I voted no but not because it has anything to do with this being an auto dealer or whether there might be any "fairness" issue with other auto dealers. My question or problem with this is that I haven't heard anything that says that the problem to be redressed have anything to do with a BROWNFIELD (contamination) problem with the property. The little bit of description that was included with the question sounded more like a development or redevelopment issue. This is the sort of thing we sometimes hear in Lansing - - projects that don't talk about environmental problems on a site that need to be remedied, but rather development or redevelopment projects. It just strikes me that funds or other benefits under this legislation that can be available under BROWNFIELD projects should be exclusively for addressing environmental contamination and funds should be limited to paying for those expenses only, regardless of what was there before and regardless of what someone wants to see there in the future.  In the little bit of info about this dealership, mention was made about possible allowable expenses such as asbestos removal and curbs. I can agree that asbestos removal might be appropriate regardless of whether the property houses a car dealership or anything else. I do not think that should ever be the ability to include funds for curbs for any project - - there is no possibility that environmentally contaminated curbs were being removed and needing to be replaced with BROWNFIELD money. I think there has been noticeable misuse of the BROWNFIELD legislation. 