This site is a class project in which the students have been asked to assume either the role of a fictional or existing person, or the role of a representative of a company, organization or public office, in order to debate the designation of the Gowanus Canal as a Superfund site.
Although students are required to do research into their chosen role and to speak, to the best of their ability, from that role, claims made by these students should not be assumed to accurately represent those of the actual persons, companies, organizations or administrations they are portraying.
If you have questions about any of the real people, companies or organizations portrayed here, please contact them directly, or click on any of the links provided below under "Organizations."
The Lavender Lake
Brooklyn's Gowanus Canal is one of the most polluted urban waterways in the world. The cleanup of the canal and the revitalization of the area has been hampered and complicated by many issues. US EPA recently designated Gowanus Canal as a Superfund Site. There is ongoing debate as to whether this is the best way to solve this long standing environmental problem.
Well, it seems as though the “green” mayor of NYC has won a third term in office. Just a few weeks ago, he hyped his PlaNYC initiative to create even more green jobs in the workforce. This initiative would double the green-sector by creating 13,000 jobs by establishing Wall Street as the center of the international carbon permit trading market. While this sounds like a great idea from afar, if looked at closely it is actually quite the opposite. This plan hinges on the fact that congress would have to adopt a cap and trade system, which is designed to curb global warming. Officials estimate that such a plan would cost somewhere between $22-300 billion. This system is so artificial that not only does it have to be enacted by congress passing a large bill, but also adds billions of dollars of debt to the economy. This system does not add true wealth anywhere; it simply shuffles around existing resources. The only place the plan would benefit, would be on Wall Street. It seems possible that the mayor knows this much, for in the past he has denounced cap and trade programs as inefficient, costly, and open to corruption. Europe has such a program in place and it is abused by companies with political connections, while also causing increases in price. Looking at these facts it seems obvious that Michael Bloomberg doesn’t actually have the environment in mind, but is simply looking for another business endeavor he could partake in, even if it means putting the national economy in debt so NY’s private sector could make a little cash as a trading hub for a commodity other than stocks. It seems that the “green” mayor is not only ignoring the needs of the environment but also those of the free market. It appears as his plans are becoming more and more outrageous, as at least his Gowanus plan actually involves cleaning the canal before having it developed by various companies. It seems as though slapping the name of environmental protection on various projects, as a scam to make money is a common trend here. Although it seems as if in both cases it is possible there is one formula. If the city gets the Gowanus for cleanup and doesn’t do a good job, or at least the job that they are claiming they will do then these plans can be looked at as quite similar. If this is the case, then both will be environmental programs, which do very little for the environment, both would have its harmful negative effects (the economy and investors), both would have its positive effects on the private sector. I am not one who is claiming that Bloomberg is definitely going to botch the Gowanus cleanup, but I’m just saying the chance is there. So why take a chance when we could have a guaranteed clean Gowanus? We all know where Bloomberg’s heart lies, so there would be no surprise if such a thing occurred.
As a medical professional in the South Brooklyn area, I like many of you wonder what is lurking in the Gowanus Canal. Maybe for a moment we could fancy the idea of good coexisting with all the bad the the Gowanus brings.
Biology Professors Nasreen and Niloufar Haque (as mentioned in a previous blog) of the New York City College of Technology claim to have isolated antibiotics or inhibitors living in the Gowanus canal. The potential to these findings is extraordinary. While there is no doubt that cancer causing agents can be found in the canal, we must say to ourselves, “If there are microbes that are not dying due to cancer causing agents, there must be something in them to keep them alive.” Microorganisms that can fight off bacteria and cancerous cells can be harvested to protect people from the same agents.
Imagine the potentials:
- 5 Million people with Alzheimer’s could have more time with their loved ones
- 555,500 people may not have to die from cancer each year.
-Heart Disease may not need be the leading cause of death of men and women in the United States.
Through the EPA, the Superfund can rid South Brooklyn of cancer causing agents and comprehensively find out what kept certain organisms alive and not others. The sooner we allow the EPA to do its job, the sooner we can improve the quality of life in South Brooklyn.
According to the Haque sisters, “Under normal circumstances, the bio-organisms in the canal probably pose minimal danger to people living nearby. But young children whose immune systems have not yet fully developed and older people whose systems tend to diminish with age might be at higher risk.” So I say to those who are worries about their children, parents, and grandparents potentially inhaling fumes form construction of the EPA’s work, you are in more danger waiting another decade for the city to do anything at all.
The Gowanus Canal. Three short words that mean so much to so many people. Whether you’re a resident of Gowanus, member of Toll Bros. Inc., or even a student in Brooklyn College’s CHC4, you have a stake and interest in the Gowanus Canal. Why is one small body of water capturing the interest of such diverse and distinguished populations? Throughout history we’ve seen that water is the factor that brings us together with our world. We drink water, we breathe water molecules, in fact, we ARE water. The Gowanus is practically our family. People take trips to see the Gowanus Canal. In fact, recently, when I went on a class trip to the Gowanus area, I observed a mother and her son ride their bikes to the bridge, and stand there, looking out at the Gowanus, before walking their bikes off the walkway. It’s endearing to note how people seem to like the canal (and to tell you the truth, it didn’t look all that dirty to me at the time I was there). But you know what? The canal is hazardous, there are wastes there that shouldn’t be found anywhere near human habitation. Before I went, a friend of mine actually suggested that I bring hazard signs to hang up in the event that there are none when I get there. I didn’t do that, of course, but I still think that people should be warned as they take their liesurely strolls over the Gowanus’ banks. Did you know that there are people who don’t even know what the Gowanus Canal is? The Friday before my trip, I spent 20 minutes describing the Gowanus Canal and our class project to a friend of mine, who was shocked that she had never heard of this canal; a canal which is of such importance to so many people throughout the spectrum of personalities living in Brooklyn.
I think that no matter what conclusion our class comes to in the end (or if we reach no conclusion at all), maybe this project is doing a very good thing by virtue of the fact that it’s getting the word out. We’re letting people know that there is a problem and it HAS to be dealt with.
As that same friend texted me after I returned from the canal, (I paraphrase here,) ‘ I told my friend about your trip and now he might do a project on it. You’re changing the world one person at a time. ‘
And you know what, I think she may be right. If nothing else, through this project, we are certainly telling people about the canal and the issues surrounding it!
I hope that through this project, all our readers are motivated to do their part, get involved, (… and, in this humble blogger’s view… vote for the Superfund!)
The past week has been dreary to say the least; there were a couple of days during which the rain fell ceaselessly and I was holed up in my home regretting the fact that I had not gone food shopping for over two weeks. Luckily, the skies cleared up yesterday and as soon as I woke up, I walked over to the market. But of course, I needed to cross the bridge overlooking the Gowanus Canal along the way. Immediately, my hunger went away. The Canal looked worse than I have ever seen it. Not only was the water’s hue darker than usual, and the stench of gasoline a bit stronger, but there was also a lot of garbage floating in it! These “floatable” materials included everything from coffee cups and pieces of cardboard to water bottles and a piece of bread!
Floatables
I instantly thought of something that Dr. John Muir, the Vice-Chairman of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy, had mentioned during a walking tour of the Gowanus area. According to Dr. Muir, the current number one priority regarding the Gowanus matter is the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) problem. Bascially, CSO is a term that describes the combination of the water from the street and the raw sewage from residential homes flowing into the Canal after heavy rain periods because there is an overflow in the drains. After the tour, I also learned that research done on CSO discharges showed that they harbored greater pollutant concentrations than regular runoff, which contributes a great deal to the contamination in the Gowanus Canal. It makes sense in that in an urban setting, the population is greater, and hence, the Annual Wet-Weather Discharge is also augmented. (i.e. 473MG compared to 143MG). Indeed, samples of CSO discharges have been examined in a study that can be viewed on the EPA website. The article entitled “Human Health Impacts of CSOs and SSOs” discusses the significantly high number of bacteria, viruses, and parasites in the mixture of untreated sewage and rainwater that are health hazards. Further examination of the Gowanus shows that there is almost zero hourly dissolved oxygen the closer one gets to the head of the Canal. I may not be an expert on environmental rules and regulations, but it is pretty obvious that the mayor, in his two terms of office, has neglected to obey the Clean Water Act, which is a federal law that concerns the control of pollutants in the sources of water throughout the country.
So what can be done to alleviate the CSO dilemma? The city, on one hand, is aware of the situation and has done nothing for decades. It is hypocritical of Mayor Bloomberg to encourage a greener city and promote a cleaner environment when one of his city’s waterways has remained a dump site for years. It is a fact, however, that the EPA has the resources to fix the contaminating effects of CSOs. The EPA actually has provided funding in conjunction with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program in the past to cities in the Mid-Atlantic region. These loans were a great help in facilitating repairs and construction done on sewage treatment facilities located in the areas that needed help. Once again, it seems that the EPA has come to the rescue and has experience in this field of work.
I have also attended a community meeting with other residents in which Walter Mugdan, the EPA director in charge of the Gowanus project, and city representatives were present to discuss the plans of both sides. I found it an extremely educational experience and it brought to my attention that the city’s strategy to clean up the canal is nowhere near as efficient as that of the EPA. Mugdan reasonably argued that the city’s approach was overly complicated and even confusing as seen from the flow chart that the city presented to the audience.
The opposition to the EPA is also claiming that it will do a more “comprehensive” cleanup that the EPA would. While the city intends to dredge the sediments and also clean up the land surrounding the Canal, Mugdan brought up the point that these wastes need to be brought to a special facility in which it is discarded and monitored. These chemical processes prove to be expensive and quite complex, meaning that this task may stretch beyond the scope or ability of the city to handle. Therefore, I believe that the EPA has all the necessary tools to right the city’s years of wrongs, and do a good enough job to remove what may have been someone’s dinner in the form of human waste floating in the Canal!
Sources:
“Alternative Cleanup Plan for the Gowanus Canal.” 26 05 2009. The City of New York, Web. 17 Nov 2009. <http://cleangowanusnow.org/NYC_Alternative_Plan.pdf>.
“The Battle for the Gowanus Canal – Superfund Cleanup vs. the City Plan.” Youtube. Web. 17 Nov 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZc96eE_GWg>.
“Combined Sewer Overflows .” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19 10 2009. Web. 17 Nov 2009. <http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/index.htm>.
“NYC CSO Delays Prove Costly But Green.” Green Brooklyn. 03 07 2008. Web. 17 Nov 2009. <http://greenbrooklyn.com/nyc-cso-delays-prove-costly-but-green/2008/07/03/>.
“The City of New York Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction .” August 2008. The City of New York, Web. 17 Nov 2009. <http://www.hydroqual.com/temp/gowanus.pdf>.
Hello fellow environmentally conscious American bloggers! As President, I have many issues to attend to and many promises to keep, and I assure you, my administration is committed to carrying out all the points my environmental platform. However, I cannot say the same for the so-called “green” mayor of New York City, who has just won his third term, Bloomberg. Yes, he has taken many environmentally friendly initiatives, but unfortunately, as many such as Josh Verleun, attorney for Riverkeeper (an environmental watchdog group), have noted “But a lot of the [environmental] things that are in the works are still in the works. And when it’s on the ground and you see actually what is being done, a lot of it is focused on supporting developers.” It’s true, Bloomberg has planted some trees, called for miles of bike lanes, but he has yet to deliver on his bigger projects, and he has a track record of being suspiciously entangled with developers. In fact, Bloomberg did not come up with a plan for the Gowanus until after the EPA proposed to add it to the Superfund, though because of the $500 million at stake in development in the area he quickly opposed it, only to release his own plan months later. Perhaps the greatest indication of the mayor’s real motives is a look at the Newtown Creek in Greenpoint, which is also up for Superfund designation. In contrast to the Gowanus, this announcement received no opposition from the major, in fact it was encouraged- there are also no current or future potential for development in this area. Coincidence?
Newtown Creek is located in Northern Brooklyn, and has a history of industrial traffic and a pool for sewage waste, similar to the Gowanus; as a result, today it is heavily contaminated with toxics such as pesticides, metals, PCBs, and volatile organic compounds. The EPA has almost literally taken the exact same steps to procedures with Newtown Creek as with the Gowanus, and has proposed a timescale just as long as Gowanus, maybe even longer, but in this case, received virtually no opposition. How is this situation so different from the Gowanus? Why does Bloomberg so stubbornly oppose the Gowanus, but has little to say about Newtown? The answer is simple. The Gowanus community presents and is already entangled in development and business growth, meanwhile the Newtown Creek area presents none. So I ask, Mr. “Green” mayor of New York, what are your true motivations?
Though first and foremost an environmentally issue, the clean up of the Gowanus canal will have rippling consequences for the community as a whole. Historically surrounded by the richer, higher regions of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens, the Gowanus neighborhood has been home to the lower classes, and financially less advantaged. Today, it is a hot spot for lower-middle class families who cannot afford the higher prices of the communities around them. So, almost by necessity, these hard-working, middle class Americas are forced to be subjected to the dangerous toxins of the Gowanus simply because they cannot afford not to. Is its your America? Does that sound like equal opportunity? Once again, the middle-class is being stepped on and controlled by the small, rich minority- and I will not stand for this any longer. What more, the new development ideas that city has for the neighborhood, isn’t planning to help these average, everyday Americans. The development plans include Condos – fairly expensive ones- probably not affordable to most people who currently live in the neighborhood. So, who is this vast and expensive development along the Gowanus that the millionaire mayor backs so strongly going to help in the end? Not the average, hardworking, middle-class Americans- once again, those with the money are going to benefit. Millionaire mayor Bloomberg and his developers have no right to decide where you can live. Superfund is better for the environment, it is a way for the middle class to fight back and take control, it is a venue for change, it is an opportunity for the middle class to win back quality of life, it is the American solution. A victory for Superfund is not only a win for the environment, but it will be the triumph of the American people over the small, powerful, elite minority.
This week, I decided to look at some more Gowanus-based or –focused or organizations and provide a brief overview of what they do, which side of the Superfund controversy they’re on, and why. Most of these have representatives on this website, but it’s always helpful to hear it from a second view.
US Army Corps of Engineers: This one’s confusing. They’ve been working on the Canal for a long time, doing research on areas in the Gowanus to “assess the environmental problems and potential solutions to restore the ecological health of the Gowanus Canal to aid and complement other activities to revitalize the area.” So they seem fairly neutral on their website. Although they’ve been working with the city until now, the EPA also uses the USACE to do the cleanup. So really, the USACE is just a tool, and has no position. They will work with whoever takes responsibility to the Canal.
Brooklyn Community Board Six: CB6 is an appointed board of up to 50 representatives for the district including Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Columbia Street District, Gowanus, Park Slope, and Red Hook. Their role in government is to advise public officials and agencies on issues that affect the social welfare of the district. At the token “Superfund vs The City” CB6 meeting in May, both sides were represented, but chairman of CB6’s Environmental Protection Committee, Bob Zuckerman, has been quoted as saying that he believes that a Superfund designation “will result in a more comprehensive and coordinated cleanup of the canal.” Although a large committee like CB6 certainly contains many opposing viewpoints, I’m going to look at their representative’s opinion and say that they’re pro-Superfund.
Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation: The GCCDC is an organization that has been dedicated to the revitalization of the Canal for the past 29 years. They’ve accomplished a lot, notably the reactivation of the Flushing Tunnel, and the subsequent elimination of much of the Gowanus odor. Just like many other organizations, the GCCDC has no specific position, but I looked to its leader for his stance. Founder Buddy Scotto is a supporter of Toll Brothers and opposes the Superfund, claiming that it would delay development near the Gowanus. Since the chairperson of the GCCDC has not been quoted saying otherwise, it’s safe to assume that the GCCDC is anti-Superfund.
Gowanus Canal Conservancy: The GCC is made up of former members of the Environmental Committee of the GCCDC. They too are focused on the revitalizing the Canal, but solely from an environmental perspective. Their position is that both plans are flawed- the Superfund may take too long and do too little, and the City’s plans for funding are unrealistic and the overall plans are unreliable. The GCC therefore is not a proponent to either plan, and in fact is more focused on their “Sponge Park” idea.
The City: The City here refers to Mayor Bloomberg and his office and, of course, supports the City’s plans for revitalization. They claim that the Superfund designation will interfere with current actions planned or underway by the USACE and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection to restore the Gowanus. In addition, the Superfund listing could interfere with development plans near the Canal. So the City is opposed to Superfund.
I’ve also mentioned in my earlier blogs the Urban Divers and Friends and Residents of the Greater Gowanus, both of whom support the EPA’s plans, and Toll Brothers and The Hudson Company, both of whom oppose the Superfund designation. A common trend is seen- those focused on the environment are primarily pro-Superfund, and those focused on the development plans are anti-Superfund. Seems like a debate like this, where there are benefits and disadvantages to both sides may go on forever. But in the end, as my last blog mentioned, we’re afraid that the decision will come down to those with the money and power…and unfortunately, that will mean the City and not the non-profit organizations devoted to the Gowanus cleanup.
PS: The Court Street Merchants Association, interestingly enough, has sent a letter opposed to the designation, saying that the EPA and USACE will still be involved in the City’s plans and the EPA can designate the site at any time if the City proves to be a disappointment. Of course, that might mean wasting a decade on a worthless plan and pushing off the Superfund even more. Hey, maybe our grandchildren can enjoy the Canal!
Hello everyone! For any new readers, welcome to the site! I’m Bob Zuckerman, Chairman of Community Board 6’s Environmental Protection Committee. Last week, I provided some information about the community of the Gowanus region. This week, in light of talks with Ludger Balan of the Urban Divers Estuary Conservancy and the Vice Chairman of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy Dr. John Muir, I would like to discuss some concerns I have about the land surrounding the Gowanus Canal, also called the watershed.
The following is based on information from the Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan Report regarding the Gowanus Canal. The report comes from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction and is dated August 2008.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which is a “New York State agency that conserves, improves, and protects New York State’s natural resources and environment, and controls water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state and their overall economic and social well being,” and the Site Spill Identifier List (SPIL) databases indicate some very concerning statistics regarding the area within a one-block radius of the Gowanus Canal (page 367).
NYSDEC Open Spills Through 2005
The NYSDEC and SPIL state that 131 spills have occurred during the past 15 years alone (page 78). Of these 131 spills, 10 remain open as of August 2005. The largest of these 10 open spills occurred on February 24, 1998. This spill, also known as NYSDEC Spill No. 9713116, occurred at the Bayside Fuel Company, which was located at 537 Bond Street. It resulted in the release of 200 gallons of No. 4 fuel oil that affected the soil.
You may be wondering, what is No. 4 fuel oil? What impact can No. 4 fuel oil have on people? How might this effect people in the Gowanus area? The integrated oil and gasoline company, Hess defines No. 4 fuel oil as “ a complex combination of heavy (high boiling point) petroleum hydrocarbons.” Furthermore, Hess states that it “is a blend of distillate (such as No. 2 Fuel Oil) and residual fuel oil (such as No. 6 Fuel Oil).”
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, “most people can withstand short exposures to fuel oil vapors without any problems. However, breathing fuel oil vapors overtime can affect a person’s ability to smell and taste. High levels can cause headaches, nausea, light-headedness, poor coordination, increased blood pressure and difficulty concentrating.” Because the 200 gallons of No. 4 fuel oil have contaminated the soil, the fuel oil vapors may be negatively impacting residents’ health and general well being. In addition to these potentially harmful vapors, the fuel oil could also be flowing into the Gowanus Canal because of the instances when untreated runoff enters the canal after any rainfall.
Unfortunately, as the Gowanus Canal Conservancy asserts in its Statement on Pending National Priorities Listing for the Gowanus Canal dated July 28, 2009, both the city and federal plans “fail to effectively address the Gowanus upland — the many streets behind the bulkhead. Attention needs to be given now to integrating effective planning and allocating additional funding for remediation of the contaminated soils in former industrial Brownfield.” As the former Chairman of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy, I agree with this and fully support the proposal of building a Sponge Park. As previously mentioned, the Sponge Park would slow, absorb, and filter surface water runoff. Hopefully, this could reduce the contamination of the canal caused by some of the chemicals from spills like the NYSDEC Spill No. 9713116 and I feel that plan can only be carried out if the Gowanus Canal is designated a Superfund site.
Existing Physical Characteristics of Gowanus Canal Shorelines
Sources:
Waterbody/Watershed Facility Plan Report regarding the Gowanus Canal:
http://www.hydroqual.com/temp/gowanus.pdf
Hess’ Material Safety Data Sheet on No. 4 Fuel Oil:
First and foremost, I would like to thank all the residents of New York City for your support in the election. I hope to continue to work together with you in improving all aspects of our city, particularly NYC’s many environmental issues.
The Gowanus Canal has been under discussion for much time now, as we debate over who will be the one to acquire the task of dealing with this enormous environmental problem.
Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Ludger Balan. After explaining the basic history of the canal, Mr. Balan gave a detailed presentation on the dangers the canal presents. He explained how the pollution is not only in the canal itself, rather is in the air, as well as in the fish, which eventually become our food, causing harmful substances to actually enter our bodies. Mr. Balan then attempted to explain why Superfund is a better option than the city, however his arguments were weak with much room for disagreement and debate. Mr. Balan’s presentation only proved to confirm my belief that the city is more qualified to improve and develop the state of the Gowanus Canal.
The EPA’s plan is incomplete; it will not get the job done as the city will. Yes, the Superfund may be set aside specifically to deal with sites such as this, but to believe that the Gowanus Canal will be the main focus of the EPA is at best, naïve, at worst, simply foolish.
The city plans not only to cleanse the canal and walk away, rather to develop and rezone the area with affordable real estate in order to upgrade the neighborhood without any stigma. The city gives a future to the canal, with affordable housing, businesses, and investors. Developers who invest millions of dollars into the area will not merely walk away after; rather they will see the project to its completion.
The EPA’s plan, on the other hand, does not even address the root of the problem. In essence, they will be the ones to just walk away after barely even starting! Anything they accomplish will be reversed, as they do not plan to prevent the problem from reoccurring.
The city’s plan is the only plan that covers all grounds and attempts to please everyone, residents and businesses alike. If you care about your city and it’s environment, then support the city’s plan. We are the only plan that offers a future for the Gowanus. It’s your city – together we can change it for the better.
Sources:
Ludger K. Balan. 4 Nov 2009. CHC 3, Brooklyn College.
Last week, I attended a speech at Brooklyn College made by an Urban Diver. I didn’t catch his name, though I later discovered that it was Ludger Balan, but I did notice a “Superfund the Gowanus!” button on his shirt and guessed his stance, which he later confirmed.
I did some research into some of the topics he brought up during the class. The Urban Divers Estuary Conservancy (UDEC), firstly, calls itself a “center for environmental education, community stewardship, culture, and maritime. “Environmental education” includes workshops and field trips, which it seems are mostly directed towards children. “Community stewardship” here, I believe, means environmental stewardship, which is a focus on managing environmental resources through organizations and communities to help protect and clean the environment. UDEC has several such projects, from an Earth Day Spring Clean-Up to scientific diving and habitat restoration. Our visitor described scientific diving and what they’ve found underneath the surface of the Gowanus. In the fifteen feet of water in the Canal, only in the first two feet is there dissolved oxygen. Below that live microbiotic compounds surviving in an anaerobic atmosphere. In other words, nothing aboveground that breathes can survive in most of the Canal!
Run-off into the Canal
Pollution. Pointless and shameless.
Balan discussed some of the environmental concerns surrounding the Gowanus Canal now. Since the climate is changing, flooding in the Gowanus Canal is a major concern. In the watershed area, which is full of factories and the like, rain washes fluids and garbage from the concrete parking lots, some of which are situated directly over the Canal, into the water. In addition, that green color of the canal? That’s from combined sewage overfill. Illegal dumping is also an issue. So how does all this affect us? Well, the fluids and garbage in the Canal go into the fish we eat. The air is polluted, too, and even the soil can be polluted, all the way to our houses when the water comes in through our basements. So clearly, the developers who are saying that we won’t be affected if it’s only in the water are mistaken.
The UDEC representative also showed us several lists (above) of the toxins the USACE found in the Canal during an analysis of the water, and I decided to look up a few to see if they’re really that harmful.
Styrene- can possibly cause cancer, in large amounts it can cause concentration problems, balance problems, changes in color vision and tiredness. Phenol- can cause respiratory irritation, headaches, burning eyes, skin burns, liver damage, irregular heartbeat and even death. Antimony- high levels for a long time irritates eyes and lungs, can cause heart and lung problems, stomach pain, vomiting, and stomach ulcers. Arsenic- breathing high levels can cause a sore throat or irritated lungs. Ingesting it can result in death. Lower levels of exposure can cause nausea, decreased production of blood cells, and damage to blood vessels. Cadmium- can cause cancer, breathing high levels can severely damage the lungs. Long-term exposure can lead to possible kidney disease, lung damage, and fragile bones.
…And this is what we’re living near!
The last major point that our visitor made was about us, the community. By law, we have control over what we want to do with our body of water. So I looked to see what the community appears to want. They don’t WANT the housing that the developers are trying to build, like the condos. These are impractical for their community’s costs and needs. So the developers are no reason to go with the city’s plans. The Superfund, however, is cost-effective, not spending our money, but the polluters’. They do guarantee results, and are efficient. Mr. Balan assured us that the EPA’s gotten much better of late. (But that’s a topic for another day.) He encouraged us to fight for what we want and demand it, so that we can make a difference instead of just the people with money and power.
Over the past week, my fellow board members and I had the opportunity to attend not one, but two informative and thought-provoking events regarding the heated debated known as the Gowanus Canal cleanup. The first event was of the lecture origin, and was given by Mr. Ludger K. Balan, founder of the Urban Divers Estuary Conservancy. This non-profit organization focuses on educating community members in urban estuaries about the environmental issues of said areas, and aims to initiate active participation in restoring and protecting such places. In the lecture, Mr. Balan enthusiastically spoke about the canal, its many harmful toxins found in the sediments, and his pro-Superfund view regarding the cleanup. He basically believes that the city should not be involved, due to the fact that they have failed to fulfill their previous promises to cleanup the canal. Additionally though, he blatantly attacked developers, stating that once the projects have been completed, these businesses will walk away from the area without care as to what happens next. In other words, he believes that developers will come in, build, collect the profits, and then leave immediately; never to care about what happens to the community thereafter.
Being one of the major potential developers in the Gowanus area, we take such an attack to heart. While such a comment may be true for other companies around the world, we at Toll Brothers Inc. have other intentions in mind. Yes, as we stated multiple times, we are a business and we do plan on making a profit at the end of the day. But we do have another objective for the Gowanus Canal—the revitalization of the community. We plan on reviving the neighborhood by creating public access space, filled with pavilions, benches, educational and historical markers, and views of the waterfront. Additionally our mission statement says it all. We want to provide affordable, convenient, and luxury homes for consumers, and to develop communities for the better. For example, we have developed a whole new living experience known as the City Living Community, which basically provides for a dynamic community filled with entertainment, culture, and dining. In other words, we set out to not only build property, but to develop the area to benefit its members and their families. Also, what better way is there to revive an area than to allow more people to come and share what they have to offer, whether it be in the arts, the workforce, or the educational field. Therefore as you can see, we do care about what we are investing millions upon millions of dollars into, and we hope to rekindle the vibrancy of the Gowanus area.
The second event that we were fortunate enough to attend was a walking tour of the canal, led by Dr. John Muir, Vice-Chairman of the Gowanus Canal Conservancy. This non-profit institution’s mission is ”to be steward for the preservation, restoration and green development of the Gowanus Canal and its environs for the greater good of the community.” As part of the guided tour, Dr. Muir gave some insight upon the cleanup debate, and stated that the two major “hot topics” encompassed the water quality issues and the development dilemma. Regarding the former of the two topics, he believes that the main issue is the 300 million gallons of CSO, or Combined Sewage Overflow, that leaks into the canal due to the fact that the sewage plants cannot handle much liquid at a time, which certainly increases during heavy rain showers. In other words, the water quality is the main issue, with the toxic sediments problem coming in second place. With this in mind, think of the two cleanup plans available today. While the city plans to allocate $175 million towards water quality improvement and preventing sewage discharge, the EPA deems such issues to be in the state’s jurisdiction. What’s the point in cleaning the canal if the problem will simply resurface after certain weather conditions? It is true that dredging the sediment is a very important step in the cleanup process, but we must deal with the water as well. Thus, the EPA once again fails to fix the problem, while the city gets down to the source of the issue, by addressing both the sediment and water cleanups.
Additionally, the other heated topic deals with the developing plans for the area, namely that of residential and commercial purposes. As seen from the attached video, Dr. Muir speaks about the zoning problems that the area has, namely in terms of industrial versus residential uses. He states that if zoning policies are changed, developers will be able to destroy factories that are obsolete and worthless, and in place build high-rises that would bring forth a new population, namely a new generation. He seems to be for the “re-peopling” of the area, which implies that he supports the rezoning policies that the city wishes to put forth, which is dependent on the approval of its cleanup plan. In simplest terms, the city plans on rezoning 25 blocks of the area to commercial and residential land uses, as opposed to its current industrial and manufacturing status.
Being one of these developers, and due to the fact that our land is in the area proposed for rezoning, we are in essence in the heat of the battle. We at Toll Brothers fully approve of the development of the area, which would bring forth a new wave of people, a new generation, and thus, a new era that would mark the Gowanus as a newly developed community for the better. Not only would the city’s plan would fully bring this forward by avoiding the stigma that the EPA would cause, but they would also deal with the cleanup thoroughly, as the water, also known as the root of the problem, would be dealt with. Therefore we would like to end with these concepts in mind—revitalization and rebirth. What more could you ask for?
Sources:
City of New York DEP. Web. 9 Nov. 2009. <http://www.hydroqual.com/temp/gowanus.pdf>.
