Brownfields were the rage here about five years ago. There have been a number of good examples of projects that have restored brownfields to use for parks, industry, commerce and residential uses. I have played a role in a handful. From my experiences, I would say that the extent of contamination and cost of clean-up is greatly over-estimated in all but the most extreme cases. We have often found demolition costs or asbestos removal to be far bigger costs than remediation of contaminated soils or groundwater.
These brownfiled sites can be good candidates for TIF. They are often in desirable locations, such as old factories along rivers or near downtowns. They tend to be low-value properties, making TIF even more attractive.
EPA grants can be a source of funding, but tend to favor multi-site programs, thus larger communities. State brownfield programs in many states have been decimated by budget cuts. One popular Wisconsin program, designed to provide assistance when brownfields will be redeveloped for recreational uses, is all but gone. CDBG funds still exist, but have become more competitive. All of this has dampened the interest in brownfields, hopefully only temporarily.