The fact sheet can be downloaded from Senator Montgomery's web site here.SUPERFUND IS NEEDED, NOW!
“Superfund” is the easy name for a program the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to clean the most polluted areas of our country. The NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation asked the EPA to consider listing the Gowanus Canal after finding the incredibly high degree of pollution in the area.
THE CANAL IS VERY DANGEROUSLY POLLUTED
The level of pollution necessary for EPA Superfund listing is measured in “parts per million.” Heavy metals and certain other pollutants in the Gowanus Canal pollution registers in parts per HUNDRED. That’s 10,000 times more polluted than the lowest emergency listing! In addition, every time it rains raw sewage overflows into the canal. The bacteria count in a recent study is shocking, more than 25 times the unsafe level.
PROPERTY VALUES WILL INCREASE
Land surrounding a clean, safe canal will be far more valuable. A thorough and expeditious cleanup will be the best thing for everyone!
SUPERFUND CLEANUP WILL BE THOROUGH AND WON’T TAKE FOREVER
Progress should be seen quickly once work starts, but the complete cleanup will take time. The cleanup has to be thorough and consistent or the canal will return to the current dangerous state. Federal designation commits the cleanup to professional, uninterrupted effort.
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES PAY, AND WORK STARTS IMMEDIATELY
Superfund cleanups are funded by the people who caused the pollution.
The EPA believes much if not most of the cleanup will be the responsibility of National Grid.
*It won’t cost the community money.
*It won’t cost home owners money.
*It won’t cost new business owner money.
*The EPA has said it won’t cost New York City more money than they are already committed to spending.
The EPA starts work immediately from Federal funds set aside for this purpose.
*Congress budgets $320 million dollars annually for the Superfund
*An additional $600 million dollars has been allocated this year alone
*President Obama is reviving the funding stream that will place an additional billion dollars in the Superfund.
The EPA is ready to go!
THE CITY PLAN
New York City has proposed an alternative plan they believe will accomplish a similar clean canal, but the City is not in the business of cleaning toxic sites. While well meaning, the City plan is completely untested and contains questionable assumptions.
*The City plan depends on polluters voluntarily doing the work themselves, to their own standards; but these polluters haven’t done anything up to now.
*The City plan doesn’t intend to clean the whole canal, and a partial cleanup will not be safe.
*The City plan would need special Congressional approval for the Army Corps of Engineers to work on the entire Canal; they legally can’t go north of the Hamilton Avenue bridge!
*The City plan has no guarantees that the funding will actually happen; it relies on the idea that Congress will give substantial special money for years to come for this one project, which is very unlikely.
*The EPA has been doing this for decades and knows what it is doing. The EPA has said *Superfund listing will incorporate all City programs and not delay any efforts currently in progress. Superfund listing guarantees action in ways the City plan cannot.
JOBS
The cleaning process itself will produce new, Green jobs. And a clean Gowanus Canal and vicinity will be a much better employment area!
HOUSING
Current plans for building housing in the Gowanus area would expose families to a life next to dangerous contamination. For the sake of all, the area must be thoroughly cleaned to Superfund standards so housing for all can be responsibly built.
The City finally claimed ownership of the letter they are circulating about their alternative and but it on city letterhead.
In answer to the previous evening's question, Cas Holloway indicated that no money has been spent on lobbyists to DC because municipalities can lobby and Cas has been to DC several times to lobby for the City's Alternative Superfund plan. We learned at Tuesday night's meeting that Cas is neither an engineer nor a scientist. He is, however, a former corporate litigator which for some reason he mentioned several times last night. This explains so much like why he sometimes seems to be defending client whom he knows is guilty, the word parsing, the careful delivery.
Walter Mungden and his team, who are engineers/have science backgrounds, were there and as usual Walter logically dispelled the misinformation and clarified the City's points and answers. Walter also said that the EPA has indicated in writing that the EPA sees no reason why the City cannot proceed with the flushing tunnel work. So, that avenue of threat seems to be closed for the City but I am sure they will conjure up something else. Walter also inserted a dose of reality in terms of PRP liability. The EPA's intention is not to drive viable business away and the EPA can not blood from a stone so it is unlikely they will go after someone for $100,000 if they only have $5,000.
The City had some new slides. One slide contained the fear mongering tactic that super fund would lower property values, make obtaining mortgages difficult, lead to higher interest rates for area residents, etc. He was however very careful to say that it "could" lead to these things. Deb Scotto was all too happy to jump on the fear mongering bandwagon and was a little more strident than Cas saying that super fund would just be a stigma on the neighborhood it would condemn the neighborhood and people wouldn't be able to rent their properties, renovate, refinance, or sell.
Once some of the audience members realized that if they were deemed PRPs under either plan they would have pay they became more skeptical. They also realized that litigation would probably be part of the equation under either plan. One person seemed to indicate that maybe the preferable thing to do was nothing since there didn't seem to be any health related problems caused by proximity to the canal. Cas did say that doing nothing was not an option. And of course no comprehensive health study has been done or if it has it is outdated and impossible to obtain.
Dan Wiley, from Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez's office, set the record straight regarding the use of WRDA and the viability of using that source of funding. There is a waiting list of properties for the funds, it is 50 million per year shared between all the states, you have to reapply for it every year, other areas in New York Harbor are on the list for funding but the canal is not. It doesn't sound like it is a true option. He also made a very important point - this isn't a political but a scientific decision.
It doesn't seem like there will be much difference in time frames and if I understood correctly the epa might be a little quicker. City wouldn't start for four or five years anyway. I think the City's push for support is more of stalling maneuver than a real commitment to clean the canal. My feeling is that in two or three years they will be more than happy to throw in the towel and turn it over to the EPA and in the meantime the City can use that time to get the Gowanus rezoning through. Cas did refer several times to the City's "plans" for the canal but never really indicated what those "plans" are. It would be nice if the City would clue the community in as to what the Bloomberg Administration plans for the neighborhood although I am sure we can all make a good guess.
A good portion of the audience seemed to be affiliated with Clean Gowanus Now! , GCCDC, and the CB6 Land Use Committee cabal. These meetings seem to be little more than a PR stunt orchestrated to drum up support for the City's Superfund Alternative Plan. The bottom line is that is not a popularity contest nor as Dan Wiley so rightfully noted last night is it a political decision but a scientific decision.
Some additions: there have been 45 sites which have used or are using the alternative plan--of these only one had multiple prps--(20 of them vs the 150 to 200 thought here) Not really sure what phase that project is in but one out of forty five suggests that alternative plans with multiple prps is not the best way to go
There were about 100 people there tonight--lots of suits- including David Von Spreckelsen, Toll Brothers V.P.---I wondered how they were all informed of the meeting but no one asked. It seemed to me that after a little while, most of the suits left a little disappointedly--maybe the initial city sales pitch sounded good but once Mugdan's calm, focused facts, combined with the plain truth that the EPA has nothing to gain or lose by choosing listing or alternative routes vs the city's "IF" (in giant flashing neon letters) plan was even too much for them to bear.
Ellen from State Senator Daniel Squadron's office, was there. She left copies of Daniel's pro Superfund statement. Both Oscar Jonas and Irene Van Slyke of Velmanette Montgomery's office were there--the senator's statement in support of Superfund was also available.
At the request of Community Board 6, community and neighborhood groups, and local elected officials, the Department of City Planning proposes zoning map amendments for an approximately 86 block area of the Carroll Gardens and Columbia Street neighborhoods within Community District 6 in Brooklyn.
The rezoning area includes the neighborhoods of Carroll Gardens and Columbia Street. The Carroll Gardens portion of the rezoning area is generally bounded by Degraw Street, Warren Street and Douglass Street to the north; Hoyt Street, Bond Street and Smith Street to the east; 3rd Street, 4th Street, 5th Street, Centre Street and Hamilton Avenue to the south; and Hicks Street to the west. The Columbia Street portion of the rezoning area consists of approximately 14 blocks bounded by Warren Street to the north, a line between Columbia Street and Van Brunt Street to the west, Hicks Street to the east and Woodhull Street to the south. The areas proposed to be rezoned are zoned entirely R6.
The rezoning proposal has been developed after extensive discussion with the Community Board, elected officials, and neighborhood residents. The rezoning responds to community concerns about recent out-of-scale development permitted under the current zoning by mapping contextual districts with height limits throughout the study area which would preserve the existing built character while allowing for new development and modest expansions where appropriate at a height and scale that is in keeping with the existing context. The rezoning would support and promote the local, vibrant retail corridors while protecting the residential character of nearby side streets.
The proposed rezoning builds upon the Department’s Carroll Gardens Narrow Streets Text Amendment which was undertaken at the community’s request and approved in 2008. That text amendment aimed to limit the size and configuration of new buildings and enlargements on certain streets with deep front courtyards which had been defined as wide streets under existing zoning and therefore permitted a higher density that was out of scale with the existing built context. The proposed rezoning of the Carroll Gardens and Columbia Street neighborhoods fulfills the Department’s commitment to return to the community with a more comprehensive set of zoning recommendations for the larger area.
Uniform Land Use Review Procedure | ULURP Rules
Prior to 1976, the City Planning Commission reviewed only applications related to zoning, the city map and urban renewal and housing. In 1976, the list of applications subject to Commission review was enlarged and now includes, pursuant to the City Charter enacted in 1989, those items described below. The Charter's intent in requiring ULURP was to establish a standardized procedure whereby applications affecting the land use of the city would be publicly reviewed. The Charter also established mandated time frames within which application review must take place. Key participants in the ULURP process are now the Department of City Planning (DCP) and the City Planning Commission (CPC), Community Boards, the Borough Presidents, the Borough Boards, the City Council and the Mayor.
IThe city meeting was fairly interesting. Cas Holloway, Chief Of Staff to NYC Deputy Mayor Skyler. was the designated hitter for the city once again with Dan Walsh, Chief of the New York City Superfund and Brownfield Program, on deck for an occasional and ineffective pinch hit.
Walter Mugdan of the EPA was there and although he clearly tried to maintain his distance from the microphone, he was the voice of reason, calm and common sense.
There was a flyer distributed by the city which a local resident held up and contemptuously labeled, "spin"--others in the audience quickly and loudly agreed with this. There was a letter written by an unknown fifth generation Gowanus banks-grown person begging not to Superfund and a postcard from the cleangowanusnow.org folks printed up and ready to go for those who do not want Superfund.
There was an appearance and some questions from Josh Skaller, 39th City Council District candidate, and a surprise for me--a fellow named Doug Biviano, who is running for Councilman in the 33rd. He is a civil engineer, articulate and put the city right on the spot (one of Dan Walsh' moments were required here)
The city has no plan. They are trying to say that this can be done through the W.R.D.A. program, even though Walter Mugdan expressed doubts. Dan Wiley, of Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez's office, gave facts and the congresswoman's comments quoted in the June 11th article in the Downtown Star refuted the idea completely. They, the city, claim that they will kick in for some of the initial studies. The only thing they really seem to care about is saving certain parties money and getting the feds (basically, us) to foot a big part of the deep discount for the prps.
Walter Mugdan made it very clear that the timeline for the City's or EPA's plan will be the same. The City has no ability to move any faster than the EPA -- in fact starting with the City could actually cost more time because their plan is more complex. It is a matter of where the money comes from and how successfully all of the Potentially Reponsible Parties can agree to play nicely--all of it a very unlikely scenario.
When the city was asked why they are "expending a great amount of resources" (their words) in order to save a handful of PRP's money at the expense of a great deal of the community's wishes, they really did not have an answer.
They had a slide as part of their presentation that was widely criticized and will probably be excluded from future presentations. It was supposed to show how much better and faster the city plan is in comparison to EPA but it was a bust.
When the City was asked why two meetings, they said it was to accommodate everyone. When it was pointed out that notification was spotty and attendance not that great because of it, they apologized. They actually apologized a lot--and promised that there would be answers to some of tonight's questions tomorrow--like which developers they met with privately.
We asked them to bring the army corps of engineers with them tomorrow but no promises were made there--just an agreement to ask them to come.
Ellen was there from State Senator Daniel Squadron's office, but she said nothing. Tom Gray, of Councilman Bill De Blasio's office sent out a notice that no one from Bill's office would be there due to "scheduling conflicts", but he promised someone would be there tomorrow night and all meetings going forward. Did not see anyone from Joan Millman's office and Deanna Betteti of Yvette Clarke's office is in DC.
John Heyer Sr and Jr were there but I did not see Brad Lander, Bob Zuckerman or Buddy Scotto.
· Meeting for homeowners who live near the Canal Tuesday,
June 23 at 6 p.m., at P.S. 32 (317 Hoyt Street).
· Meeting for business owners located near the Canal
Wednesday, June 24 at 6 p.m., at P.S. 32 (317 Hoyt Street).
More meeting information is also available here:
www.gowanusalternative.com
5days4arts highlights how important arts enrichment is to the education of our kids. This site is an effort by the PS29 PTA in Brooklyn, NY to help raise funding for its arts collaboration series. Each day for five days we'll be posting a new video highlighting a different program, each one showing the impact of different programs in our school. You can help by watching these videos,sharing them with friends and family, and, of course, donating if you can.
Starting June 22, 2009
One video a day all week showcasing our amazing arts collaboration programs
We need to raise $40,000 and need your help.
What can you do?
1. Donate
2. Enjoy the videos of our children
3. Make it viral: post it to your Facebook and Twitter accounts, email to friends and family near and far
4. Be impactful - every dollar counts
