Monday, May 04, 2009
On BCAT's "Reporter Roundable": The Gowanus Canal Superfund
Host Brian Vines leads an interesting discussion on the Gowanus Canal and the EPA's proposed nomination of the canal as a Superfund Site on Brooklyn Independent Television's "Reporter Roundable."
Local Gowanus area residents and friend Lizzie Olesker does a great job representing her neighbors as one of the panelists. Also on the show, Joshua Verleun of Riverkeeper and Environmental Laywer Kevin Yudelson.
From "Reporter Roundable"
The EPA is considering the infamous Gowanus Canal Area for its special Superfund status. While this may help the environmental issues in the area, it will potentially take several hundred million dollars and over 30 years to complete. Host Brian Vines is joined by Gowanus resident Lizzie Olesker, environmental lawyer David Yudelson and Joshua Verleun with Riverkeeper to discuss the many angles of the Gowanus Canal controversy.
For Home Page, click Pardon Me For Asking
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
14 comments:
Kevin Yudelson is proof you can pay someone to say almost anything.
Go away bad little man!
Imagining that cleanup funds would be availble in 30 years is optomistic - it's more like 100 years!
The bottom line is the EPA "motto is ‘the polluter pays". In the case of Gowanus, that's you and me as fines paid by our gas company and by our City (the two most liable polluters) will be passed on to you and I in the form of utility bills and increased taxes or reduced City services. see:
Toxic Legacies Linger
Wow, Paul! Golly, you're right! We'll all be paying if we do the right thing and actually clean it up before trying to gip homeowners who are being expected to live on the Love Canal! Wait, let's do the numbers on how much health care costs for several thousand cases of cancer, organ difficulties, and birth defects. Not that any of that would happen, of course. Right Paul?
Sounds like Kevin Yudelson is a developer tool and his clients are those who litigate to avoid paying fines. I wonder how much it costs property owners to litigate.
I would like to know what this mysterious "other mechanism" is that he kept referring to.
Lizzie did a fantastic job and I loved it when Lizzie reminded everyone that the state and DEC requested the inclusion on the NPL.
Several thousand cases of cancer and birth defects? Are we still talking about the canal a few feet from my home? Families have been living near the Gowanus for centuries with none of the trauma you describe.
I understand the evil Toll Brothers developers want to build housing on Bond street? Have you been to Bond St?
http://www.hudsoninc.com/new_projects/third_bond.html
before you comment, visit the neighborhood!
Actually, 9:13, no health study has ever been done in the Gowanus area - so there is no way you can say with any certainty that people have not suffered ill health affects from living near the canal. We need a health study. The EPA would do that as part of Superfund.
Everyone seems to agree that the Canal should be cleaned up, including David Yudelson who apparently represents the Toll Brothers (did I miss the part where he said that?). So, where will the money come from? The Toll Bros are not offering to clean up the canal. Mr. Yudelson made that clear. Some money will be paid by the companies that contributed to the contamination, to the extent they are still solvent and can be found and made to pay (including through litigation if necessary). Some will no doubt have to come from the taxpayers. If the City does the cleanup, which is highly doubtful, it will have to use tax dollars of NYC residents. If EPA does the work, using Congressional appropriations, it is also relying on tax dollars, but the US taxpayers are a larger group. So if we actually want the cleanup to occur, we have to accept that some of this money will come from taxes, but the US has much greater access tax dollars. (And there is always the chance that Congress will reinstate the tax on industry that used to fund the Superfund.) Finally, if litigation is required, who do we trust to do that more effectively, EPA or New York City? IMO if the City is left in charge the Canal will never be cleaned up. It would be more of the same of what we've had thus far... nothing.
It seems that the objective is not who pays but that the objective is to remove the Superfund label so that property values remain high. Didn't the lawyer say that property owners will be more inclined to contribute money for clean up if it is wasn't a Superfund but would walk away because there property values would be substantially lowered? It is all smoke and mirrors and the opposition to the canal's designation as a Superfund wants to have its cake and eat it too. It sounds like they want the resources and tools of the EPA but not the Superfund status. This might also allow developers to get away with a less thorough clean up then if the EPA was breathing down their necks.
7:07am and others, please refrain from making false statements about our community.
Our City has made multiple presentations to the community board showing the (years?) of design work to upgrade the flushing pump / reduce CSO discharge, has created "sponge parks" at a few dead end streets fronting the canal and has appproved a plan by a developer to remediate property that will reduce canal contamination.
Air quality studies have been conducted and results DO NOT show any "hot spot" in CB6. To suggest that superfund designation is needed for another study is misleading.
By not being truthful, you add to the argument that the designation should be reconsidered due to so many people are being misled!
9:52 AM,
Presentations are one thing (and I have attended many of them over many years) but they mean nothing when there is no action. I have been hearing for five years that the flushing tunnel repair was imminent.
When were air quality studies conducted and who conducted them? What about toxins leeching onto neighboring properties? Has anyone studied that?
I fear that developers will adopt a band-aid approach to any remedial efforts and without regard to the health and safety of current residents especially when the clean up is not coordinated.
Suddenly there is a "better" way to clean Gowanus...there are alternative approaches according to David Yudelson. Where have these guys been??!
I have attended many public hearings on proposed development and NEVER has there been this much gravitas by the Mayor's office to clean up the canal. Honestly, I don't doubt the mayor's ability to do anything he sets his mind to, but I suspect the job will not be done at the standards which protect our families. Maybe before the EPA stepped in the local government had the mantle, but I'm afraid credibility has been lost.
10:47am,
The flushing tunner is working - it was repaired in 1999. NYC has plans for a major upgrade and that takes more than 5 years to approve - especially when NYS DEC is involved. Brooklyn Bridge Park took 7 years to receive a DEC construction permit.
I recall LICH had studied air quality in the 90s or 80s due to fear of cancer "hot spot" and results were inconclusive.
Please avoid incorrect use of the word "toxins" ie:capable of causing disease on contact.
There's a bit of contamination in the canal water and sediment but your risk of exposure is minimal unless you are one of the people canoeing or swimming the canal or you are involved in excavation like the construction crews on Bond St. over the past four years.
You are more likely to be exposed to contamination to lead in your community garden soil due to car and truck exhaust.
Finally, if you have little faith in our State's ability to govern brownfield remediation, it would be better to lobby the State to change the law than to expect the Feds to fo a better job. Our program is one of the most stringent in the country.
Keep in mind, NOT ONE of the recently constructed properties on Bond st. have had to submmit to such control and oversight, despite soil that is likely as contaminated as the Toll Brothers' property!
5:56,
My recollection is that the repairs to the flushing tunnel were supposed to begin in the fall of 2006 and would require shutting the flushing tunnel down for about 10 months. Now it will be 26 months.
to 5:56 The toxins in the canal ARE dangerous. At the risk of repeating myself, there has NEVER been a health study of the Gowanus Area. So you cannot conclude that we are safe here. We NEED a health study. You say "there's a bit of contamination in the canal water and sediment." That's minimizing the toxicity. Why not go on the EPA website and read some of the responses already submitted? There was one response near the bottom of page 2 that shared some personal experiences showing how Gowanus does pose real health risks. We need the EPA here. The state asked the EPA here because they realized they were not up to the task needed here - we need a comprehensive cleanup by the EPA. End of story.
Post a Comment