Super Fun Superfund Site Profiled

From The Dirt (a blog published by the American Society of Landscape Architects), some "love" for Gowanus:

"The Gowanus ”micro-neigborhood,” surrounded by Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill and Park Slope is filled with ”half-empty warehouses and semi-derelict factories,” post-industrial scenes that give the area a “special cultural edge, like a miniature Baltimore or Detroit.” Except, in this case, The New York Times writes, terrifying pollution is substituted for crime. Still, the site attracts many locals: Jennifer Prediger, a producer of environmental videos, said: “There’s no place in Brooklyn, or in New York City, that feels kind of more pleasant than being right here, which is odd given that that is a toxic waterway. But it’s actually quite lovely. It’s the loveliest toxic waterway I’ve ever spent time on.”"

Breaking: Toll Brothers Gives Up!

Luxury home builder Toll Brothers has apparently given up on their current quest to line the shores of a toxic waste dump with condos. From the The Real Deal (and the Brooklyn Paper):

"As threatened, Toll Brothers has walked away from its $5.75 million down payment on the Gowanus Canal site of a would-be 477-unit mixed-income housing development because of the waterway's recent designation as a Superfund site, the Brooklyn Paper reported. "It just didn't financially make sense to close on the properties and then have to wait 15 to 20 years until we could develop them," said Toll's David Von Spreckelsen."

"“These were never just idle threats,” Von Spreckelsen said. “I spent five years of my life working on getting this done, and I don’t think anything is going to happen there for a very long time.”"

Sounds pretty bitter, especially when we keep in mind that there is a similar situation down the canal a few lots where planned housing IS being built. Sounds like Toll Brothers (like John Quadrozzi before) are using Superfund designation as a convenient means to abandon projects for other reasons.

New Tax Proposal Could Help Put The Fund in Superfund

The biggest problem with Superfund designation of the Gowanus Canal (which we were in favor of) stems from the availability and speed of funding to pay for the program. Opponents were quick to (correctly) point out that the funding would ultimately come from adjoining property owners, who collectively branded as "the taxpayers". What they also conveniently forgot to mention is that the property owners responsible for cleanup are also those responsible for the mess.

In any case, a new proposal is making it's way around which would pay for Superfund cleanup with a tax on current polluting industries, such as oil and gas. From American Public Media (NPR's Marketplace; download the mp3 here):

"...when Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, they did away with a tax on the petrochemical industry that funded the clean-up of almost half of all Superfund sites. These were sites where nobody accepted responsibility for the contamination. Funding for these projects dried up seven years ago. Since then, taxpayers have had to pick up the tab."

In the current national political climate, I doubt that the implementation of a new tax, even one on an industry with such deep pockets who have the public's wrath right now, would be received well, however anything that cleans up the canal can't be a bad thing. I do question the rationale of seeking funding from current gas and oil companies though; isn't a large point of the Superfund program to go after past polluters as well?

A Neighborhing Test Case FOR Landmarking

When last we heard from John Quadrozzi, he was complaining about how Superfund designation of the Gowanus Canal had forced him to move his company to another spot (along the canal's plume) which is better suited for his business. Now it seems that the Landmarks Preservation Commission is calling him out on not maintaining some townhouses he owns on Degraw and Clinton.

He sounds like just the type of property owner John Esposito and CALM are looking for in Carroll Gardens! From the Daily News:

""It took me over a year and buckets of money to convince them [a wall] might collapse," said Quadrozzi, who bought the buildings in 2000.

The walls of the 1852 brownstone are badly cracked and there are holes in the adjacent stable's roof; city officials have warned Quadrozzi to quickly fix the hazards.

"There is an ongoing risk of progressive collapse that may endanger the public," a Buildings Department inspector wrote to Quadrozzi in January."

Just the other day I commented that the scaffolding had been there a LONG time, and someone in the know told me that ownership complications and multiple investors had stalled the restoration project. Let's see what happens.

Photo from the Daily News

Negative Consequences to Superfund Designation?

Cleaning the canal is not without some casualties. The first of many to surely come is Quadrozzi Concrete. From Concrete Products:

"Quadrozzi Concrete President John Quadrozzi, Jr., has rallied against EPA involvement as a nearby resident, longtime supporter of the community, and Gowanus Canal Community Development Corp. and Southwest Brooklyn Development Corp. board member. The groups question the cleanup timeline and prospects for equitable cost-sharing among parties deemed responsible for the pollution--some of it predating the Clean Water Act of 1972.

The Superfund designation and longer-term prospects for the gentrifying Carrol Gardens neighborhood around the canal have prompted Quadrozzi Concrete to look downstream to Gowanus Bay. The producer is planning an advanced ready-mixed operation with abundant environmental and green building features at an affiliated company’s Gowanus Bay Terminal, comprising 13 upland and 33 marine acres."

One wonders why Quadrozzi is choosing now as a time to leave the area. The environmental damage done by Quadrozzi and other heavy industrial operations will be discovered and they will be forced to pay for it, whether or not they continue to occupy the site.

Just a guess, but it seems that this could have been a long time coming, and the Superfund designation is a convenient excuse. Their newer site is closer to Hamilton Avenue and the waterfront, allowing for shorter operational spans for their mixing vehicles (quick travel times to Manhattan are critical to the concrete business).

Also, once the sites are mitigated, Quadrozzi stands to make a pretty penny on their land. Not a bad outcome for them at all.

A Canal Roundup!

Time Magazine: "Postcard from Brooklyn"

Environmental News Network: Gowanus Canal Goes Superfund

New York Times: Answers about the Gowanus Canal

Read Eat Sleep: Gowanus Canal Goes Superfund

New York Times: Cleaning a Canal, but not Writing about it

New York Post: FHA, Superfund and You

CUNY Blogs on Dirty Canals

The CUNY Journalism blogs have been churning out some good coverage lately. One of the recent posts on the different interpretations of similar situations at the Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek by local politicians caught my eye. They correctly surmise that some, such as Yvette Clark, demonstrated cowardice by refusing to endorse the will of the people, while other, such as Nydia Velzaquez, took a stand early on the issue:

"Clarke seemed to favor the Bloomberg administration’s business-friendly approach to the clean-up, which would rely on companies to admit they polluted into the canal and, then, expect them to voluntarily pay for the clean-up. This, Bloomberg officials said, would avoid a “Superfund” stigma that might deflect new business development and economic activity around the Gowanus Canal.

“I am glad a decision has been reached on this issue,” said Clarke, as the EPA made their Superfund announcement.

Velazquez, on the other hand, striking a victorious tone, said, “The EPA has the proven expertise to oversee a comprehensive clean-up, while holding accountable those responsible for the pollution.”"

Thanks, Nydia.

The Progressive New York Post is at it again!

More anti-Superfund rhetoric from the New York Post:

"Who would, considering what’s to come? Despite its men-in-tights name, Superfund is no comic-book hero. Not only is the label a skull and crossbones that scares away businesses and homeowners, it’s also an open invitation to a neverending litigation party.

So broad is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, law of 1980 that created Superfund, in the wake of hysteria about industrial toxins at the Love Canal in Niagara Falls, that anyone who ever had anything to do with polluting the site is liable for the entire cost of cleanup. Even if you legally disposed of your waste, if it ends up in the site, you’re on the hook — forever.

The city of New York is among those entities that could find itself getting sued by feds. It’s already been blamed as one of nine parties behind the pollution by the EPA. (The state requested the Superfund designation.) Is government suing government really what we want?"

Give. It. Up.

Sane Opinion: Superfunding the Gowanus

The New York Times professed an opinion

"The E.P.A. estimates that the cleanup will cost $300 million to $500 million and take 10 to 12 years. The city claimed that it could do the job in nine years and at a lower cost, but its financing was never guaranteed. It planned to ask for voluntary contributions from polluters. If these were not forthcoming, it would be forced to rely on federal allocations that, in turn, would depend on annual (and uncertain) Congressional appropriations.

Under the Superfund designation, the E.P.A. can compel polluters to pay. The agency has so far identified nine parties — New York City, the Navy, Consolidated Edison and six other private companies — as responsible for past discharges. It also is investigating the role of 20 other companies that may have polluted the Gowanus or bought companies that dumped toxic wastes in the water years ago.

The city feared that the word Superfund would scare away developers. But as Judith Enck, the E.P.A.’s regional administrator, correctly suggested, developers are far more likely to be frightened away by a smelly, filthy and unhealthy waterway. The point here is the cleanup, not the label."

Another Superfund opinion from the New York Post

The New York Post published an opinion piece, which reads as if it were written by some combination of Ronald Reagan, John Wayne and Toll Brothers.

"Already, developer Toll Bros. has announced that it’s pulling the plug on its plan to build 450 units of housing along the canal, citing its inability to find financing and insurance at a Superfund site.

The weak economy may have had something to do with that, too, but the EPA ruling was surely a nail in the coffin.

That’s entirely understandable: While the agency says the project will take only 10 to 12 years, it first intends to sue everyone it thinks helped cause the pollution — potentially causing years of delays.

Moreover, who knows what kind of virgin-wetlands standard it’ll demand before declaring the canal “clean”?"

Of course, there are developments which will proceed as planned, despite the Superfund designation. Wonder why that wasn't mentioned?

You stay classy, Post.

Superfund Designation Still Eyed Warily by Some

The hits just keep on coming. From the Brooklyn Eagle:

"Dolly Williams, a former member of the City Planning Commission, told an overflow crowd at a public meeting last week that a potential deal fell through because of the stigma associated with the designation, which will trigger a $500 million federally overseen cleanup of the polluted canal.

“I just lost the sale. It’s because of Superfund,” said Williams, co-founder of A. Williams Construction, a general contracting firm based on Third Avenue.

She said the prospective buyer of a property on Ninth Street read about the designation, and was suddenly “no longer interested.”

Williams said a depressed real market has people already adopting a “wait and see” attitude. But the designation is going to make buyers even more cautious, she warned, making it difficult for people like Williams who, she said, “work and create [to] jump start the economy.”"

As my old boss would have said "too bad, so sad". Our economic problems are a little deeper than the Gowanus.

New York City (and others!) Still Pissy about Superfund Designation

Wow. The City doesn't seem to know how to quit. While this trait probably served those in the Bloomberg administration well in private enterprise, it is a little embarrassing coming from the Mayor Office. In a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, NYC Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Cas Holloway, it certainly sounds as if there is some spilled milk being cried over:

"We are as committed to that goal now as when we submitted our comprehensive plan last July, and we’ll work with the Environmental Protection Agency within the Superfund process to achieve it.

The E.P.A.’s timeline is now three years longer than what the city proposed, and the agency has acknowledged that our cleanup plan was as comprehensive as Superfund.

Our plan did not “rely on federal allocations,” but proposed the possibility of Congressional appropriations that we thought would incentivize responsible polluters to work with us voluntarily. We were right: one of the largest polluters committed to our plan without the need for a Superfund listing."

Following that, we hear from Bill Appell:

"The city committed to work with the Army Corps of Engineers to clean the canal to the E.P.A.’s own standards, but the city’s approach would have accomplished more than just remediation of the waterway.

The Superfund designation does not address the primary source of pollution in the Gowanus Canal: combined sewer overflows, which occur when storm sewers overflow during heavy rainfalls and combine with the sanitary sewers, pouring 300 million gallons of raw sewage into the canal every year."

Superfund Happening!

From the New York Times:

"The federal Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday that it was designating the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn a contaminated Superfund site, paving the way for a cleanup of decades-old pollution there. 

The decision comes as a blow to the Bloomberg administration, which had proposed a cleanup that would avoid such a designation. The city argued that the federal designation could set off legal battles with polluters, defer completion of the cleanup and torpedo construction by developers deterred by the stigma of a Superfund label. 

The E.P.A., which first proposed that the canal be designated a Superfund site last April at the urging of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, made its decision after reviewing comments from the public, city officials and others."

"Clean Gowanus Now!" vs the EPA

We've seen why the group "Clean Gowanus Now!" may not be exactly what they claim to be in their press release. Now, courtesy of Courier Life, we've got some quotes from group members, to go up against word that a Superfund designation may come tomorrow morning or Thursday at the latest. Who will win?
-
"“The EPA has been spinning everything from day one,” said David Von Spreckelsen, a senior vice president at Toll Brothers, the national homebuilder planning a multi-million residential development along the banks of the canal, and a member of the coalition Clean Gowanus Now! “They are trying to hide the impact that this will have on the neighborhood, so I would tend not to believe them,” he said.""

VERSUS

"“If you asked me to put money on it, I think they will announce on Thursday,” said the person, who was not authorized to speak on behalf of the agency about the controversial designation, and requested anonymity.

But a decision may come even sooner than that.

The EPA will be making an announcement to reporters on Tuesday at 10 a.m., “related to the Gowanus Canal.” No additional information was provided by the agency, nor was an official confirmation provided."
-
“It is astonishing that the EPA has either not read, or does not understand the new FHA regulations, which plainly and clearly state that there is a new, much higher standard and risk evaluation for making loans at Superfund sites,” said Ethan Geto, a spokesperson for the coalition."

VERSUS

"While the employee received no official word about the designation — which has been vehemently opposed by the mayor, along with developers and landowners who say it will stifle development along the polluted waterway for decades — the person said that signs are pointing to an imminent declaration.

“In my heart of hearts, I think it will happen this week,” the EPA employee said."
-
“HUD’s approval process does require lenders consider a wide variety of environmental conditions, only one of which is proximity to a Superfund site,” she said. But in fact, several of these listed environmental conditions already exist for development locations near the Gowanus Canal, even in the absence of a Superfund designation."

VERSUS

"The EPA typically designates Superfund sites in March and September, and EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck recently said that a decision would come early this month.

Superfund sites compel entities responsible for polluting a site to pay for its clean-up. The agency has said that the cleaning the canal, once a vital cog in the Industrial Revolution, would span 10-12 years."
-
I guess we'll have to wait until the official announcement is made. But it sure looks like that was a short lived opposition!

"Clean Gowanus Now": An Oxymoron

A group calling itself "Clean Gowanus Now" has apparently formed, with the intention of opposing the proposed Superfund Designation of the Gowanus Canal. They put out a press release which hit the wires last night, which is filled with all types of goodies, misstatements and lies. Lets break it down:

"The Clean Gowanus Now! Coalition has discovered that new federal regulations will block the construction, and possibly the renovation, of thousands of homes within 3,000 feet of Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal if the Canal is designated a “Superfund” site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

Wrong. There are no "new" federal regulations relevant to Superfund, and nothing IN the Superfund program will block construction, renovation, lending or anything.

"The survey refutes recent statements by EPA representatives that Superfund designation won’t impact lending to homeowners in the area."

Again, lending is not stopped by Superfund designation, only FHA-backed loans in the immediate area. Notice how the press release does not mention anything about number of FHA-backed (condo) loans in the study area? I wonder why...

"These lenders have financed projects that require a significant amount of environmental remediation in industrial neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Long Island City, but they uniformly responded that it would be nearly impossible to secure financing for a development project adjacent to the Gowanus if it is designated a Superfund site."

So, what this says is that if you want condos (whose lower purchase prices generally make them more eligible for FHA-backed loans) like we've seen go up in Long Island City and Williamsburg on the shores of the Gowanus, you should oppose Superfund designation. Hmmmm....

"The coalition’s members include the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce; the Partnership for New York City; the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation; the Business Council of New York State; Africa-Israel, U.S.A.; Bayside Fuel Oil Depot Corporation; Brooklyn Bridge Realty, Ltd.; Friedknit Creations; Foro Marble, Inc.; The Jewish Press; Jobco, Inc.; L&M Development Partners; Magnifico Enterprises; Monadnock Construction, Inc.; Nevins Canal Corporation/Nevins Street Realty; Regal Home Collections; The Ribellino Family; Debbie & Buddy Scotto; Selectively Evolving Environments, Inc.; the Tinneny Family; Toll Brothers, Inc.; and Union Place, Inc."

So, the coalition is made up of those who stand to financially benefit from not having Superfund designation in place, and others influenced by the Mayors office? Again, shocked!

"Importantly, backing away from the impending Superfund designation and allowing the City to proceed with its alternative plan bears zero risk from an environmental perspective." 

Except of course for delaying the eventual (thorough EPA) clean up process.

"Toll Brothers, which has spent millions to go through ULURP and design their residential project..."

And this matters why?

"Further, the EPA/Superfund scope of work does not tackle the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that today are the number one source of pollution of the Gowanus Canal. The EPA has stated that their cleanup of the Gowanus will consist of dredging sediments at the bottom of the Canal, but at 300 million gallons of raw sewage annually (NYC DEP's statistic), CSOs are the main current contributor to pollution in the Canal (and the pollution that is most visible, smelly and disturbing to area residents). CSOs will be alleviated only through the City’s planned infrastructure upgrades..."

Wrong. Are they actually arguing that FHA-backed mortgages are needed for the City to implement their planned infrastructure upgrades? Is the City's credit that bad?

"In contrast, the City already has obtained a commitment from National Grid, a likely Superfund target, to work with the City to fully fund Phase I of the cleanup, which is estimated to cost between $10 and $20 million. National Grid has indicated that it is prepared – under a City-led effort – to voluntarily put up tens of millions more as its share of the cleanup."

If I were National Grid, I would be throwing money at the City as well! Anything would be better than paying for the actual pollution cause by their site, which is what the Feds would do.

Conclusion:

Not a strong showing by the Superfund opposition. I doubt that anyone has said that the EPA's Super Fun Superfund program is perfect, but the City's plan is half-baked at best, and at worst, done solely so that condo builders can build more condos. The fact that their argument boils down to "if we don't do a good enough job, they can just Superfund anyway" only makes their opposition all the more laughable.

You're probably here from Curbed.

Carroll Gardens Own Activist

The Observer has a nice profile on Carroll Gardens' own Linda Mariano. Although the characterization as a later-day Jane Jacobs is certainly lacking, the article does provide a sample of Ms. Mariano's efforts to promote Superfund Designation of the Gowanus Canal.

"With her husband, Joseph, Ms. Mariano has for 36 years been living in a brownstone on President Street, between Bond and Hoyt, an area she considers to be in Gowanus, the nascent neighborhood between Carroll Gardens and Park Slope. Both artists and retired teachers, the couple moved to the area from the West Village in 1974, well before this part of Brooklyn was hip (or particularly safe). Over the years they have built up their formerly dilapidated building into a do-it-yourself artists' dream home. Upstairs rooms are jam-packed with paint, canvases and quilting materials, while the lower area, centered around a cozy kitchen, is a utilitarian gallery of colorful recycled materials and found objects, from doors to floor tiles.

Ms. Mariano has a special passion for industrial architecture and historic buildings—after three decades in the neighborhood, she senses the character and appeal that the warehouses bring and the creative, artistic types that such spaces attract—a recipe for the conditions that eventually lead to New York's ubiquitous neighborhood gentrification.  The unique character of a neighborhood like Gowanus has a particularly Jane Jacobs–y appeal: one where residential, light industrial and commercial spaces all interact to create a varied and diverse population (although now it's admittedly gentrified, not unlike Jacobs' own Greenwich Village).

"I'm a preservation person at heart," Ms. Mariano said, "and I believe in this phrase people are starting to use, 'adaptive re-use,' and this is about just that." She pauses reflectively, fingering the beads on one of the colorful Bakelite necklaces she often sports along with her handmade knitwear. "These buildings can be used rather than torn down.""

Also at PMFA and FIB, who also has the photo credit.

Argument Against Superfund Doesn't Hold Water: EPA

One of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, that people have argued against Superfund designation for the Gowanus Canal is that lending will be shut down, banks will not provide financing for development on Superfund sites and that no one wants to buy on Superfund land. Well, the EPA, the federal agency which oversees the Superfund program, doubts that this will be a problem. From Courier-Life:

"He pointed to a Department of Housing and Urban Development document that spells out what lenders “must avoid or mitigate” if a range of conditions exist, before completing their loan review. Among the conditions are “potential noise issues, where the property is located within 1,000 feet of a highway, freeway, or heavily traveled road, within 3000 feet of a railroad, or within one mile of an airport or five miles of a military airfield.” Tsiamis noted that the canal is already within 3,000 feet of a railroad and 1,000 feet from a highway.

Whether a site is on an Superfund list or equivalent state list, also makes the list, as does an assessment indicating the presence of if contaminants.

“All the other conditions that they list as possible things that lenders would have to avoid or determine if mitigants are in place — they are already there,” said Elizabeth Totman, an EPA spokesperson, noting that upland sites where residential buildings are contemplated are already home to contaminants. “The proximity of a Superfund site to a condo would not prevent a loan from being made.”"

So, basically, the EPA says the Gowanus is already so bad, it's akin to a Superfund site.

Another Super Fun Superfund Meeting

Another fun filled Thursday Night as the EPA came to the community to discuss it's ongoing progress and outline their community participation efforts. Found in Brooklyn has done a good job of summarizing the EPA's presentation, but failed to note one interesting tidbit. The EPA spokeswoman actually referenced those who engage in "subsistence fishing" along the Canal. There are no words for what this would actually entail...

Below are comments from Brad Lander and Stephen Levin, New York City Councilmen, on the designation of the Gowanus Canal as a Superfund site.

Congresswoman Yvette Clark Leaves Community Waiting, Wanting

Last night Conresswoman Yvette Clark (D-NY) held a community roundtable last night at Christ Church, courtesy of the Cobble Hill Association. After showing up half an hour late, the Congresswoman gave updates on topics ranging from joblessness to health care to housing. After a short discussion on health care, the discussion moved to the topic that everyone knew it would, Superfunding of the Gowanus Canal.

Congresswoman Clark explained her (non) position thusly: The Superfund process is slow, and the EPA currently does not have enough money to complete the process (this is debatable). The Mayor's plan (which itself lacks many details), will be faster and will include private sector money. She claimed that she is still waiting for details to emerge on both plans before endorsing either plan. See some of her comments in the video at the bottom.

The vast majority of those there endorsed Superfund designation and peppered the Congresswoman with questions about why she refused to endorse Superfund status. She kept on repeating that in fact, she had no endorsed EITHER plan. What she failed to realize was that in fact, by not endorsing the Superfund designation, she was implicitly endorsing the Mayor's Plan, or, at the very least, supporting those who oppose Superfund designation.

The rest of the night was spent with the Congresswoman attempting to straddle the fence on the issue, and with her parrying the citizen's concerns. While composed and cool under pressure, at a few points, she and her staff did break down and begin bantering with residents.

Congresswoman, the issue is simple. It will soon be a year since the issue has been raised. On one side of the issue are residents, your voting constituents. On the other side, people who stand to make loads and loads of money.

Who will you support?

More detailed writeup at Pardon Me For Asking, with additional video.

More Super Fun Superfund Meetings!

The EPA is back again, with more informational meetings on the Superfund process. Pardon Me For Asking is reporting that the EPA's meeting will be held on on Thursday, January 21, 2009, from 7-9 pm at PS 32.

Lets hope that they have some new information about where the Gowanus is in the Super Fun Superfund food chain.

For more Superfund information, check out the EPA's website for the Gowanus.