Sacramento entrepreneur says redevelopment contamination destroyed her business

A Sacramento business owner is seeking more than $9.5 million in damages after alleging contaminated dust from the Mirasol Village redevelopment damaged her company and inventory. The case, now in Sacramento County Superior Court, is drawing attention to how redevelopment on contaminated land can affect nearby businesses.

Why it matters: - Betty Mitchell says contaminated dust from a major redevelopment project contaminated her Sacramento business and wiped out nearly $1 million she invested. - The dispute raises broader questions about protections for neighboring businesses when contaminated soil is disturbed near occupied commercial properties. - Mitchell is seeking more than $9.5 million in damages.

What happened: - Mitchell says contamination began appearing inside her business after years of building operations and complying with regulatory requirements. - She says the contamination led to destroyed inventory, lost revenue and profits, and the collapse of the company she built. - Mitchell links the problem to Sacramento's Mirasol Village redevelopment project. - The project involves the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, McCormack Baron Salazar, A. Teichert & Son, and Midstate Construction Corporation. - The claims are being litigated in Sacramento County Superior Court in Mitchell v. McCormack Baron Salazar, Inc., et al., Case No. 25CV010077. - The defendants deny liability, and no court has made a final ruling on the allegations.

The details: - Mitchell says contaminated project dust migrated beyond the redevelopment site and into her business. - Publicly available environmental records cited by Mitchell include a March 4, 2020, letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. - The DTSC letter identified organochlorine pesticides, including chlordane, as chemicals of concern and called for additional environmental investigation at the site. - Mitchell says she never used, stored, or introduced chlordane into her business. - She says she spent years trying to identify the source of the contamination. - Mitchell also points to concerns raised by neighboring businesses about construction dust tied to redevelopment activity. - The Sacramento Business Journal has reported on the environmental and economic issues and interviewed Mitchell about the project. - The case is proceeding through active discovery. - A case document is available here.

Between the lines: - Mitchell is framing the dispute as more than a single-business loss and as a warning about redevelopment on historically contaminated properties. - Federal and state environmental agencies recognize that disturbing contaminated soil can create exposure pathways through fugitive dust, vapors, and resuspended soil particles. - Regulators commonly require dust-control measures and site-management procedures to keep contaminants from leaving project boundaries. - Mitchell argues neighboring businesses may not get enough notice, monitoring, or protection when redevelopment happens near contaminated sites. - Her call for stronger safeguards reflects a larger tension between redevelopment goals and environmental risk management.

What's next: - Mitchell is pushing for statewide reforms covering notification, environmental monitoring, dust control, independent oversight, and transparency. - She wants mandatory notice to neighboring businesses when contaminated soil is identified. - She also wants expanded monitoring near occupied commercial properties and stronger reporting requirements. - The lawsuit will continue through discovery unless the parties resolve the case or the court issues a ruling later in the process.

The bottom line: - Mitchell's case turns a local redevelopment fight into a broader challenge over who bears the cost when contaminated land is rebuilt next door.