al•，1999，
46
pp. 357-359; Halcour, 1991，pp. 263-267; Kleiber，Simon and Weyers (1998) pp.
538-539; Kobes, 2000，262-264 and interview with Eisner, Annex 2，p. 88).
A simplified overview of the procedure how to ascertain and remedy contamination
is given in a flowchart reproduced below as Annex 1 (p. 84). It was prepared on the
basis of the “Materials，” (section 4，pp. 17-26)，published by the Environmental
Office of Brandenburg, using also，for the part on "Remediation action”，material
prepared by Kleiber (Kleiber，Simon and Weyers，1998，p.543).
4.2.1.3
Valuation of Contaminated Land
The valuation of contaminated land has，since the mid-1980s, received much
attention in the specialised literature, ever since the subject of contamination of the
soil itself has received public attention (see above,
4.1.1，p. 38). Authors have
looked at the subject both from the point of view of intending buyers and sellers (see
e.g. Kleiber, Simon and Weyers, 1998，pp. 534-538) and of institutions, accepting
real estate as a collateral for extending credits (see e.g. Keidel, 1994，p. 4; Weyers，
1987，p. 498 or Woestmann, 1996，pp. 59-60). The subject has received even more
attention since 1990，after the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) had been
dissolved and the new federal states had become members of the Federal Republic of
Germany. Public authorities at all levels, i.e. the Federal Republic as successor to the
GDR, the new federal states and the communes found themselves as private-law
owners of land, which, under the socialist system, had belonged to the state. Many of
these sites，in particular those having been utilised by former industrial combinates
or by armed forces，turned out to be heavily contaminated, both by toxic waste and
even by radiating materials. Institutions like the "Treuhand AG” or the
"Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH" ( B W G ) were set up to privatise
publicly owned enterprises, including the land occupied by them, or，as in the case of
the B W G , to privatise publicly owned agricultural and forest lands situated in the
new federal states. •
There was thus even an urgent need to develop and agree upon standards for valuing
such contaminated land, since uncertainties or inaccuracies related to the procedure
tended to cause financial losses in particular to the institutions trying to sell such
47
land，often still in its contaminated state, in order to leave it to the buyer to clean it
up according to the future use he had in mind; if，therefore, the costs of remediation
were wrongly calculated, especially, if they were estimated too high，the public
authorities tended to lose money when selling such sites (Grunewald and Duken,
1995，p. 224; Grossmann, Grunewald and Weyers, 1996，p. 154; Roller，2000，p.
335).
The legal basis for valuing land，as already outlined above (4.1.1.3, p. 42)，is
contained in Art. 194 of the Town and Country Planning Code，as complemented by
Art. 5 of the Ordinance concerning the valuation of land. According to these
regulations, the state of contamination of the site has to be taken into consideration,
when determining the market value of land. This，therefore, is the starting point for
the discussion of the subject in the German literature (e.g. Kleiber，Simon and
Weyers, 1998, p. 536). Since this rather elaborate legislation is in force，
complemented by the handbooks and materials as published e.g. by the State
Environment Office of Brandenburg (1997; 1998)， it was not felt by German
professional organisations concerned that special surveys should be conducted on
the valuation of contaminated land，as it was done in the USA and the United
Kingdom (above 3.3.2，p. 24-28).
The following steps are taken when valuing a contaminated site:
- s t e p 1: determination of the value of the soil as if it were uncontaminated,
through: comparing prices of similar, but not contaminated sites; verifying the
approximate value, obtainable from the Assessors' Boards (above 4.1.1.3，p. 42);
- s t e p 2: assessment of the cost of remediation by taking into consideration the
costs of
_ registration of the site;
•
assessment of the threat to public health and security;
•
measures of remediation and
•
monitoring;
- s t e p 3: determination of the actual value of the soil by deducting the costs, as
calculated under 2., from the value as determined under L; if possible，obtain
comparable prices for sites which are likewise contaminated and approximate
values as published by the Assessors' Boards;
48
- s t e p 4: determination of the extent to which the value is reduced due to stigma
(to be discussed below 4.2.1.4，pp. 53-57) and
- s t e p 5: assessment of the market value of the land by deducting from the value
as determined under 3. the diminution of value due to stigma.
It is quite obvious that the costs of remediation are an important factor of insecurity
when determining the value of contaminated land. They are influenced not only by
the degree of contamination, but, even more importantly, by the degree of cleanliness
that should be obtained through the remediation activities. According to the
requirements of the Federal Soil Protection Act，the bottom line is to clean the soil
only to the extent that the site in future will not offer any more a threat to public
health and security. Beyond that, all degrees of remediation can be imagined up to
the level of “luxury remediation", which would aim at removing all traces of
contamination and restoring the site to its original virgin state (Roller, 2000，p. 335).
Before discussing viable alternatives which take into consideration the requirements
regarding the intended future use of the site after remediation, it seems usefiil to offer
an oversight of the cost elements involved, as presented by Kleiber (Kleiber，Simon
and Weyers, 1998, p. 544); these cost elements are linked to the procedure for
identifying and remedying contamination, as outlined in the flowchart contained in
Annex 1 (pp. 84-87).
Structure for calculating the cost of remediation measures
- r e g i s t r a t i o n of the site
costs for personnel and contributions in kind for, inter al.: study and evaluation of
official files, maps, aerial photographs; enquiries and interviews with e.g. former
owners, in the case of industrial or commercial sites: former employees;
neighbours, general public; processing of data, documents, maps;
- e s t i m a t i o n of the risk potential
investigations for orientation purposes; costs for personnel for studying
and
evaluating documentation, findings; preparing a plan for further proceedings,
costs for sampling, laboratory tests;
49
detailed investigations: costs for personnel and contributions in kind for
preparing the public tender procedure for carrying out detailed investigations:
costs for expertise, sampling, laboratory and other tests; costs for studying and
evaluating the results. Costs for preparing the plan for remediation and its
approval by the competent authorities (interview with Eisner, Annex 2，p.88).
-
remediation measures
costs, including operating costs, for capital goods required to carry out the
necessary
operations,
like
hydrolic/pneumatic
measures
to
withdraw
groundwater; evacuate，clean and remit soil etc.
-
monitoring
costs for personnel to monitor the results of the measures; further laboratoiy tests
to check the sustainability of the measures carried out; visits to the site.
Soil is a scarce commodity which cannot be multiplied. While it is，in the interest of
public health and security, imperative to implement remediation measures required to
remove any risks for public health and security，the plot of land thus remedied may
in future only serve a rather limited purpose. Thus，a former industrial site which was
closed down several years ago, and which is now，as the commune has grown in the
meantime,
surrounded by residential sites, may only serve as a parking for cars if
only cleaned to the extent that futurerisksto public health and security are excluded.
If，on the other hand，a more thorough action to remedy the site were implemented,
this site could very well serve construction purposes. The example of the former site
of the Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, to be used in future as a residential and
recreational area，offers a perfect example.
Grossmann, Grunewald and Weyers have，already in 1996 (pp. 154-160)，developed
a model which submits to potential investors all alternatives, starting out with the
“reduced，，approach and leading up to a model which ensures maximum use of the
site in question. The starting point for the authors is the liability for implementing
remediation measures. There are liabilities based on the requirements of public law
and those based on private law.
Public law liabilities arise from the rules and regulations enacted notably for the
protection of public health and security and for the protection of the environment. If
50
a site is contaminated to such a degree that public health and security are endangered,
the competent authority has to order the owner to take measures to remove this
danger (Grunewald and Duken, 1995，p. 225; Grunewald, 1997，p. 292).
In addition to such public law requirements^ the owner may be faced by claims put
forward by other private individuals，in particular neighbours, and based on private
law norms to the effect that certain obnoxious immissions emanating from the site
have to be forestalled. To meet such claims, the owner may have to implement
measures in addition to those ordered by the competent authorities (Grunewald and
Duken, 1995，p. 225).
Grossmann，Grunewald and Weyers (1996，p. 155) have defined these claims under
public and under private law as the risk of the owner to be held responsible. When
considering what use to make of a site，the owner is faced, in addition, with the
investment risk in the sense that the competent authority will require him to
implement further remediation measures in accordance with the intended use of the
site. The authors exemplified their argument by referring (pp. 158-160) to the case
of
the site of a former chemical plant，comprising 10.000 square meters and
evaluated, including the buildings, at DM 4,5m (US$ 2 2.15m). The site was heavily
contaminated by chemical substances，tar and oil，which came into contact with the
groundwater. In order to remove all dangers for public health and security, and, in
particular，the danger of polluting the drinking water of the commune through
contaminants filtering through to the layer of groundwater, eight meters deep into the
soil, the competent authority had ordered the owner to implement remediation
measures totalling an amount of app. DM 1.5m (US$ 715.000); this represented the
risk of being held responsible for the effects of the contamination.
The owner then considered the alternative of selling the site for future use as a
residential area. When calculating the "investmentrisk，，，itturned out that additional
measures, i.e. measures to be implemented on top of what the competent authorities
had ordered him to carry out in order to remove the risks for public health and
security, would total another DM 1.05m (US$ 475.000)* thus, if a total aniount of
The conversion of Deutschmark (DM) into US$ is approximative.
51
D M 2.55m (US$ 1.2m) were spent，the site could be used for residential purposes.
However*，a further amount of DM 1.5m (US$ 715.000) was to be spent to tear down
the buildings, also contaminated and not fit for use and to clean up the sites of the
buildings, where large quantities of toxic waste were stored in bins and other
containers.
Thus，the calculation was as follows: cost of DM L5m (US$ 715.000) for just
removing the dangers to public health and security; another DM 1.05m (US$
475.000)，or a total of DM 2.55m (US$ 1.3m)，for preparing the site ready to have
constructed homes on it; another DM 1.5m (US$ 715.000) was to be spent to remove
the houses on the site and toxic waste still stored there. The grand total therefore
amounted to DM 4.05m (US$ 1.9m). Considering that the value of the site was
estimated at DM 4.5m (US$ 2.22m) if uncontaminated, the remaining market value
of the site amounted to DM 450.000 (US$ 215.000). This calculation does not,
however, take into consideration any diminution of the value of the site due to
stigma，as it will be discussed in the next section. Anticipating already the result of
this discussion, it can be assumed that the diminution of the value due t o stigma in
this case of a heavily contaminated site would amount easily to 10% of the market
value of the uncontaminated site，i.e. DM 450.000 (US$ 215.000). The result in this
case would therefore be that the market value of this site amounted to zero.
However, on the average, if higher costs for remedying a site are invested in order to
prepare it for a use yielding higher returns, the value of the land thus remedied will
be higher than if only minimum measures are implemented. Examples of town
planning in Germany have shown, that even if the costs of remediation are so high
that they will attain or even surpass the possibly attainable market value of the site in this context Kleiber considers indeed the possibility of a site having a ‘‘zero” or
even negative market value (Kleiber, Simon and Weyers, 1998，pp. 536-537) -，a
commune owning such a site may cede it to a town developer for a nominal price, in
order to ensure a town planning in line with the needs of 汪 growing population. And
even private owners may consider ceding the site for a nominal price if thus they can
relieve themselves of the burden of having to remedy a site, especially i f they
themselves do not intend to use it in future for income-generating purposes.
52
4.2.1.4
Reduced Value Due to Stigma
In the case of a contaminated site, even if it has been remediated, the risk exists that
in future further, at present unforeseeable, damages linked to the contamination will
come up. The concept that a damaged, but repaired object may be valued less than an
equivalent object that has not been damaged and therefore not been repaired, has
been accepted as valid by German legal writers
and also by the courts (below
4.2.2.1，p. 57) since many years (e.g. Roller, 2001a，p. 18). The doctrine was first
developed in relation to valuing cars that had been involved in an accident and
subsequently been repaired in such a way as to totally redress the damages suffered
by the car. Still, when such cars were put up for sale, intending buyers hesitated to
buy them，at least as long as they were offered at the same price as cars with the
same characteristics (age, mileage etc.) but not having been involved in an accident.
Buyers feared that, in spite of the repairs done，the car might still suffer from hidden
damages，due to the accident, which had not been covered by the repairs. It therefore
turned out that，in the open market，such cars could only be sold if a discount was
offered，calculated in particular to take into consideration the gravity of the damages
and therefore also the extent of the repairs undertaken. The principle that a reduced
value, linked to the stigma that the car bore，had to be taken into account was so
widely accepted that also insurance companies agreed to compensate the owners of
cars having been involved in an accident and caused by a third party, not only for the
material damages inflicted upon the car, but also for the reduced value that this car
would in future suffer when being put up for sale; this reduced value is calculated by
experts in this field.
Also in relation to damages caused to real estate by mining activities, e.g. through the
effects of the ground sinking, in areas where underground mining goes on, the
concept of the diminution of value of repaired sites was developed and accepted both
by writers and the courts (below 4.2.2.1，p. 57). Stigma in this context was defined as
the diminution of value of real estate which was linked to the property even if the
damages had been repaired in a professional manner, because of the hesitation of
potential buyers to acquire such a property, once it was known that it had been
damaged by mining activities (Finke，1999, p. 272).
53
Once the subject of valuing contaminated land had become topical, authors very soon
raised also in this context the question, of whether the market value of contaminated
sites was affected negatively, even though the site may have been remedied
according to the standards required and in accordance with the intended future use of
the site. The question was considered to be even more important in case a plot of
contaminated land was to be sold without having first been remedied to suit the
needs of the buyer (Roller, 2001a，p. 19).
In fact, a reaction of intending buyers of contaminated land, very similar to the
reaction of intending buyers of second hand cars, could very soon be discerned after
the general public had become aware of the risks represented by contaminated sites.
Buyers were hesitant to acquire such land even if measures had already been
implemented to remove the contamination. As Mitchell (2000, p. 164，Fn. 6) noted
for the US market: “given a choice between an undamaged property and an adjacent
property having the same utility that was damaged but repaired, buyers will choose
the undamaged property without hesitation; a discount is generally required to close
the repaired property deal” There was even an important difference to be noted
between the markets for second-hand cars and for contaminated land. While the
dealer of a repaired car could normally claim that the repairs were done in such a
way as to undo all the consequences of the accident，in the case of contaminated
land, the intending buyer could never assume that all the effects of the contamination
had been removed. As Kinnard and Worzela (1999，p. 270) put it: "'remediation' is
rarely a synonym for 'cleanup'". Kanngieser and Schuhr underline that a nearly
complete cleanup can only be achieved, if the soil is burnt at very high temperatures,
which, however, leaves the soil in a sterile state (1998，p. 335). As has already been
discussed above (4.2.1.3 p. 50), measures to remediate are，as a general rule, tailored
to meet either the standards required by the competent authority, geared to removing
a danger to the public health or security, or to meet the requirements of the present
owner related to the future use of the site he has in mind — the "suitable-for-use,>
approach referred to above (3.2.2, p. 17). The intending buyer may well have
different ideas about the future use of the site and therefore has to assume that the
contamination and its negative effects have been remedied only to the extent as to
meet the requirements either of the competent authority or the present owner. If he
would like to use the site，which has been remedied in such a way as to be suited for
54
a parking lot，as a residential site for homes, he would have to consider not only the
additional cost for remediating the site in such a way that the standards of cleanliness
of the soil for residential sites are met; in addition he would have to consider the
potential risk that at present unforeseeable after-effects of the contamination will
appear in spite of the remediation of the site.
The consideration for justifying a reduction of the price of (formerly) contaminated
land，taking into consideration the stigma or fear that future damages will still occur，
can be summarised as follows: The risk that future damages, linked to the
contamination, will occur, even if the site has been remedied，is so real that it can be
considered as a defect of the site，justifying a reduction of the market value，as any
other defect would also do (Kleiber，Simon and Weyers，2002，p. 442，annotation
147).
In view of the uncertainties linked to the risk of fixture collateral damages，it is
difficult，if not impossible, to quantify the diminution of value due to stigma in
money terms (Kleiber，Simon and Weyers，ibid.，annotation 149-152; Krell，1998，p.
136). As Roller (2001, p. 19) underlines: The diminution of the value due to stigma
cannot (with one exception, referred to below) be calculated on the basis of technical
aspects, since it relates to a point in time, when the technical damages having caused
the diminution of value have already been repaired or remedied. The reduction of the
value can only be estimated, taking into account the particular circumstances of the
case in question, such as (Finke, 1999，p. 274):
- t h e situation of the site;
- t h e nature and the extent of the original contamination;
- t h e extent of the remediation measures carried out and the quality of the
subsequent monitoring as to the sustainability of the effects of the remediation;
- t h e cost of the remediation measures;
- t h e ratio between the cost of reniddiation compared to the market value of the site
as uncontaminated;
- t h e time span having elapsed between the implenieiitation of the remediation
measures and the moment of the intended sale.
55
The latter point appears to be particularly relevant. If, for several years following the
remediation measures, no further damages have occurred，it can be assumed that the
risk of future damages will diminish further in the years to come, and that therefore a
reduction of the value of the land, representing this risk, will also diminish
accordingly. In other words: if immediately after the remediation measures have
been implemented, the reduction of the market value of the site would be estimated
at，say, 30%，this reduction would have fallen to maybe 10% or less after five years,
if in the meantime no further damages had occurred. In general, authors admit for the
diminution of value due to stigma a span of between 10 to 30% of the market value
of the site as if not contaminated (Bruessel，1993，p. 343; interview Kleiber, Annex
4，p. 100); Halcour, 1991，p. 268; Krell: 6 to 20%: 1998，p. 136; interview Schilling,
Annex 6，p. 105).
In order to establish a framework for the calculation of stigma linked to damages of
real estate due to mining activities, the Association of owners of real estate damaged
through mining activities (VBHG) and one of the most important German mining
companies，the Ruhrkohle AG, have agreed in 1987 on guidelines how to calculate
stigma, revised on 2 December 1994. According to these guidelines, the following
elements shall be the basis for the calculation:
- t h e technical aspect of the lop-sidedness of the house due to mining activities; for
each 2mm a house has sunk in on one side, a diminution of the market value of
the house of 1% is estimated,
- t h e ratio between the cost of repairs of damages caused by mining activities and
the current market value of the real estate;
- t h e method applied to repair damages and
- t h e marketability of the real estate
(Finke, 1999，p. 274).
One important partner in the market, i.e. the German Federal Government, for
reasons of principle, does not officially recognise the idea of post-remediation
stigma. If the Government sells land that still needs to be remedied，it will normally
accept to finance the cost of remediation, if those costs have already been estimated,
if they have not yet been estimated，the Government agrees to assume up to 90 yo of
the actual cost, with the sales price fixed as the upper limit (interview Gerdes，Annex
56
3，p. 97 and Kleiber, 1998，p. 550). Further claims of the buyer will not be admitted.
However, it seems, that the Government may show some flexibility when discussing
the market value and, in function with this，the sales price of the site with the
intending buyer (interview Gerdes ibid.).
4.2.2
In parallel to the doctrine on the compensation of defects pertaining to landed
property，and caused by a contamination of the soil (above 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.4)，
German courts have held that such contamination, even after having been
remediated, cause a depreciation of the value of the land. The courts have therefore
consistently awarded to an aggrieved owner both damages for the costs of the
technical removal of the contamination and for the reduced value of the land，due to
the stigma of contamination. Thus，the Court of Appeals of Koblenz decided on 13
July 1998 that, following a contamination by Diesel fuel, the injured party could
claim from the polluter both the costs of the cleaning of the soil and compensation
for the reduced value of the land (EzGuG, 2000，no. 4.172). In the opinion of the
courts, the two claims are each covered by the legal norms concerning the
compensation of torts and therefore exist side by side. The contamination itself
affects adversely the quality of the soil，including the layers of groundwater it may
hold. The material or technical damages thus caused are to be removed by the
polluter either in kind or by paying for the costs involved, on the basis of the relevant
provisions of the Civil Code，in particular Art. 823 and Art. 249 squ•，and other
laws，such as relating to the protection of the environment. In addition to these
material damages, the injured party suffers a reduction of the value of the land which
will materialise at the latest if he intends to sell it; also this damage is to be
compensated for on the basis of the same provisions of the Civil Code. The courts
have, in this respect，drawn a parallel to the jurisprudence developed in relation to
objects like houses or cars，having been damaged and repaired.
They recognised that the venal value of such an object is reduced, because the
confidence of a potential buyer in its full usability is impaired. The average buyer，
basing his judgment on the knowledge of a layman, doubts whether the repaired
object is fully usable (Court of Appeals of Sarrebruck, Judgment of 20 May 1960，
57
EzGuG, 1991, no. 4.14). This even on the assumption that the repair work done has
removed all visible damages to the object. The impairment of the confidence in the
full usability of the repaired object is to be explained by the fear that the damages to
the object may not have been fully detected after all, as, in particular, in the case of
invisible damages, and which therefore may be the cause of fliture damages, the
extent of which cannot yet be foreseen and therefore not be calculated.
The courts have developed this line of reasoning particularly in relation to damages
caused to real estate by mining activities. In areas where mining goes on, damages
that have occurred to houses were repaired by the mining companies. However，as
experience proved，the risk of future damages to these houses persisted as a
consequence of either still ongoing mining activities or，even in cases where such
activities had come to an end, due to the effects of the earth still settling down. The
courts therefore have stated that the owner of a house built on a site affected by
(former) mining activities，would be under a legal obligation to reveal this factor to a
potential buyer, who would，if he pursued the negotiations at all, ask for a price
reduction. Thus, the reduced value of the site concerned is determined by the
depreciation of the value，based on the suspicion that future damages might occur
(Court of Appeals of Duessddorf’ 2001，p. 123). This depreciation of value has to be
compensated at the time of the settlement of damages, even if later it turns out that，
in fact，the fear of future damages was unfounded (Federal Supreme Court, Judgment
of 20 June 1968，EzGuG, 1993，no. 19.13).
As far as the calculation of the amount of the depreciation of the value is concerned，
the starting point for the courts was that each individual case had to be decided on its
merits (Court of Appeals of Sarrebruck, Judgment of 20 may 1960，EzGuG，1991,
no. 4.14). The Federal Supreme Court has stated that the amount of the depreciation
of the value is the result of a comparison of the value before the accident has
occurred and after the repairs have been carried out (Judgement of 18 Sept. 1979，
EzGuG, 1993，no. 19.35 a).
In the case of the depreciation of land due to an illegal felling of an old tree, the
Court of Appeals of Hamburg calculated the amount by comparing the price a buyer
58
would have paid for the site before and after the act of felling (Judgment of 6 Dec.
1978，EzGuG, 1992，no. 2.22).
In the case of the depreciation of the value of a house, caused by mining activities,
the Court of Appeals of Sarrebruck (Decision of 16 May 1994，EzGuG，no. 4.157)
held that the market value of the house before and after the occurrence of the
damages had to be compared.
In another case of damages due to mining activities，the Court of Appeals of
Duesseldorf (2001，p. 124) has held that the calculation of the depreciation of value
linked to immaterial damages (stigma), should take into account the ratio between
the market value of the site and the amount of the repair costs.
The German courts have developed their jurisprudence relating to damages caused
by the contamination of real property on the basis of the relevant articles of the Civil
Code (Art 823 and 249 squ.), obliging a tort-feasor to redress all damages inflicted
upon the injured party, i.e. both material and immaterial damages. In doing so，the
courts relied on a well established jurisprudence concerning the compensation of
damages，including the diminution of value, due to stigma，of cars having been
involved in an accident or of real estate damaged through the effects of mining
activities.
In all such cases, the courts have ruled that the exact amount of the compensation
related to the diminution of value of the repaired object has to be estimated by
experts, subject to review by the courts. As a general rule, the courts have，however,
laid down that，when estimating the diminution of value，the following parameters
should be taken into account:
- t h e value of the site as if not damaged;
-
the value of the site after repairs
- t h e ratio of the costs of repairs or remediation and the value of the site as if not
impaired at the time of the settlement of the damages.
59
The courts have thus not only confirmed the views expressed by scholars and
practitioners, but reinforced their approach. Thus, the parties concerned and the
experts called upon to value contaminated land, including a calculation of the stigma，
have adequate guidance for their considerations. Since, on the basis of this
jurisprudence and in accordance with Art. 194 of the Town and Country Planning
Code, contamination of land is to be considered as an element linked to the quality
of the ground and therefore to its value，experts are under legal obligation (Roller，
2000，p. 338) to consider the impact of contamination on the value of the land,
including any diminution of value due to stigma.
4.3
Conclusion
The German federal legislation, as embodied in the Federal Soil Protection Act of
1998 and the Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance of 1999，has
set up a comprehensive framework for dealing with contaminated land. The federal
states，in turn, have enacted additional rules for the implementation of this
legislation, offering guidance to valuers and other experts how to proceed with the
actual evaluation of contaminated land, such as the Handbook on the Treatment of
Contaminated Sites in the Federal State of Brandenburg. Also the courts of justice
have played their role in clarifying legal questions，such as that the damages，caused
by the contamination of the ground, relate also to the diminution of value of the site
concerned.
Thus, the valuation of contaminated land in Germany should at present create no
problems. However，it has become apparent that a number of valuers and other
experts seek to avoid being involved in the valuation of contaminated land，as e.g.
Kleiber (interview, Annex 4，p. 100) has noted. In this respect, especially
professional organisations are called upon to step up their efforts to familiarise
experts in the field with the procedures and techniques of evaluating such sites.
60
5. Analysis
5.1
Present Situation
There is a general agreement, shared by writers and by courts，that stigma cannot be
calculated with mathematical precision, because，to the extent that it exists, it is
linked to the particular circumstances of each individual case.
Simon (2001) has devised a Matrix trying to combine the psychological factors
related to built up and formerly contaminated land. He equated the stigma to
maximum 100% and related stigma to three categories: feared direct implications
(70%)，geographical location of the site (15%), and impact of the contamination
(15%). He further subdivided each of these three categories and then left it to the
experts to decide how the criteria have been met. The summation of all the
percentages of the subcategories then adds up to the total percentage of the value
loss，due to stigma (ibid.，p. 261). Unfortunately, his matrix is still rather incomplete
and thus needs further refinement.
In the following a proposal is elaborated, incorporating many of the criteria
mentioned in Chapters 3 and 4 above.
5.2
Scoring Model
In this model, the factors would be weighted in such a way as to obtain a total weight
of 100%. The model has been developed on the assumption that the land has been
decontaminated and only post-remediation stigma is examined. The most important
criteria considered here have been divided into three groups - Legal Framework &
Market，Site Characteristics，and the Effects of the Former Contamination 一 and
weighted according to their respective importance as seen by the author.
The result looks as follows:
61
-vP
cn
C
2
0
0sx-O \P
m …
v© ITi O^CN —
a
• 9^i
a
1
g i g
|
^ 1目上
3
a
o
w
S 佘
1
U
S
3
o ^
D
(
<+
(O
工
cl
O
^
W
1
.2
.S «2
日.S
rt臼
o
i
義O
、
。O
^
P
S
、
I 8 |
1
s
毫碧会
r- O 'Ti H
D ^ K rg
IO
j
g Q 5 ^
a&
B
c 召 £
£ d ；
c 5: 名
汩 . S i o H o o o ^ l
-g.S
^
r9
^§ O
C
B
^
i-£ oU 2 O1 r t1 目I
C
^
o
o
2
o
s
'i
q
c
^
o
^
o
p
t
3
.
t3
1
tTi
.¾
o
or-H
(D
| ^
U
lA
IT)
O
•M
j
o
^
o
•£ >
P4l
GO
旦
s
03
^
••P
a
o
^
^
0
〜
^
S
^-t
o
D
<
cXu
H
13
cj
.a
3
O ^
-2
2 .2
s ^
a y
o 2
a,
eg
o
=
J3
H U
Q^
s
bp
o
^
O
b£)
*J-j
00
vo^
p
V
O
-s
S
窆
S
ss
£
13
b<D
D
J
I
B ^
B ^
O W U O H ^ U U f e H Q
13
>
<u
C
N
\0
o^
…
。 o^ 、
。 O O^
o^、
…
—
G
O
O
cn
§
¾
-
o
*a
5
1
3
S
^
^
a)
•p^
D
<
O
S
I
^
J
|
^
^
^
g
is
.2
cd
cd
2
B
S
o
§
I
I
I
f
6
O
o
w
pS
The elements included in the model are described below:
Changing legislation
The laws that apply today may change tomorrow. Especially the real estate sector has
known many changes in recent years, mainly due to changes in tax law. A real estate
owner thus always bears the risk that the conditions surrounding his investment may
change.
Market: the general situation
Jackson and Bell (2002，p. 89) discovered that，when markets are strong, the impact
of stigma is much lower than when markets are weak. It seems logical that when
markets are promising, buyers are more willing to accept stigma without much
discount in order to implement a transaction, whereas in weak markets，sellers will
be prone to enter into a transaction, even at the cost of a higher discount due to
stigma.
This relationship between market condition and the magnitude of stigma underlines
the difficulty to quantify stigma as it shows the impact of supply and demand not
only on market value of property but also on the value of stigma.
Market: Comparable contaminated sites
In the case of available information regarding contaminated sites comparable in size，
location and quality, discounts have been observed to adjust for slight differences
between the sites (Simoa, 2001，p. 261).
Availability and cost of environmental insurance
In Germany，only one insurance company, the Gerling Konzem,
offers
environmental insurance policies. In one case, Gerling was asked to calculate the
price of a policy for a contaminated piece of land. The required decontamination was
to cost DM 10m. Gerling calculated that, should the entire soil have to be replaced,
the costs would amount to DM 40m. The insurance company then assessed the price
of the policy by weighting the risk of having to finance the complete cleanup against
the likelihood of the risk materialising. The final price of the policy was then
63
calculated at D M 600.000 (= 1,5% of the maximum cost of the decontamination
measures), to be payable once only (interview with Eisner, Annex 2，p. 94).
The buyer could consider reducing the purchase price offer for the land by the price
of the insurance policy he might want to purchase, as the latter would reduce his risk
to zero: it would remove any form of stigma. The only remaining difficulty would be
a possible loss of time due to decontamination measures at a later point in time,
should further damages materialize.
Psychological fears
Some of the most important psychological fears are: the impossibility of a total
remediation of the site; the risk of failure of decontamination measures; the risk of
changes in legislation or remediation standards; the perceptions of the public and
knowledgeable buyers in the property's marketplace.
A family，e.g.，will be more reluctant to buy a formerly contaminated ground and live
there than, for instance, the management of a chemical plant.
Type of property (e.g. commercial, Industrial, residential)
According to Simon (ibid.), stigma is highest in relation to residential property. For
sites used for industrial or commercial purposes either no or very low stigma is
considered. This discrepancy lies in the fear of private persons who react differently
than institutions.
Geographic location
The market value of a site depends not only on its possible use but also very largely
on its location 一 industrial or residential area, CBD or country side，among others.
Topographical conditions and characteristics of the site
Each site has different soil conditions. Two gas stations on opposite sides of a road
may have entirely different states of contamination just because the quality of the soil
is different - all other conditions being equal. Depending on the permeability of the
soil, e.g., leaks in oil tanks may or may not lead to groundwater contamination.
The original contamination 一 nature and extent
64
The aim is to gather information regarding the cause of the contamination, e.g. oil，
ammunition, pharmaceutical substances, waste, poison or irradiation, as well as the
depth and width of the contamination and to how many percent of the land were
affected by contamination.
Source of the contamination (e.g. an-site, off-site, groundwater, air pollution)
Any contamination is harmful to human beings，animals or plants. It can be argued
which source could lead to the highest damage. From the financial point of view, it
could be believed that groundwater pollution has the highest effect on stigma, as it
can be repaired only with great difficulty.
Decontamination measures
The question is whether the land has been remediated up to the minimum level
required by the law or in such a way as to be fit for a higher or best use.
Total costs of the decontamination
This refers to the total costs of the decontamination, starting with the first assessment
of the contamination and lasting until the monitoring measures after remediation has
been completed.
Ratio of the amount of cleanup costs in relation to the value of the land before
contamination
The higher the cleanup costs are in relation to the original market value, the higher
the stigma, and vice versa.
Kleiber sustains that stigma only exists when the impact is important, i.e.，no stigma
is to be assumed when the costs to cure are less than 10% of the market value of the
uncontaminated site (2002，p. 442，Ann. 151).
Future marketing costs I marketing time to sell
Due to negative public opinion linked to a formerly contaminated site，the marketing
of such a site is likely to be more cost and time intensive than the marketing of
uncontaminated land，given equal market conditions. An investor will have to bear in
mind this possible loss and add it to the stigma of the site.
65
Time elapsed since decontamination
Many authors have voiced the idea that stigma decreases over time (e.g. Wilson,
1996，p. 166; above 3.3.1 p. 21). The reason lies in that as more time passes without
negative effects after decontamination, the lesser is the risk that such effects might
appear 一 of course，this would not apply in cases such as the catastrophe of
Tshernobyl or the French atomic bomb tests in Mumroa.
Even though this supposition can be viewed as generally true，the following aspect
must be borne in mind: the whole problematic of contaminated land is still recent and
the first decontamination measures lie two decades behind. The methods to assess
and remediate contamination used some two decades ago were less sophisticated
than those developed since. It could therefore happen that a risk emanating from a
site that has been remediated 15 years ago would be higher than one originating from
a site decontaminated two years ago using the latest technology.
Therefore, the statement that the risk of recontamination diminishes over time can be
adjusted by saying that at least in future, when enough data concerning contaminated
land transactions will be available and the methods to identify and remediate
contamination will have improved，buyers will accept that, as time passes，stigma
declines. In addition, as time goes by，the anxiety of public opinion regarding a
specific site will disappear. Thus, the psychological factor declines the further the
contamination and its remediation date back.
53
Concluding remarks
Up to now, no author has presented an adequate model to quantify stigma. All
authors dealing with this issue have pointed out how important the concept of stigma
is without, however, presenting 狂 viable model with the help of which an exact
quantification is possible.
The model presented above is only a first step. It is designed to provide help not only
to surveyors but also to banks, insurance companies and law courts and should be
used as a check-list. Unfortunately, the range allowed for in the model translates the
66
subjectivity of the entire matter. The assessment of stigma will never be free of the
subjective view of whosoever is in charge of the valuation. Furthermore, as it has
been outlined in the literature and legislation reviews, the application of the factors
described above and their weight varies from case to case. The courts themselves
declared that there exists no method with which stigma could be calculated with
mathematical precision (see 3.3.3.1，p. 31). The reason for the lack of a precise
formula that will include all possible factors influencing the percentage of
depreciation which stigma represents，lies not only in their great number, but also in
the difficulty to quantify qualitative aspects. Therefore, all authors and courts have
stressed the importance of a thorough case study analysis.
In Germany this is unfortunately very problematic due to the lack of empirical case
studies. Few cases are known publicly and information still is very scarce and the
subject is avoided whenever possible by the majority of the surveyors (Interview
with Kleiber, Annex 4，p. 100).
Although training seminars exist for valuers concerning contaminated land, very
often the question of stigma is either hardly mentioned or foregone. Formal training
is not yet institutionalised in Germany. It might therefore be worthwhile to consider
organising, on a regular basis, training seminars for valuers in order to familiarise the
appraisal profession with the issue of stigma.
The question may arise whether the legislator could help quantify stigma by enacting
legislation to this effect. Until the present day，stigma has been left to be regulated by
the market and，as mentioned above under the criteria "market: the general situation”
(p. 63)，the market situation has an impact on the magnitude of stigma. Consequently
it may be argued that it is difficult to discern, in the bargaining of the price of a
remediated piece of land, what portion of the deduction for stigma can be directly
attributed to the effect of former contamination and what portion to the bargaining
power of an able negotiator.
It can be supposed that since law courts and experts find it hard to quantify stigma, it
will not be easier for the legislator to find a solution. And even if efforts should be
undertaken to that effect, the legislator could merely suggest a range within which
buyers and sellers could negotiate.
67
However，since the regulation of land prices by the State has been given up in 1986,
there is no reason why the legislator should now try to limit the free finding of a
market price. Thus，the quantification of stigma should be left to the market.
68
6. Conclusion
The problem of contaminated land has been a political and economical issue for now
more than two decades. An effective legislative framework has been created, since
the 1980s，in the USA, the UK and Germany. The main objectives of such legislation
were to protect or to restore the functions of the soil on a permanent and sustained
basis as well as to define the responsibilities and liabilities for remedying
contaminated soil.
Once the awareness had been created that contaminated land is stigmatised, the need
was recognised to take the effects of contamination into account when valuing the
sites concerned.
Professional organisations like the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the
UK or the Appraisal Institute in the US have issued guidelines for valuers, stating
that it is necessary to establish the existence and extent of any contamination so that
the likely effect on value of such contamination can be reflected in the valuation
(RICS, Practice Statement 6.3.1). In Germany, valuers are under legal obligation to
take the effects of contamination into account. However, only in the US appraisers
have become quite accustomed to valuing contaminated sites; in the UK and in
Germany, valuers still have a tendency to avoid the issue.
In all three countries it is recognised that a residual loss in value of a contaminated
site remains, even after remediation, i.e.，after all costs of remediation have been
allowed for; this loss in value is commonly called stigma. Stigma has been identified
as an economical factor, indicating a depreciation of value and linked to a defect of
the site，due to its contamination.
Authors and courts of justice are agreed that the economic incidence of stigma
cannot be calculated with mathematical precision, because its magnitude depends on
a variety of factors，such as: The particularities of the site, the nature, extent and
duration of the contamination, and the perceptions of the market with regard to these
factors.
69
The model presented in Chapter 5 aims at outlining a solution for quantifying stigma,
by weighting，on a percentage basis，which can be adapted to the specific
circumstances of each case，a number of factors to be taken into account when
measuring stigma.
70
LIST OF REFERENCES
Books and articles
Anderson, O.C. (2001). Environmental Contamination: An Analysis in the Context
of the D C Matrix.
Appraisal Foundation (1997). Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
Washington, D.C.: The Appraisal Foundation.
Appraisal
Institute (1997). Guide Note 8: The Consideration of Hazardous
Substances in the Appraisal Process. Chicago，Dl.: Appraisal Institute.
Bell, R. (1998). The Impact of Detrimental Conditions on Property Values. The
Appraisal Journal, Oct., 380-391.
Bickel, C. (2000). Grenzen der Zustandshaftung des Eigenttimers flier die
Gmndstueckssanierung bei Altlasten [Limits to the liability of the owner of real
estate in the case of remediation of contamination]. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift,
35，2562-2563.
Bond，S.G.，Kennedy, P J . (2000). The valuation of contaminated land. Methods
adopted in the UK and NZ. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 18，254271.
Bond，S. G.? Kinnard, W.，Kennedy, P J . (2001). An International Perspective on
Incorporating Risk in the Valuation of Contaminated Land. The Appraisal Journal,
July，258-265.
Bruessel, S. (1993). Die Altlastenproblematik im Kreditgeschaeft [Problems of
contaminated
sites
related to
credit
operations].
Grundstuecksmarkt
mid
Grundstueckswert, 6，340
71
Campanella, J.A. (1984). Valuing Partial Losses in Contamination Cases.
Appraisal Journal
Cannon, M.Y. (2002). The Role of the Real Estate Appraiser and Assessor in
Valuing Real Property for Ad Valorem Assessment Purposes.
Journal,
Chalmers, J.A., Roehr, S.A. (1993). Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated
Property.
Chalmers, J.A., Jackson，Th.O. (1996). Risk Factors in the Appraisal of
Contaminated Property. The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 44-58.
Champness, P. (1997). Approved European Property Valuation
Standards
(Commissioned by The European Group of Valuers' Associations 一 TEGoVA).
Wiltshire: Redwood Books.
Coase, R.H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm.
Dodt，J. 一 Kerth, M. - Mark, H.，van de Griendt, J.S. (1997). Quantifizierung des
Objektrisikos
durch
Boden-
und
Bausubstanzverunreinigungen
bei
der
Wertermittlung [Quantifying the risks of evaluation of real estate caused by
contamination
of
the
soil
and
of
buildings].
Grunstuecksmarkt
und
Gnmdstueckswert, 6，357-361.
Feess, E. (1997). Mikrooekonomie [Micro Economics]. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag
Finke, D. (1999). Bergschaeden - Anmerkungen zur Bewertung und Regulierung
[Damages due to mining operations — Observations concerning valuation and
settlement]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grmdstueckswert, 5, 266 - 275.
Grossmann, J
，，Altlastenverdacht" [Valuation of
sites suspected of being contaminated].
Grundstuecksmarkt und Grundstueckswert,
72
Grunewald, V.，Dukea, H. (1995).，，Altlasten“ und Verkehrswertermittlung 一 ein
Konzept [Sites suspected of being contaminated and determination of the market
value].
Grunewald，V. (1997). Bewertungsrechtllche Grundlagen fber die Wertermittlung
von Grundstuecken auf kontaminationsverdaechtigen Flaechen [Legal elements for
the valuation of sites suspected of being contaminated]. Grundstuecksmarkt und
Grundstueckswert, 5，291 一 297.
Halcour, F. (1991). Die Altlastproblematik aus technischer，planerischer und
oekonomischer Sicht [Problems of sites suspected of being contaminated as seen
from
the technical, planning and economical angles]. Grundstuecksmarkt und
Grmdstueckswert
Herbert, S. (1999). United Kingdom (Chapter 17). In: Ferguson, C.，Kasamas，H.
Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe. Vol. 2: Policy Frameworks, pp.
165-176. Nottingham: LQM Press.
International Valuation Standards Committee (IVSC) (2001). International Valuation
Standards. London.
Jackson, Th.O. (2001a). Contamination on Real Estate: A Literature Review. Journal
of Real Estate Literature
Jackson, Th.O. (2001b). The Effect of Previous Environmental Contamination on
Industrial Real Estate Prices. The Appraisal Journal
Jackson, Th. 0., Bell，R. (2002). The Analysis of Environmental Case Studies. The
Appraisal Journal, Jan., 86-95.
Kanngieser, E.，Schuhr, W. (1998). Analyse der Altlastenproblematik in der
Gmndstueckswertermittlung [Analysis of the problem of sites suspected of being
73
contaminated in relation to the valuation of land].
Grmdstueckswert，
Keidel,
Th,
(1994).
Beurteilung
von
Umweltrisiken
Kreditwuerdigkeitspmefung [Assessment of environmental risks
framework
of
analysing
the
creditworthiness].
in
der
within
the
Grundstuecksmarkt
und
Grundstueckswerty 1，1-6.
Kinnard，W.N.，Worzala, E. M. (1999). How North American Appraisers Value
Contaminated Property and Associated Stigma. The Appraisal Journal, July, 269279.
Kleiber,Kleiber, W., EzGuG (1991，with regular updating). Entscheidungssammlung
zum Grundstuecksmark und zur Gmndstueckswertermittlung
[Collection of court
decisions concerning the real estate market and the valuation of real estate].
Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag
Kleiber, W.，Simon, J.，Weyers,
G. (1998). Verkehrswertermittlung von
Grundstuecken [Assessment of the market value of real estate]. 3rd ed. Cologne:
Bundesanzeiger Verlag.
Kleiber，W., Simon，J. (1999). 一 WertV，98 一 Wertermittlungsverordnung 1998
[Ordinance concerning the valuation of land 1998]. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger
Verlag.
Kleiber, W.，Simon, 1，Weyers，G. (2002). Wertermittlung von Grundstuecken
[Assessment of the market value of real estate].
ed. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger
Verlag.
Kobes, S. (2000). Die Untersuchung, Bewertung und Sanierung von Altlasten nach
dem Bundes-Bodenschutzgesetz [The investigation, valuation and remediation of
soil contamination according to the Federal Soil Protection Act]. Neue Zeitschrift
fuer Verwaltungsrecht, 3，261 - 268.
74
Krell, K.-H.，Krell，A. (1998). Zeitabhaengige Einfluesse bei der Ermittlung
merkantiler Minderwerte [Influences depending on the passage of time in relation to
the determination of stigma]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grundsiueckwert, 3，pp. 136 141.
Mester, Z.C. (2000). The Role of Environmental Due Diligence in Property
Transactions. Pollution Engineering, Nov., 32-35.
Meyer, P.B., Williams, R.H.，Yount，K.R. (1995). Contaminated Land 一
Reclamation，Redevelopment and Reuse in the United States and the European
Union. Aldershot,
UK; Brookfield, US. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Mitchell，Ph. S. (2000). Estimating Economic Damages to Real Property Due to Loss
of Marketabilitly, Rentability，and Stigma. The Appraisal Journal, Apr.，162-194.
Mundy, B. (1992). Stigma and Value. The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 7-13.
Patchin, P. J. (1988). Valuation of Contaminated Properties. The Appraisal Journal,
Jan., 7-16.
Rinaldi, AJ . (1991). Contaminated Properties 一 Valuation Solutions.
Journal,
RICS - The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2001). RICS Appraisal and
Valuation Manual. Hampshire: Hobbs the Printers.
Roddewig, R.J. (1996). Stigma, Environmental Risk and Property Value: 10 Critical
Inquiries.
Roddewig, R . I (1997a). Temporaiy Stigma: Lessons from the Exxon Valdez
Litigation. The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 96-101.
Roddewig, R J . (1997b). Using the cost of Environmental Insurance to Measure
Contaminated Property Stigma. The Appraisal Journal, July, 304-308.
75
Roddewig, R.J. (1998a). Contaminated Properties and Guide Note 8: Questions，
Answers and Suggestions for Revision. The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 99-105.
Roddewig, R.J. (1998b).
Choosing the Right Analytical Tool for the Job. The
Appraisal Journal, July，310-325.
Roddewig, R J . (1999a). Junk Science, Environmental Stigma，Market Surveys，and
Proper Appraisal Methodology: Recent Lessons from the Litigation Trenches. The
Appraisal Journal, Oct., 447-453.
Roddewig，RJ. (1999b). Classifying the Level of Risk and Stigma Affecting
Contaminated Property. The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 98-102.
Roddewig，RJ. (2000). Adjusting Environmental Case Study Comparables by Using
an Environmental Risk Scoring System. The Appraisal Journal, Oct.，371-374.
Roddewig, R J . (2001). Mortgage Lenders and the Institutionalization and
Normalization of Economic Risks Analysis. The Appraisal Journal, Apr.，119-125.
Roller, G. (2000). Verdachtsflaechen in der Wertermittlung [Valuation of sites
suspected of contamination]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grundsineckswert, 6，334 338.
Roller，G. (2001). Wertermittlung sanierter Grundstuecke 一 technischer und
merkantiler Minderwert [Valuation of rehabilitated land 一 technical and mercantile
stigma].
Sanders, M.V.(1996). Post-Repair Diminution in Value from Geotechnical Problems.
The Appraisal Journal, Jan., 59-66.
Schaar, H.-W. (2002). Gutachterausschuss online 一 Neue Dimensionen der
Markttransparenz [Appraisers' Boards online
transparency].
76
Schlichter, 0., Stich, R. (1995). Berliner Kommentar zum Baugesetzbuch
[Commentary on the law relating to building and construction]. Second ed. Cologne:
Carl Heymaims Verlag.
Schulte, K.-W. (ed.) (2000). Immobilienoekonomie [Real Estate Economics], Vol. I
Betriebswirtschaftliche Grundlagen [Fundamentals of Business Management], 2nd
ed.. Muenchen, Wien: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
Simon, J., Cors, K.G., Troll, M. (1997). Handbuch der Gmndstueckswertermittlung
[Handbook on the valuation of real estate]. Fourth edition. Munich: Verlag Vahlen.
Simon, J., Kleiber，W. (1996). Schaetzung und Ermittlung von Grundstueckswerten
[Estimation and determination of the value of real estate]. Seventh edition. Neuwied:
Luchterhand Verlag.
Simon，St. (1999). Das neue Bundesbodenschutzgesetz 一 Konsequenzen filer den
Immobilienverkehr [The new Soil Protection Act 一 Consequences for the real estate
market].
Simoa,
St.
(2001).
Beruecksichtigung
von
UmweltschadstofFen
bei
der
Wertermittlung. [Taking into account environmental contaminants when valuing
sites]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grundstueckswert, 5, 257-263.
Simons, R.A.，Bowen, W” Sementelli，A, (1997). The Effect of Underground
Storage Tanks on Residential Property Values in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Journal of
Real Estate Research, 1-2，29-42.
Simons, R.A,，Bowen, W.M., Sementelli, A.J. (1999). The Price and Liquidity
Effects of UST Leaks from Gas Stations on Adjacent Contaminated Property. The
Appraisal Journal
Thomas，M. (1997). Deutsche und angelsaechsische Grundstueckswertermittlung im
Vergleich [Valuation of real estate in Germany and in Anglo-Saxon countries 一 a
comparison].
77
V B H G - Verband bergbaugeschaedigter Haus- und Grundeigentuemer e.V. (1994).
Gesamtminderwertabkommen zwischen dem V B H G und der Ruhrkohle A G (RAG)
[General Agreement on how to calculate stigma between the Association of owners
of real estate damaged through mining activities (VBHG) and the Ruhrkohle AG]
Zeitschrift fuer Bergrecht,
Weber, B.R. (1997). The Valuation of Contaminated Land. Journal of Real Estate
Research, 3，379-397.
Weber，B.R. (2002). A Beginning Best Practice Brownfield Valuation Model. The
Appraisal Journal, Jan.，60-75.
Weyers，G. (1987). Altlasten und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Grundstneckswert
[Contamination and the effects on the value of real estate]. Sparkasse, 11, 488 - 500.
Weyers, G. (1990). Neue Grundsaetze zur Ableitung des Beleihungswertes von
Grundstuecken bei Kredit- und Versicherungsinstituten [New principles for
determining the value of real estate for the purposes of granting loans by credit
institutions and insurance companies]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grmdstueckswert
74 - 82.
Wichert, H.-W. (1995). Kontaminierte Betriebsgmndstuecke — eine Hypothek der
besonderen Art [Contaminated real estate belonging to manufacturing plants - a
special kind of mortgage]. Grundstuecksmarkt und Grundstueckswert^ 6，336 — 338.
Wilson, A.R. (1996). Emerging Approaches to Impaired Property Valuation. The
Appraisal Journal, Apr.，155-170.
Woestmaxm, U. (1996). Das Altlastenrisiko in der Kreditbewertung [The risk of
contamination within the framework of detenruning a credit]. TerraTech
78
Official Documentation
a) Germany
Advisory Council on Soil Protection to the Federal Ministry for the Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. (2000). Advisory Opinion on ways how to
implement a policy of precautionary soil protection. Document 14/2834 of the
Federal Parliament, 25 February 2000，105 p.
Federal Environmental Agency (2000). Statistical Overview over the number
the
valuation of and the remediation of contaminated sites in the Federal Republic of
Germany by December 2000. Published under http:// www.umweltbundesamt.de/
altlast.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
(1998) Federal Soil Protection Act of 17 March 1998 (BBodSchG). Translation.
Bonn: Mimeographed text.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
(1999) Federal Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Ordinance (BBodSchV).
Translation. Bonn: Mimeographed text.
German Federal Government (1985). Concept developed by the Federal Government
for the protection of the soil. Document 10/2977 submitted to the Federal Parliament
on 7 March 1985, 91 p.
German Federal Government (1992). [Reply to a parliamentary question of the
Social Democratic Party concerning, inter alia, sites suspected to be contaminated].
Grundstuecksmarkt und Gnmdstueckswert, 4，p. 208.
State Environmental Office of Brandenburg, editor (1998). Handbuch zur AltlastenBearbeitung im Land Brandenburg [Handbook on the treatment of contaminated sites
in the Federal State of Brandenburg]. Loose-leaf edition. Potsdam: UNZEVerlagsgesellschaft mbH.
79
State Environmental Office of Brandenburg, editor (1997，cont'd updating).
Materialien zur Altlastenbearbeitung im Land Brandenburg [Materials concerning
the treatment of contaminated sites in the Federal State of Brandenburg]. Loose-leaf
edition. Potsdam: UNZE-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
b) United Kingdom
Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO) (1990). Eiwiromnental Protection Act
1990 (c. 43) of 1st. Nov. 1990. Internet version wyAV.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/
acts 1990
Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO) (1995). Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) of
19th July 1 1995. Internet version www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk./acts/acts 1995.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (1990).
Contaminated Land Implementation ofPart DA ofthe Environmental Protection Act
1990. DETR Circular 2/2000. Internet version
y/ww defra.gov uk/environment/
ity/circ2-2000.
c) U.S.A.
CERCLA-Comprehensive Environmentai Response, Compensation, and Liability
A c t (1 980).
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40: Protection o f t h e Environment;
Chapter I，Part 307. Internet version www.access.gpo.gov./nara/cfr
Court decisions
a) Germany
80
Federal Constitutional Court. (2000). Decision of 16 February 2000: Liability ofthe
owner of real estate in the case of remediation of contamination.
Wochenschrift,
Federal Supreme Court. (1971). Judgment of 14 January 1971: Re notion of stigma.
Kleiber (1991)，EzGuG 19，03/1997，under 3.34 a, pp. 52 一 52a.
Federal Supreme Court. (1977). Judgment of 8 December 1977: Re calculation of
stigma. Kleiber (1991)，EzGuG 8，12/1993，under 19.33 a, pp. 53 一 53a.
Court of Appeals of Duesseldorf (2001). Judgment of 4 February 2000: Re definition
of stigma.
Court of Appeals of Sarrebruck (1960). Judgment of 20 Mai 1960: Re calculation of
stigma. Kleiber (1991) EzGuG 1，09/1991，under 4.14, pp. 25 一 27.
b) United Kingdom
Supreme Court of Judicature - Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Judgment of 10
June 1998. Case Blue Circle Industries Pic (BCL) v. Minsitry of Defence. Internet
version: 1-16. http://www.baini.org/cgi-bailii/disp.pl/ew/cases/ EWCA/Civ/1998/
945.html?querv=::=%7e-l-stigma+land+contaniination
c)USA
Supreme Court of Alaska. Judgment of Nov. 22，1999. Case Chenega Corp. v.
Exxon Corp. West's Pacific Reporter (2000)，Second series, P.2d, Vol. 991，pp. 769799. StPaul，Minn. West Publishing Co.
81
Supreme Court of New Jersey. Judgment of 27 March 1991. Case T & E Industries,
Inc. v. Safety Light Corp. West's Atlantic Reporter (1991)，Second series, A.2d，
Vol. 587，pp. 1249-1265. St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co.
Supreme Court of Wyoming. Judgment of 19 Apr. 1984. Case Andersen v. Bauer.
West's Pacific Reporter, Second series, P.2d，Vol. 681, pp. 1317-1326. St. Paul，
Minn. West Publishing Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals. Judgment of 25 Aug. 1986. Case McAlonan v. U.S.
Home. West's Pacific Reporter, Second series, P.2d，Vol. 724，pp. 78-80. St. Paul，
Minn. West Publishing Co.
82
List of Appendices
A P P E N D I X 1:
Flowchart Outlining the Procedure for Identifying and
Remedying Contaminated Site
AP P E NDIX 2:
Interview with Mr. Eisner, CEO of SUEBA, FrankfbrtMain
APPENDIX 3:
Interview with Mr. Gerdes，Federal Ministry of Finance, Bonn
APPENDIX 4:
Intemew with Prof. Kleiber, Federal Ministry of Construction and
Transportation, Berlin
APPENDIX 5:
Interview with Mr. Moeckel，，Environmental Expert，CEO and
Partner of M&P，Elsterwerda
APPENDIX 6:
Interview with Ms. Schilling,
ANNEX 1:
Flowchart Outlining the Procedure for Identifying and
Remedying Contaminated Sites
identifying and remedying contaminated sites
Registration of sites
suspected of being contaminated
•
To be undertaken by the competent authority at the level of the community in
which the sites are located; e.g. former waste deposits; former chemical plants,
plants for the production of chemicals or fertilizers; foundries; coking plants; car
repair shops; filling stations; diy cleaning enterprises;
- t e n t a t i v e identification of materials suspected of causing contamination^ like:
arsenic, lead, cadmium, cyanides, chromium, nickel, mercury, benzo(a)pyrene5
hexachlorobenzene.
Historical enquiry
Study of construction plants, other documents; interviews with former owner，
employees, neighbours etc.; aerial/ infrared photography, evaluation of maps.
Evaluation
suspicion is not confirmed;
file is closed
suspicion is confirmed;
if necessary: emergency intervention
to remove risk for the public
Further investigations for orientation purposes
Identification of the future intended use and, in function of this, identification of
the possible pathways of contaminants, ie.:
-soil/human health pathway through direct contact, as e.g. in the case of residential
areas，playgrounds, parks and recreational facilities, sites for industrial or
commercial use;
-soil/plant pathway through direct contact of plants with the soil as in the case of
agricultural use, ve藥table gardens or grasslaixls;
-soii/groundwater pathway, with contaminants entering into direct contact with the
groundwater.
Development of a plan to cany out further enquiries; taking of samples o f the soil，
ground water, air. Sampling，especially with regard to the number and distribution
of sampling points, has to be conducted in six^h a way that tte suspicion of a risk
can be clarified, any potential risk be evaluated and a delimitation of the space
where pollutants are accumulated be effected.
Evaluation
file is closed.
if necessary: emergency intervention
to remove risks for the public.
Detailed investigations
Development of apian to cany out final examinations; tests of soil, ground water,
air, chemical analyses.
Design of investigations related to tte pathways for which information is available，
suggesting the existence of risks, taking into account the results of the surveys
already carried out, concerning the occurrence of pollutants and their distribution,
the present use of the site and the intended future .use.
•
85
Evaluation
file is closed
i f necessary: emergency intervention
to remove risks for the public.
Design of a remediation plan
Detailed plan, to be submitted by the party responsible for the remediation, how
to carry out which measures; fix delays; plan to be approved by the competent
authority.
Remediation Action
Kind of Measure
Place of
Implementation
Procedure
Measure
Monitoring:
“After Care，
Measures to
protect / limit
access
Next to the site,
on the site:
intermediate
storage of toxic
materials
Limitations to use
the site;
evacuation
measures
Measures to
decontaminate;
further
investigations
Measures to
interrupt the
pathways of
contamination
On the site
Hydrologic /
pneumatic
measures like
lowering the level
of groundwater
Surveillance;
repairs
On the site
Measures to
enclose the
contaminants
As above
On the site / next
to the site / off
site
Measures to
immobilise the
contaminants
As above
86
Kind of Measure
Place or
Implementation
Procedure /
Measure
Monitoring:
‘‘After Care，，
Measures to
decontaminate
On the site / next
to the site
Hydrologic /
pneumatic
measures like
withdrawal of
groundwater;
suction of gases
Removal of
residue;
surveillance; if
needed: repetition
of the measures
above
On the site / next Chemical /
to the site / off the physical treatment
like extraction;
site
adsoiption;
oxidation;
reduction; felling
of plants
As above
Biological
Procedures
Next to the site /
off site; on the
site being
developed
Thermic
treatment like
burning, low
temperatures
carbonisation
Shifting
Off site
Surveillance of
Emptying ofthe
soil and shifting it waste disposal
to waste disposal sites
sites
Monitoring of the results
To be determined by the competent authority. E.g, the responsible party has to
continue taking samples and have them examined，in order to ensure that the
remediation measures have sustainable results.
Source: in accordance with Kleiber, Simon, Weyers (1998，p.543) and
State Envirormaesntal Office of Brandenburg (1997，section 4，pp. 17-24.)
87
ANNEX 2:
Interview with Mr. Eisner, CEO of SUEBA, Frankfurt/Main
Gespraechspartner: Herr Holger Eisner
Geschaeftsfuehrer der Wohnungsbaugesellschaft SUEBA Frankfurt am Main
Datum: 13.06.2002
Guten Tag
Diplomarbeit fuer die Universitaet Hong Kong Uber die Bewertung von
kontaminiertem Boden in Deutschland Mein besonderes Augenmerk gehoert der
Quantifizierung der merkantilen Minderwertes.
Im Rahmen einer Vorlesung an der European Business School
hat Herr Schmidt
Weissensee vorgestellt und erwaehnt, dass die Vertragsanbahnung drei Jahre
gedauert hat, u.cl wegen der existierenden Kontanunation Ich waere Ihnen sehr
dankbar, wenn Sie mir Informationen zu dem Grundstueck gehen koennten sowie
ueher den Verlauf der Ereignisse. Es interessiert mich auch
zustande
kam
und in wie fern
Sie
Ueberlegungen zu Stigma
in
die
Kaufpreisfindung mit einbezogen habeft
Das Grundstueck war ehemals eine Gaertnerei. Es liegt in Berlin Weissensee und
hat，wie Sie sehen koennen, sehr grosse Ausmasse. Das liegt daran, dass in der
ehemaligen DDR Bestrebungen vorlagen, u.a. wegen der dichten Grenzen, dass sich
das Land vom Weltmarkt abkoppelte und die Eigenproduktion in vielen Bereichen
stark voran trieb. Dazu gehoerten auch Gaertnereien. Man bekam z.B. keine Tulpen
aus Holland. Es musste also vom Blumensamen an alles selbst gezuechtet werden.
Viele Pflanzen warden auch behandelt，wodurch es dann zu Kontamination kam, wie
aus diesem Grundstueck.
Was die Kontamination anbelangt, so befanden sich auf dem Areal eine
Autowerkstatt und ein Heizwerk, die das Dirige zur Bodenverschmutzung
beigetragen haben; die Boeden der Blumentische waren mit Asbestplatten bedeckt
und die Waermeleitungen hatten eine schaedliche Ummantelung. Wir sind durch
jedes Gebaeude, jede Halle gegangen und haben Oelflecken gefiinden, sowie Faesser
mit Totenkopfaufklebem und Chemikalienflaschen mit der A u f s c h r i f t ，， D i e
Kontamination war also augenfaellig.
88
奶
passiert?
Das erste Angebot, was wir erhalten haben，betrug DM 2,7 Mio. nur fur den Abriss
und dessen Beseitigung. Das Angebot schien uns nicht sehr durchdacht und deshalb
haben wie eine Ausschreibung gemacht，um einen guenstigeren und sorgfaeltigeren
Anbieter zu fmden. Im EndefFekt haben wir DM 700.000 gezahlt. Das gesamte
Recycling, die gesamte Verwertung und Entsorgung fand auf dem Grundstuck selbst
statt. DieErde wurde separiert, untersucht und in Klassen unterteiit - K0, K l l e t c . und dementsprechend entweder beim Bau wiederverwendet oder entsprechend den
Sicherheitsvorkehrungen in die entsprechenden Deponien gebracht.
Wer hat sich im Endeffekt um die Sanierung gekuemmert? Die SUEBA oder der
Verkaeufer? Und wie hat sich das im Verkaufspreis wiedergespiegelt? Wie sind Sie
mit den Risiken umgegangen?
Wie Sie wissen, wurde uns das Grundstueck 1994 angeboten. Der Vertrag ist erst
1997 zustande gekommen. In der Zwischenzeit haben wir die Risiken in Grundlagen
ermittelt. Die Risikobewertung hat ein Gutachter vorgenommen.
Der Verkaeufer wollte selbst nichts mit der Dekontamination zu tun haben. Wir
haben daher einen Abschlag auf den Verkaufspreis ausgehandelt, bemhend auf
unseren Ermittlungen hinsichtlich des Grundstueckspreises und der auf und zu
kommenden SanierungsmaCnahmen.
Und wie sind Sie mit der Stigmafrage umgegangen? Auf dem Grundstueck stehen
ja
jetzt
Wohnhaeuser -
wie
haben Sie
derm
Angst
vor
moeglicher
Restkontamination im Boden bewertet und in Ihre Kalkulationen mit einbezogen?
Wir haben das Problem geloest, indem wir vom Regierungspraesidium nach
Beendigung
der
Sanierungsmassnahmen
Freistellungserklaerung
bekommen haben
auf
unseren
und
das
Antrag
Grundstueck
hin
eine
aus
dem
Altlastenkataster gestrichen wurde. Somit sind Bedenken hinsichtlich zukuenftiger
Kontamination grundios. Die Freistellungserklaerung kommt einem Guetesiegel
gleich und bestaetigt, dass die SaniemngsmaBnahmen umfassend und gruendlich
vorgenommen wurden.
89
Koennten Sie vielleicht einmal Schritt fiir Schritt den Ablauf von 1994 an
beschreiben?
1994 kam das Kaufangebot. Der erste Schritt war zu ermitteln, was das Grundstueck
eigentlich wert ist. Dazu haben wir uns das Gebiet angesehen, also den Mikro- und
Makrostandort. Dann haben wir bei der Stadt angefragt，welche Nutzung auf dem
Grundstueck moglich sei.
Unsere Massgabe lautete dann，，verdichtete Bebauung fur Leute aus dem
Einzugsgebiet Marzahn". Wir wollten junge Familien anziehen, die noch unter die
foerderfaehige Kostengrenze fallen.
Wie haben uns dann mit dem Stadtplanungs- und dem Erschliessungsamt
zusammengesetzt, haben Vorbescheide eingeholt und Verhandlungen gefiiehrt.
Wir haben natuerlich auch eine Risikoabschaetzung durchgefuehrt. Dabei gilt，dass
wir ein Grundstueck nur annehmen, wenn es in Ordnung ist und Sicherheit fur beide
Parteien gegeben ist Die Risikoabschaetzung sah folgendermafien aus:
1. Inaugenscheinnahme, d.h. Begehung des Gmndstxiecks. Ziel war es,
Schaeden mit Risiko zu erheben. Das geschah auf zwei Aiten, naemlich
zuerst organoleptisch, also die Bestandsaufnahme durch das, was wir sehen
und riechen konnten, und zweitens durch Bestandsaufnahme der frueheren
Nutzung. So kamen wir z.B. durch Hallen, in denen Kanister mit Totenkopf
standen, oder aetzende Pulver auf dem Boden lagen, oder Schwefelspuren an
den Waenden klebten.
2. Luftbildaufnahmen. Wir haben uns Luftbildaufhahmen angesehen, die kurz
nach dem 2. Weltkrieg aufgenommen worden waren, um zu erkennea, ob und
wo urspruenglich Bombentrichter gewesen sein koennten. Bombentrichter
wurden naemlich gerne als Muelloch benutzt.
Aus diesem ersten Ueberblick konnten wir das Gefahrenpotential abschaetzen.
Wenn wir z.B. Maschinen gefunden haben, wussten wir, dass wir nach
Oelrestbestaenden suchen mussten. In den Hallen mit Pestizidlagerung
mussten wir auf chemische StofFe achten. Aehnliches gait ebenfalls fur das
Heizhaus，den Muell, die Hallen, in denen Reststoffe zu fmden waren.
Fuer jede Klassifizierung von Altlast mussten wir auch einen bestimmten
Entsorgungsweg
einhalten.
Sie
wissen
womoeglich,
dass
die
Umweltbchocrdcn, die Wasscrbehoerden u.s.w. den Boden klassifizicrt haben
90
nach Z-0, Z-1-1; die Klassifizierung erlaubt Rueckschiuesse auf die moegliche
Verwendung oder die notwendige Entsorgung des Bodens.
Durch die Grundlagenermittlung konnten wir beginnen, den Schaden zu
berechnen. Dazu gehoert auch die Entsorgung des Materials, dessen
Wiederverwendung nicht zulaessig ist. Als Beispiel seien zu nennen
Giftflaschen, die z.B. nur bei bestimmten Chemieuntemehmen abgegeben
werden duerfen, oder Substanzen, die nur in Oefen bei iiber 1.200 Grad
verbrannt werden duerfen, da erst bei dieser Temperatur die chemisehen
Verbindungen sich loesen.
Fur jede
chemische Verbindung gibt
es
also
genau zu
ziehende
Rueckschiuesse, die der Bautraeger selbst nicht abschaetzen kann.
In unserem Fall hat der Verkaeufer Herm Dr. Neuling, einem Gutachter aus
Berlin,
den
Auftrag erteilt,
das
Ausmass
der Kontamination
grob
einzuschaetzen. In einem zweiten Schritt wurde Dr. Neuling gemeinsam vom
Verkaeufer und vom Kaeufer beauftragt, ein detailliertes Gutachten zu
erstellen.
3. Die Verdachtsflaechen. Es wurden sowohl der Boden als auch die Aufbauten
begutachtet. Es fanden ueberall auf dem Gelaende in regelmaessigen
Abstaenden
Bohrungen
statt;
dort， wo
wir
schwerpunktmaessig
Kontaminierung vermuteten und erwarteten, wurde gezielt verdichtet gebohrt
Ziel war es, mit Hilfe der Bodenproben Analysen durchzuftihren, die eine
Ersteinschaetzung uber die Art der Schadstoffe und den Grad der
Verunreinigung ermoglichen sollten.
Kam
es
durch
die
Kontaminierung
auf
dem
Grundstueck
auch
m
Grundwasserschaeden
haben Sie gebohrt und wie tief ist dart der Wassergrundspiegel?
Eine Grenzkontaminierung gab es nicht. Auch das Gmndwasser, was sich dort in 11
Meter Tiefe befindet，war nicht betroffen.
Aber das allein ist nicht entscheidend: Wichtig ist die Zusammensetzung des Bodens.
So sind Lehmschichten z.B. undurchlaessig und werden daher auch oft als
Versiegclung bei Deponien vcrwendet. Wir sind auf dem Grundstueck auf
wasscmndurchlacssigc Schiohtcn sogenanntes Schichtenwasser gestosscn. An den
Stellen war es nicht erforderlich, tiefer zu bohren.
91
Die Bohrungen mussten jedoch nicht nur zur Altlastenuntersuchung durchgefuehrt
werden, sondem auch, um die Tragfaehigkeit und Druckfestigkeit des Bodens zu
iiberpruefen. Es
werden
also
bei
den
Druckfestigkeitsproben
gleichzeitig
Altlastenrueckstellproben entnommen.
Die Schadstoffe werden folgendermaBen kategorisiert:
_
geogene Schadstoffe: das sind diejenigen, die schon immer im Boden
enthalten waren, wie beispielsweise Mangan oder Eisen. So lange diese
Stoffe im Boden bleiben, ist die Konzentration gesetzmaessig erlaubt. Sobald
sie jedoch entfemt werden, muessen sie vorschriftsmaessig, z.B. als
SondermueH，entsorgt werden.
-Kontaminierungen: diese entstehen durch Fremdeinfluss.
Die Proben werden zweifach analysiert: zunaechst im Substrat, dann im Eluat.
Letzteres Verfahren gibt Hinweise auf die Wasserloeslichkeit des Schadstoffes.
Dadurch
bekommen
wir
Rueckschiuesse
auf
eve血die
Gefahren
einer
Grundwasserkontamination. Ist ein StofF naemlich nicht wasserloeslich, so besteht
auch keine Gefahr，dass das Grundwasser betroffen wird，da der StofF nicht tief in
den Boden hat einsickem koennen.
Zudem werden Bodenluftuntersuchungen gemacht, entweder vor Ort oder im Labor,
Hier interessieren vor allem die Kohlenwasserstoffbindungen.
Hinsichtlich der Werte kam man noch sagen, dass die Grenzwerte sich auf die
Konzentration der Kontaminierung im Boden beziehen, waehrend die vorher
genannten Bodenklassifizierungen (Zn) sich auf den schon ausgehobenen Boden
beziehen, welcher auf dem LKW zur jeweiligen Deponie transportiert werden muss.
Das klingt alles sehr interessant und logisch und vertrauenserweckend, aber wie
kann ich als Normalbuerger sicker sein, dass auch wirklich nach Vorschrifi und
mit grqfier Sorgfalt vorgegangen wurde?
Nun, zunaechst haftet der Gutachter, wenn sein Gutachten nicht den Tatsachen
entsprechen sollte. Dann haben wir dem Regierungspraesidium alle Nachweise
geliefert，sowie das Entsorgungsversorgungskonzept und den Terminablaufplan
vorgelegt.
Die
gesamte
Saniemngsprozedur
und
die Planung wurden
in
Zusammenarbcit mit der Bchoerde, dem Bauherm und dem Gutachter durchgefuehrt.
Auch mussten wir Nachbeprobungen und Mischprobcn nachweisen. Erst nachdein
92
wir alle Vorschriften eingehalten hatten, kormte uns das Regierungspraesidium die
Freistellungserklaerung ausstellen.
Wie haben Sie denn den Verkaufspreis ermittelt? Sind Sie von den Angaben der
Bodenrichtwertekarte in dem Gebiet ausgegangen, oder sind Sie von ihrem
zukuenftigen Gewinn ausgegangen?
Wir
sind von einem Bodenpreis ausgegangen und haben zusaetzlich die
Bautraegemebenkosten, die Herstellkosten, die Erschliessungs- und AbrisskosteB
ermittelt. Dann kamen wir auf einen Preis pro Haus, das wir bauen wollten und
haben diesen Betrag mit der Anzahl der herzustellenden Haeuser multipliziert. So
kamen wir auf unseren Preis.
In der Theorie wird immer mit Bodenrichtwertkarten gearbeitet Haben Sie den
dort angegebenen Wert zugrunde gelegt?
Nein. Der Wert der Bodenrichtwertkarte war fuer uns nur ein Anlehnungswert.
Schauen Sie，in Weissensee liegt der Bodenrichtwert bei DM 200，- pro Quadratmeter
fur ein Einfamilienhaus. Wir aber haben Reihenhaeuser gebaut. Der absolute
Marktwert ist niedriger als fur unsere Nutzung. Der Bodenrichtwert waere also viel
zu niedrig flier unsere Kalkulationen gewesen.
Und wo ist nun der merkantile Minderwert in der Preisermittlung?
E s ist in der Praxis so，dass wir die Synergieeffekte berechnen und uns dann
ueberlegen, mit welchem Preis wir leben koennen. Es kommt auch hinzu，dass man
zum Zuge kommen will.
Durch die Bohrungen konnten wir sowohl die Ausweitung wie den Inhalt der
Gefahrenstellen ermitteln. Die Massen haben wir anschlieBend hochgerechnet. Dann
wurden erste Baugrundgutachten erstellt und die Laenge der Entsorgungswege
ermittelt. Fuer die Massen- und Kostenschaetzung ist es natuerlich sehr wichtig, den
Schadensherd sauber einzugrenzen. Allerdings gibt es eine hundertprozentige
Sicherheit nicht. Das Restrisiko ist dann eben das untemehmerische Risiko.
Gibt es Versicherungen, welche bereit sind, dieses Risiko zu versichern? In den
USA
gibt
es
sag,
93
Versicherungsnehmer koennen sich gegen kuenftige Schaeden absichern durch
Zahlung einer Praemie
Der Gerling Konzern ist die einzige Versicherung in Deutschland，die das macht.
Wir hatten z.B. in einer Grosstadt am Rhein ein Grundstueck, bei dem die
Sanierungskosten D M 10 Mio. betragen sollten. Der Kaeufer wollte sich gegen
moegliche zukuenftige Kosten absichern. Der Gerling Konzern hat ermittelt, dass
eine komplette AuskofFerung D M 4 0 Mio. kosten wuerde. D e r Betrag w u r d e
versicherungsintem mit der angenommenen Wahrscheinlichkeit einer zukuenftigen
Mehrsaniemng multipliziert. Die Police haette den Kaeufer im Endeffekt DM
6 0 0 . 0 0 0 gekostet
Verzeihen Sie
komme
kenne nur den theoretischen Hintergrund, der besagt
unbebauten, kontaminierten
Grundstueck vom Bodenrichtwert
ausgehe
Sanierungskosten abziehe und dann einen sag. merkantilen Minderwert hahe,
welcher die Differenz zwischen dem Marktpreis eines vergldchbaren
nichtkontaminierten
Grundstuecks und dem eines sanierten
aber
Grundstuecks
darstellt Doch mir scheint
Gehen wir von einem unbebauten Grundstueck aus. Als erstes muss ich im
Liegenschaftskataster nachsehen, ob dort ein Aitlastenverdacht vermerkt ist.
Ackerland ist z.B. nie eine Verdachtsflaeche，weil nur Flaechen auf Kontamination
ueberprueft werden，bei denen aufgrund frueherer Nutzung ein Verdacht bestehen
koennte. Bei Ackerland wird dies nicht unterstellt, obwohl z.B. durch den Gebrauch
von Chemikalien zur Bekaemp&ng von Schaedlingen der Boden ebenfalls
beeintraechtigt sein koennte.
Merkantiler Minderwert entsteht，wenn meckwirkend eine Gefaehrdung festgestellt
wird.
Aber ist merkantiler Minderwert nun ein Mangel
ist es in der Praxis im Endeffekt nur Verhandlungsmacht
Der Markt besteht aus Angebot und Nackfrage. Von daher ist das meiste
Verhandlungsmacht. Meist ist es so，dass, wenn im Grundbuch eine Altlast vermerkt
ist, der Verkaufspreis um Abrisskosten gemindert wird.
94
Hahe ich als Kaeufer einen SchadensersatzuHspruch gegenueber
meinem
Vorgaenger?
Die Grundstueckshaftung gilt ein Jahr, wobei durch die EG-Richtlinie, nach der eine
Garantie 2 Jahre gelten muss，diese neue Haftung eventuell auch auf Grundstuecke
anwendbar ist, jedoch bin ich da ueberfragt.
Bei nachweisbarer grober Fahrlaessigkeit besteht jedoch ein Haftungszeitraum von
30 Jahren.
Im angloamerikanischen Raum wird oft so saniert
moeglich ist Wie sieht es in Deutschland aus? Kann es durch Sanierungen m
einer hoeherwertigen Nutzung und damit m einem Wertamtieg des Grundstuecks
ueber seinen ehemaligen, unkontamnierten Wert hinaus kommen?
Ja， das
geht
durdhaus，sofern der Flaechen-
bzw.
Bebauungsplan
eine
Nutzungsaenderung erlaubt.
Allerdings ist dies auch vom Standort des Grundstuecks abhaengig. In Hoechst
waere eine Sanierung z.B. aussichtslos，bzw. waere der psychologische Aspekt so
hocli, dass eine hoeherwertige Nutzung vom Markt nicht angenommen wuerde.
Allerdings kann man am Rebstockgelaende in Frankfiirt/Main sehen, dass dieser
psychologische Aspekt nach einem ausreichend iangen Zeitraum abnimmt, Wichtig
ist，eine Veraenderung der Wahrnehmung der OefFentlichkeit zu erreichen. Auf dem
eben genannten Gelaende befand sich frueher ein Flughafen, danach eine
Muelldeponie und jetzt soil es entwickelt werden. Vorgesehen sind Buero- und
Wohnimmobilien. Frueher waere dies an dem Standort nicht moeglich gewesen.
Das klingt alles sehr logisch und verstaendlich, aber wie kann ich als kleiner,
durchschnittlicher Buerger sicher sein
wurde und es nicht in zehn Jahren heisst, dass doch nicht ordnungsgemaess
saniert wurde und nun meine Gesundheit beeintraechtigt ist?
Sie koennen eine Wohnung kaufen oder es lassen bleiben. Angebot und Nachfrage.
Und wenn sich herausstellen sollte, dass sich zu dem Preis kein Interessent findet，
dann wird der Anbieter seine Preise senken. Ansonsten koennen Sie nichts tun. Aber
die meisten haben sich noch nie Gedanken ueber Kontamination gemacht, ausser
wean vielleicht in der Presse etwas gemeldet wurde. Haben Sie sich ueber Altlasten
Gedanken gemacht，bevor Sie sich mit dem Thema beschaeftigt haben?
95
Zugegebenerntassen neifu Aber gegen wen habe ich als Normalbuerger einen
Anspruch, wenn sich herausstellen sollte, dass doch nicht anstaendig saniert
wurde und
der Bautraeger nicht mehr solvent ist? Uebemimmt dann die Stadt
oder das Land dessen Verpflichtungen?
Eigentlich nicht, aber wenn die Stadt in der Planung stark mit involviert war, dann
kann es gut sein, dass sie，,einspringt“. Allerdings wird sie oft aktiv und nicht reaktiv
an die Problematik herangehen, um die oeffentlich Meinung positiv zu beeinflussen.
Noch eine letzte Frage: Wie gross ist das Areal in Berlin Weissensee? Und wie ist
die Leerstandsquote?
Wir haben dort 237 Haeuser und 100 Wohnungen gebaut. Es duerften dort ca. 950
Menschen leben. Wir konnten alles vermarkten 一 nur eine Wohnung ist noch uebrig.
Das Konzept war also sehr erfolgreich.
Herr Eisner, ich danke Ihnen fiir das Gespraeck
96
A N N E X 3:
Interview with Mr. Gerdes, Federal Ministry of Finance，Bonn
Gespraechspartner; Herr Gerdes
Ministerium: BMF, Bonn
Datum: 20.06.2001
Guten Tag
Studentin an der European Business School
habe ich an der Universitaet Hong Kong verbracht Zum Ahschluss dieses
A uslandsstudiums schreibe ich nun eine Diplomarbeit ueber die Bewertung von
kontaminiertem
Boden
hier in Deutschland^ mit Schwerpunkt
auf
dem
merkantilen Minderwert ehemals kontaminierter Grundstuecke. Gestern hatte ich
die Gdegenheit
Bundesumweltministeriums m bekommen. Heute interessiert mich, wie der Bund
mit diesen Fragen umgeht
Ein Grossteil der Liegenschaften des Bundes ist kontaminiert. Seit 1990 hat er ca. 30
Mrd. Mark fiir die Sanierung von 100.000 ha. investiert.
Grundsaetzlich verkauft der Bund keine unsanierten Grundstuecke. Obergrenze fur
die Sanierungskosten ist die Zumutbarkeitsgrenze des Bundes. Bis jetzt ist die
Grexize noch oflfen.
Wenn jedoch unsaniert verkauft werden muss, so ergeben sich folgende
Konstellationen:
1. sofern die Sanierungskosten berechnet werden koennen, wird der Kaufpreis
um diesen Betrag gemindert, d.h. der Bund uebemimmt die vollen
Sanierungskosten.
2. wenn noch kein genauer Betrag fur die Sanierungskosten festgelegt werden
kann, verpflichtet sich der Bund vertraglich, von den kuenftig anfallenden
Kosten 90% zu uebemehmen (die restlichen 10% uebemimmt der Kaeufer),
aber maximal bis zur Hoehe des Kaufjpreises. Das ist
die sog.
Altlastenregelung.
Bei dieser Variante behaelt sich der Bund jedoch ein Mitsprache- und
Mitwirkungsrecht bei der Sanierung vor, um sicherzustellen, dass keine
Luxus- sondem nur eine der Situation angemessene Sanierung vorgenommen
wird und dass dies durch Ausschreibungen geschieht.
97
Nach welchen Kriterien entscheidet der Bund, ob ein Grundstueck saniert werden
muss?
Als oberstes Prinzip gilt die Wirtschaftlichkeit. Das bedeutet, dass der Bund nur
saniert，wenn es zwingend erforderlich ist Dies ist z.B. der Fall bei anstehendem
Verkauf von Grundstuecken oder wenn polizeirechtliche Gefahrenzustaende
vorliegen. In diesem Fall greifen die zustaendigen Behoerden ein.
Problematisch wird es, wenn die Kosten den moeglichen Erloes uebertreffen. Oft
wird daher auf den Selbstreinigungsmechanismus des Bodens vertraut, insbesondere
bei Vorliegen der MCKW-Stoffe. Ist der Boden fur oefifentliche Flaechen bestimmt，
so wird er nach Grobreinigung zuasphaltiert.
Um die beste Loesung zu ermitteln, werden oft Absprachen mit dem Investor, der
Kommune sowie der Umweltbehoerde getroffen.
Zu den Flaechen des Bundes, die mit Sicherheit kontaminiert sind, gehoeren die
ehemaligen Militaerstandorte. Es gilt hierbei, diese Flaechen zu entmumtionieren.
Dies kann ueber zwei Varianten geschehen: Entweder oberflaechlich, wenn
Fehlschuesse auf den Truppenuebungsplaetzen nicht detoniert sind, oder in zehn bis
zwoelf Metem Tiefe，wo noch die detonierte Munition u.a. aus dem zweiten
Weltkrieg liegt. Legoland hat z.B. in Bayem ein Grundstueck erworben, das schon
zu Zeiten der Wehrmacht ein Munitionslager war. Es wurde alles gesprengt，als die
Alliierten einmarschierten und das Gelaende wurde von diesen spaeter als
Munitionssammelplatz genutzt. Die Folge war, dass der Boden wie eine Zeitbombe
war und dringend saniert werden musste.
Wichtig ist, dass immer zu beachten ist，welche Anschlussnutzung fur das Gelaende
vorgesehen ist. So ist z.B. Oberflaechensaniemng ausreichend, wenn ein Gelaende
fiir eine Erholungsanlage fiir die Oeffentlichkeit, also einen Park oder Spielplatz
bestimmt ist. Die Oberflaeche des Bodens wird dann gereinigt und zubetoniert, mit
der Folge, dass keine Chemikalien aus der Oberflaeclie austreten koennen. Ein
moegliches Problem koennte jedoch sein, dass aus noch vorhandener Munition in
den unteren Schichten
Chemikalien austreten, die ins Grundwasser gelangen
koennten.
Hinsichtlich der Kontamination im technischen Bereich vieler Kasemen ist zu
sagen, dass oftmals nicht sehr sorgfaeltig mit Oelen usw. umgegangen wurde, so dass
der Boden in diesem Bereich oftmals kontaminiert wurde. In diesem Falle werden
98
Gutachten erstellt，welche die flaechenmaessige Ausdehnung der Kontaminierung
ueberpruefen. Angesetzt werden dann Erfahrungswerte fur Sanierungskosten.
Aus der Industrie sind groBe Faelle wie Bitterfeld und Leuna oder auch der
Uranabbau, bei dem der Bund 75% und die Laender 25% der Kosten getragen haben,
bekannt. Hierzu ist am besten die Abteilung 8 des BMP zu befragen.
geht der Bund mit der Frage des merkantilen Minderwerts um?
Einen Minderwert fiir Makel kann der Bund nicht akzeptieren. Das liegt daran, dass
schlecht begmendet werden kann, wieso der Bund einen Rabatt fur eventuelle
zukuenftige
Schaeden
einraeumen
sollte,
wenn
er
Millionen
fiir
eine
Komplettsaniemng ausgegeben hat.
Allerdings ist die Kaufpreisfindung immer ein Geben und Nehmen, d.h. eine Frage
des
Verhandlungsgeschicks.
Es
stellt
sich
also
nicht
die
Frage
der
Restkontamination, sondem eher，,Was gibt der Markt her?". Der Bund muss
demnach Zugestaendnisse in Form von Abschlaegen machen, wenn es die
Marktsituation verlangt.
Der merkantile Minderwert besagt ja, dass, wenn zwei Grundstuecke bis auf die
Ausnahme, dass eins der beiden kontaminiert war und nunmehr saniert ist，identisch
sind, dass ein Kaeufer nicht bereit sein wird，den gleichen Preis fiir beide zu zahlen.
Der Bund hat natuerlich die Moeglichkeit, das Grundstueck wieder vom Markt zu
nehmen, wenn der erhoffte Preis zur Zeit nicht zu erzielen i s t Er muss dann aber
gegenrechnen, wie viel ihn die Zinsen fiir eine Kreditaufhahme kosten wuerden,
wenn er mit dem Verkauf in der Hoffnung auf einen zahlungsfreudigeren Kaeufer
noch 2-3 Jahre daraufwarten wuerde. Aber einen Abschlag beim Verkaufspreis wird
der Bund nicht als Preismindemng aufgrund von Stigma anerkennen, sondem dies
dem V erhandlungsgeschick des Kaeufers zurechnen.
Herr Gerdes, ich danke Ihnen fiir das Gespraeck
99
ANNEX 4:
Interview with Prof* Kleiber，Federal Ministry of Construction
and Transportation, Berlin
Gespraechspartner: Herr Prof. Wolfgang Kleiber
Ministerium: BMBau und Verkehr, Berlin
Datum: 12Juli 2001
Guten Tag
meine Fragen zu beantworieru Wie Sie wissen, bin ich Studentin an der European
Business School in Oestrich" WinkeL Das letzte Studienjahr habe ich an der
Universitaet Hong Kong verbracht Fuer dieses Auslandsstudium schreibe ich nun
eine Diplomarbeit ueber die Bewertung von kontaminiertem Boden hier in
Deutschland
Minderwert, der an einem Grundstueck auch nach seiner Sanierung haengen
bleibt Mich wuerde interessieren^ wie Sie die Frage des merkantilen Minderwerts
und des Einflusses der Gutachter bei der Ermittlung dieses Wertes sehen.
Der
Gmndstuecksgutachter kann nicht
allein
den
Grundstueckswert
unter
Beruecksichtigung der Altlast bestimmen. Der Gtund liegt darin, dass die
Bewertungsaufgaben verschiedene Disziplinen beruehren und
dass
nur
der
Altlastengutachter die Dimension der Altlast verstehen kann, da nur er ueber die
notwendige Saohkermtnis verfiigt.
Hinzu kommt das Kompetenzeinhaltungsgebot: Der Grundstueckssachverstaendige
kann toxikologische Fragen nicht beurteilen und vice versa.
Nur der Toxikologe kann die Wirkungsweise der Kontamination auf die
Kontaminationspfade ueberpruefen. Auch die Frage, welche Wirkungspfade
vorrangig sind, kann der Sachverstaendige nicht beantworten.
Muessten
Veraenderungen oder Ergaenzungen am Regelwerk vorgenommen
werden?
Deutschland hat eine gute Regelung durch das BBodSchG und die BBodschV.
Frueher gab es nur Behelfslisten 一 die Kloke Liste, die Holland Liste, die Berliner
Liste，welche
untcrschicdliche
Grcnzwertc fiir unterschicdlichc
chemische
100
Substanzen enthielten. Heute sind die besten Voraussetzungen fur Sachverstaendige
geschaffen worden dank den Richtwerten im Normenwerk.
Jedoch sehe ich auch Probleme beim BBodSchG, z.B. §24，Ausgleichsbetrag. Die
Norm ist recht abstrakt, sie entspricht § 154 BauGB und geht nicht auf die
Bewertungsschwierigkeiten ein.
Zu den Sachverstaendigen moechte ich noch sagen, dass ihr Ausbildungsstand
meiner Meinung nach nicht ausreichend ist，um die Moeglichkeiten des Gesetzes zu
kennen und zu verstehen. Dabei muss man vom Sachverstaendigen erwaiten
koennen, dass er das Problem der Kontamination erkennt. Mangels Sachkenntms
oder aus Unbehagen vor dem Unbekannten formuliert der Gutachter in der Praxis
meist den Schlussatz wie folgt:，，Ich gehe von einem altlastenfreien Grundstueck
aus.“ Diese Vorgehensweise stellt ein groBes Problem dar und muss scharf kritisiert
werden. Denn der Sachverstaendige klammert das Problem der Kontamination aus,
anstatt es anzusprechen.
Wie sieht die deutsche Rechtsprechung dieses Verhalten?
Der Sachverstaendige muss im Gutachten darlegen, was er haette erkennen koennen,
d.h. er muss einem Verdacht, dass eine Altlast bestehen koennte, nachgehen. Es muss
Fragen stellen wie: Besteht eine Altlast? Wie hoch ist sie? Zunaechst gilt es
nachzupmefen^ ob im Altlastenkataster eine Eintragung vorliegt. Dann kann er auch
den
Bebauungsplan
in
Augenschein
nehmen,
da
fiir
diesen
eine
Kennzeichnungspflicht fuer kontaminierte Grundstuecke besteht.
Wie sieht die Arbeit der Gemeinden im Falle vorliegender Kontamination am?
Die Gemeinden haben eine Nachforschungspflicht. Sie gehen folgendermaBen vor:
-Ist-Zustand: Sind die Grenzwerte erreicht?
-Soll-Zustand: Wie sieht der zukuenftige Nutzen aus?
-Konfliktbewaeltigung, d.h. die Gegenueberstellung von Ist- und SoilZustand, sowie das Auffinden von Loesungen
- S o f e r n notwendig: Dekontamination des Bodens
Sie muessen auch bedenken, Frau Langer, dass die Grenzwerte, wie sie im
BBodSchG definiert sind, keine absolute^ sondem nutzungsspezifische, bzw.
nutzungsabhaengige Werte sind.
Was muessten denn Gutachten Ihrer Meinung nach beinhalten?
101
Im Gutachten muss ein Hin wei s auf Aitlastenverdacht enthalten sein. Das Problem
darf nicht ausgeblendet werden. Es muss auf die qualitative!! Eigenschaften des
Grundstuecks eingegangen werden, da diese sich im Wert wiederfmden, andernfalls
liegt grobe Fahrlaessigkeit vor. Es ist ebenfalls wichtig, dass der Sachverstaendige
sich nicht nur auf die Vorgaben seines Auftrags bezieht，sondem selbst beurteilt, was
wirklich relevant ist und was nicht. Nur dann wird sein Gutachten objektiv sein.
Das bisher Gesagte gilt fur AJtlastenverdachtsflaechen. Wean es nun aber zur
Verifizierung der Kontamination und dessen Beseitigung kommt, koennen wir
folgendes Schema heranziehen:
Die Dekontamination ist abhaengig vom Ist- und Soll-Zustand
Vergleich der beiden Zustande
Kostenermittlung
Sanierungsmethode auswaehlen
Wie wird der Verkehrswert ermittelt?
Der Verkehrswert wird mit Hilfe der folgenden Gleichung ermittelt:
Wert des unbelasteten Grundstuecks
-Dekontaminationskosten
- M e r k a n t i l e r Minderwert
= W e r t des belasteten Grundstuecks
Das Problem ist nur, dass meist die Situation nicht so weit ist. Es muessen also die
Einzelkomponenten bewertet werden.
Wie sehen Sie den merkantilen Minderwert, bzw. haben Sie einen Vorschlag fur
seine Quantifizierung?
102
Unter dem merkantilen Minderwert versteht man i.A. einen Makel. Meiner Meinung
nach ist eine Arbeit mit Prozentsaetzen recht sinnvoll. Nach den in Deutschland
gemachten Erfahrungen bewegt
sich
der
merkantile Minderwert
in
einer
Groessenordnung von 10% bis 30% des Marktwertes des Grundstuecks in seinem
nicht kontaminierten Zustand.
Der merkantile Minderwert ist abhaengig von drei Faktoren:
1 • Dem Gegenstand, den er betrifft und dem Wert desselben;
2. Den aufgewandten Schadensbeseitigungskosten; wenn also z.B. der Schaden
im Verhaeltnis zum Grundstueckswert hoch ist，dann ist folglich der
Minderwert ebenfalls hoch; und umgekehrt;
3. Der Zeitfaktor, also wie viel Zeit seit der Dekontamination vergangen ist
Diese 3 Faktoren sollten multiplikativ kombiniert werden.
Den Ausgangspunkt bildet ein Schaden, der behebbar war. Es ist zu beachten, dass
viel Psychologic mit im Spiel ist. Allerdings bestimmt im Endeffekt die
Handlungsweise des Marktes das absolute Absenkungsniveau.
In den USA
gemacht
kontaminiertem
Sachverstaendigen
Boden und insbesondere von Stigma von den jeweiligen
verwendet werden. Gibt es hier in Deutschland aehnliche
Untersuchungen
sog. Case Studies zurueckgegriffen, um anhand von Vergleichsobjekten, sofern sie
existieren
etwas sagen?
Meines Wissens gibt es keine Untersuchungen, jedenfalls keine groesseren. Das
Problem liegt darin, dass in Deutschland der Immobilienmarkt sehr intransparent ist.
Wenn Sie nach England schauen, so werden Sie relative gute Informationen zu
Transaktionen finden, also zu Preis, Lage，Groesse und dergleichen. In Deutschland
werden diese Informationen unter Verschluss gehalten. Die Gutachterausschuesse
verfiiegen ueber entsprechende Daten, jedoch werden diese nur aggregiert
weitergegeben. E s ist daher, und damit komme ich zum zweiten Teil Ihrer Frage,
auch nur schwer moeglich, gerade im Bereich von Kontamination, Vergleiche
anhand von Case Studies vorzunehmen.
103
Wie gehen denn die Banken mit der Problematik des merkantilen Minderwerts,
Z.B. bei der Vergahe von Krediten
Die Banken machen einen Risikoabschlag, wobei sie keine eigenstaendige Pmefiing
machen, sondern die Werte der Sachverstaendigen uebernehmen.
Herr Professor
104
ANNEX 5:
Interview with Mr. Moeckel, Environmental Expert，CEO and
Partner of M&P, Elsterwerda
Gespraechsp artner: Herr Moeckel
Gesellschaft: M&P, Elsterwerda
Datum: 29.06.2001
Guten Tag
Studentin an der European Business School, Oestrich-WinkeL Das letzte Jahr
habe ich an der Universitaet Hong Kong verbracht Fuer dieses Auslandsstudium
schreibe ich nun eine Diplomarbeit ueber die Bewertung von kontaminiertem
Boden hier in Deutschland, und insbesondere ueber Stigma, also ueber den
merkantilen Minderwert
haengen bleibt Koennen Sie mir vielleicht sagen, wie Sie bei der Bewertung
vorgehen und oh und wie Stigma eine Rolle spielt?
Bevor ein Gutachter Empfehlungen abgeben kann, muss er von der spaeteren
Nutzung Kenntnis haben^ denn diese bestimmt das Untersuchungsziel, bzw. werden
daraus die Untersuchungszielwerte abgeleitet. Die spaetere Nutzung ist also
entscheidend fuer den Umfang der Sanierung.
Bei den Bodenuntersuchung werden oft untypische Schadstoffe im Boden entdeckt.
Zu nennen sind z.B. Metapolyten, die eine chemische Bodenveraendemng darstellen.
Es ist daher wichtig，sich mit dem Historic des Grundstuecks zu befassen. Dafuer ist
eine tiefgruendige historische Recherche, am besten zurueck bis 1900，erforderlich.
Problematisch sind Dokumente aus der Kriegs- oder Nachkriegszeit, da oft nicht
ersichtlich ist, w a s sich nun wirklich im Boden befindet. E s ist jedenfalls sehr
wichtig, einen engen Kontakt zu den zustaendigen Behoerden zu halten, da diese die
notwendigen Dokumente verwalten und Einsicht in diese gewaehren koennen.
Das Problem in Brandenburg ist, dass es zu wenige Entscheidungsebenen gibt. Je
mehr Verwaltungsebenen, desto mehr sind Aufgaben aufgeteilt. Wir haben hier nur
z w e i Ebenen; das bedeutet，dass z.B. die Landesregierung flier die Herausgabe von
Grenzwerten zustaendig ist，nebst ihren vielen anderen Aufgaben. Es dauert daher,
bis der einzelne Fall bearbeitet ist. Bei 3 Ebenen, wie in Berlin，waere das
Regierungspraesidium fiir solche Fragen zustaendig, wodurch das Prozedere
vereinfacht und beschleunigt wuerde.
105
奶泛gehen Sie konkret vor, wenn Sie einen Auftrag erteilt bekommen?
Lassen Sie mich auf drei verschiedene Faelle eingehen:
Im ersten Fall handelt es sich um ein Gueterzugunglueck in Elsterwerda im Jahre
1997, Im Dorf vor Elsterwerda war dem Zugfuehrer klar, dass er den Zug vor der
Durchfahrt durch Elsterwerda nicht mehr bremsen koennte, da die Bremsen
versagten. Daraufhin wurde der Elsterwerdische Bahnhof evakuiert，so dass es
wenigstens nicht zu einem Personenschaden kam. Wie vorausgesehen, entgleiste der
Zug. Von den 30 Kesselwagen explodierten sieben; 400.000 Liter Benzin flossen ins
Erdreich.
Da diese die Durchgangsstrecke Berlin-Dresden ist, mussten die Sanierungsarbelten
sehr schnell passieren. Der Prozess wurde also in zwei Stufen durchgefuehrt:
1. AuskofFerung unterhalb der Gleise, damit diese so bald wie moeglich wieder
befahrbar waren;
2. Bodenluftabsaugung, was voraussichtlich bis 2005 dauem wird.
Dieser Unfall ist ein klassischer Versicherungsfall Die DB ist beim Gerling-Konzern
versichert.
Der zweite Fall handelt von dem „Bodenkoenig“ Hildebrand. Er hatte von der
Treuhand nach der Wende Liegenschaften im Osten erstanden. Zudem hatte er von
der Treuhand Gelder fur die Sanierung einzelner Grundstuecke bekommen. Er hat
das Geld jedoch nicht dafiir gebraucht, und die Treuhand hatte dies auch nicht
ueberprueft. Nunmehr wurde festgestellt, dass auf manchen Grundstuecken Teerseen
existieren, die sehr wahrscheinlich zugedeckt werden muessen.
Im dritten Fall geht es um eine Frau in Cottbus，die viele Grundstuecke von ihrem
StiefVater, der nach der Wende viele Grundstuecke im Osten gekauft hat, geerbt hat.
Das Problem ist, dass viele Grundstuecke noch renoviert werden muessen, aber der
StiefVater, der ganz ploetzlich verstarb，war nicht dazu gekommen. Die Frau besass
u.a. in der Cottbusser Innenstadt ein grosses Grundstueck, fuer das die
Steuerbehoerde Cottbus eine groBe Steuersumme verlangte. Die Erbin wusste, dass
das Grundstueck verseucht war und wollte daher keine Steuern zahlen. Ihr wurde ein
Beweis fuer ihre Behauptung abverlangt，weswegen sie mich damit beauftragte, ein
Gutachten fixer sie zu erstellen. Der Verkehrswert des Grundstuecks wurde auf DM
3 Mio. geschaetzt，die Sanierungskosten auf D M 23 Mio. Nun stellte sich die Frage
106
der weit er en V orgehensweise,
da
es der Frau nicht zuzumuten war，die
Sanierungskosten zu tragen, ohne in wirtschaftliche Bedraengnis zu kommen.
Zur Zeit finden, um eine Kompromissloesung zu finden, Verhandlungen zwischen
dem Buergermeister der Stadt Cottbus, der Erbin und mir statt. Diese wird
womoeglich so aussehea, dass die Erbin Sanierungskosten in Hoehe des
Verkehrswerts，und die Stadt den Rest tibemehmen wird. Zu begruenden waere die
Entscheidung dahingehend, dass e s moeglicherweise einen Investor geben koennte，
der bereit waere, das Grundstueck zu entwickeln. Dadurch bekaeme die Stadt
zusaetzliche Steuereinnahmen. Hinzu kommt, dass es vom Stadtplanerischen her
immer vorteilhafter ist, wenn Grundstuecke bebaut sind, als dass sie brach liegen,
insbesondere i m Stadtzentrum. Und letztlich muss das Grundstueck saniert werden,
wenn es nicht in Zukunft eine Gefahr darstellen soil.
Laut Schaetzungen, sollte das Grundstueck fiir D M 10-15 Mio. verkaufbar sein. Die
Frage ist, ob die Erbin das Grundstueck nun fber den jetzigen Verkehrswert oder
aber den zukuenftigen sanieren soil. Die Verhandlungen sind noch nicht
abgeschlossen.
So viel zu der Tatsache
dadurch fuer die Eigentuemer ein nicht unerheblicher Schaden entstehen kantu
Aber wie gehen Sie konkret mit dem merkantilem Minderwert, auch Stigma
genannt, um? Spielt er in der Praxis eine grofie Rolle?
Sie muessen zunachst zwischen Gutachter und Gutachter unterscheiden. Es gibt
einerseits Altlastengutachter wie mich, die nur ermitteln, ob und was flier eine
Kontamination vorliegt, und welche SaniemngsmaBnahmen
im Lichte der
zukuenftigen Nutzung erforderlich sind. Andererseits gibt es Grundstuecksbewerter,
die den Wert des unkontaminierten Grundstuecks ermitteln und von diesem die
Sanierungskosten, auf der Grundlage der Gutachten der Altlastengutachter, abziehen.
Der Altlastengutachter hat also mit der eigentlichen Grundstuecksbewertung nichts
zu tun.
Zu der Stigmafrage noch dies: Stigma ist ein ideologischer Faktor und wird daher
nicht bewertet.
Herr Moeckel, ich danke Ihnen fuer das Gespraeck
107
ANNEX 6:
Interview with Ms. Schilling, Surveyor in Berlin
Gespraechspartner: Frau Schilling
Ort: Berlin
Datum: 02.07.2001
Guten Tag
Fragen zu beantworten Wie Sie wissen, studiere ich an der European Business
School in Oestrick^Winkel BWL mit Schwerpunkt Immobilienoekonomie und
Finanzeru Das letzte Studienjahr habe ich an der Universitaet Hong Kong
verbracht
Diplomarbeit
Zum Abschluss dieses Auslandsstudiurm schreibe ich nun eine
ueber
die Bewertung
von
kontaminiertem Boden
hier in
Deutschland
Minderwert, der an einem Grundstueck auch nach seiner Sanierung haengen
bleiben kanru Koennen Sie mir sagen
umgehen?
Bei der Berechnung des merkantilen Minderwerts, der ja eigentlich einen Abschlag
darstellt, muss zweierlei beachtet werden:
1. Der Zeitraum. Es muss die Frage nach dem Zeitpunkt der Sanierung gestellt
werden. Dies ist
wichtig，denn je laenger die Sanierung zurueckliegt,
desto geringer ist das Risiko，dass Folgeschaeden auftreten koennen. Dies
kann am Beispiel des Schwammpilzbefalls betrachtet werden: Trotz
Sanierung kann auch Jahre spaeter das sanierte Haus von Schwammpilzen
befallen sein. Liegt die Sanierung aber 50 Jahre zurueck, kann fast davon
ausgegangen werden, dass nichts mehr passieren wird, waehrend hingegen
eine verstrichene Zeit von 10 Jahre ein wesentlich hoeheres Risiko darstellt,
aufgrund des wesentlich kuerzeren Beobachtungszeitraums.
2. Der zukuenftige Nutzen. Er ist ausschlaggebend bei der Sanierung und
demnach auch fiir den merkantilen Minderwert.
Wenn absolute Betraege vorliegea, wird kein merkantiler Minderwert berechnet, da
der absolute Betrag eine definitive, risikofreie Groesse ist.
Was passiert denn, wenn der Grundstueckswert unter Null liegt?
108
Bei
einem
bebauten
nicht
kontaminierten
Grundstueck
wird
ein
Liquidationsverfahren eingeleitet, bei einem kontaminierten Grundstueck ist die
Frage noch offen. Sinnvoll waere, in Zukunft einen Vermerk in Abteilung 2 des
Grundbuches zu machen, was nicht zu verwechseln ist mit einem Saniemngsvermerk
im Sanierungsgebiet. Doch dies muss vom Abgeordneten-Haus Berlin entschieden
werden.
In einem Sanierungsgebiet sieht es folgendermassen aus: der Eigentuemer muss bei
Bodenwerterhoehung einen Ausgleich zahlen. Der Sanierungsvermerk wird ins
Grundbuch eingetragen.
Dies sollte auch fur Kontamination gelten: Der Beguenstigte sollte einen
Ausgleichsbetrag zahlen, wobei ein Sanierungsvermerk im Grundbuch gemacht
werden sollte.
Mich interessiert fiir meine Arbeit ganz besonders, wie Stigma quantifiziert werden
kanru Haben Sie dazu einen Vorschlag? Wie gehen Sie in der Praxis damit um?
Meiner Meinung nach waere die Zielbaummethode sehr geeignet. Demnach wuerden
folgende Punkte einen Einfluss auf den Abschlag fiir den Minderwert haben:
-Nutzungsabhaengigkeit der SaniemngsmaBnahmen
- A u s m a s s der Kontamination (Breitc, Tiefe)
- G r o e s s e des Grundstuecks
-Kontaminationsschwere, also welche SchadstofF in welcher Konzentration in
welcher Schicht 一 zwischen Grundwasser und Oberflaeche, vorhanden sind.
•
Wirkungskreis: Wer ist betroffen? Und in welchem Ausmass?
Danach sollten die Kriterien miteinander verbunden und in ein prozentuales Raster
gebracht werden. Ich wuerde hierbei ein Vorgehen in Fuenferschritten empfehlen,
also j e Schritt ein Abschlag von 5%. Es bleibt dabei aber die Frage, ob die
Abschlaege untereinander abhaengig sind.
In jedem Fall, sollte die Berechnung konkret auf das Vorhaben ausgerichtet sein.
Es bleibt dabei das Problem, dass all diese Groessen subjektiv sind und immer ein
Restrisiko bleibt. Ich wuerde Ihnen empfehlen, sich mit Prof. Kleiber aus dem
Bundesbauministerium in Verbindung m setzen. Gerichtsentscheidungen zum
Thema ^Merkantiler Minderwert" koennen Sie der EzGuG entnehmen.
Frau Schilling, ich danke Ihnen fur dieses Gespraeck
109
Re : Professional Report entitled
“The Valuation of Contaminated Land as Exemplified by the Case of
Germany^
I declare that this Professional Report represents my own work, except where due
acknowledgement is made, and that it has not previously been included in a thesis,
dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution for a degree,
diploma or other qualification.
Signed
Annekatrin Langer

Title The valuation of contaminated land as exemplified by the case

Transcription

Similar documents

UniTech bietet einen neuen Service in Oakdale an

Carpe Diem - adamas.ai

- fuhrpark.de

Seminare 2016

wvfi - IREBS Immobilienakademie

Wasser und Abwasser Versorgung