{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01839926402943882, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.437869822485207, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What makes a good Brownfield deal—and how to make a not‐so‐good deal better

INTRODUCTION In the business of purchasing, cleaning up, and redeveloping brownfield sites (.i.e., formerly productive commercial or industrial properties abandoned because of toxic waste potential and the consequent Superfund liability risk), there is no secret formula for success. In fact, most players in the brownfield game understand that it often is necessary to consider a significant number of potential deals before finding transactions that are economically feasible. The proliferation of new participants in the brownfield business further complicates the process. A successful transaction depends on a combination of ingredients, and the absence of any one of them often is a warning sign that the deal will be difficult to complete or will be financially disappointing if it is completed. This article investigates the ingredients of a successful brownfield transaction, emphasizing aspects of the project that afford the parties involved the most control. The discussion also examines approaches