Friday, June 27, 2014

Local Gowanus Community Very Frustrated with Councilman Brad Lander's "Bridging Gowanus"

Hello from CG CORD!

The local Gowanus community is very very frustrated with Councilman Brad Lander's "Bridging Gowanus" meetings.


The Brooklyn Paper, PMFA Blog and Brownstoner featured this story yesterday. (See Links below)

Calling the process: opaque, non-democratic, and non-responsive to the community, several community group leaders demanded more say in the conversation about the future of the Gowanus Canal area at "Meeting Member Three" held on Wednesday in Boerum Hill.

In addition, a community member mentioned that residents of Warren Street Houses have recently had to deal with raw sewage in their basement and and gurgling out of their kitchen and bathroom sinks and tubs.  For these very disturbing photos please see PMFA

A new:
"Take Back Gowanus Meeting" 
Democratic and Transparent
will be held
July 9, 2014
at 7 Pm
at the Green Building 
(452 Union Street at Bond Street)

ALL are Welcome!



Gowanus activists to pol: You’re not listening! • The Brooklyn Paper

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/37/27/dtg-gowanus-planning-occupy-2014-07-04-bk_37_27.html

Brownstoner Thursday Blog Wrap
http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2014/06/thursday-blogwrap-149/

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

CAG Meeting Summary and DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd's Visit



The Gowanus Canal Community Advisory Group (the CAG) met on Tuesday, June 24th at the St Mary Star of the Sea Residences.
 
There was a large turnout of CAG members, local elected officials, community residents and other interested parties there to greet and listen to the Department of Environmental Protection's relatively new (three month old) Commissioner, Emily Lloyd, address the community regarding the newest turn of events in the Gowanus Canal's Superfund saga.

A bit of backround, the Gowanus Canal, the very first Superfund site in New York City, and what has been called the most polluted waterway in the entire country (mostly because of its unique stew of sewage and toxic chemical compounds) is at a point in the Superfund timeline where the problems have been identified, a workable solution for cleanup and a plan to prevent re-contamination post cleanup has been achieved and the US Federal Government's Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) has issued what it a legal document to those responsible for the pollution (known as Responsible Parties) who are now fiscally responsible for the cleanup,to comply with those plans. LINK to ROD
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/gowanus/ri_docs/692106_gowanus_canal_rod_9_27_13_final.pdf

This legal document, called a Record of Decision (or a ROD, for short) was issued back in September of 2013.  Its recommendations were not kept secret from the the City or any of the parties-rather, there were numerous, ongoing discussions regarding the cleanup and what would be involved.

There are many responsible parties involved, but the chief party is the City of New York. Why?
Well, the sewer system is set up in such a way that the sanitary waste basically gets flushed and pursues its predetermined path to the appropriate water plant for treatment and "disposal". The "runoff" water ( i.e. rainfall, street hosing and the accumulated garbage, oil residues,etc) that run along the gutter and into the street sewers share some of that "pathway"--the result? No problem in dry weather--but during rain--and not even that much of it, the combined sewage and runoff overwhelm this old system and we, the residents living near the Canal, have what amounts to an open sewer running through the heart of our neighborhood. See the "Poo Poo Tsunami" http://www.doobybrain.com/2010/09/27/video-of-raw-sewage-spilling-into-the-gowanus-canal/

This combined sewer overflow system (known as CSO'S) is not unique to the Canal or Brooklyn. It was and is part of the antiquated infrastructure of this city, but in our case, this system presents not only a bacterial, disease laden disaster for our community, but a chemically dangerous one as well since the toxic compounds that are the chemical component of the Canal's disgusting stew are known to attach themselves to the solid waste that is, as we speak, just floating by like a taxi wiling to give a free ride.

EPA solution?  Install a system (retention tanks) where the sanitary (really, unsanitary) waste can be held back during rainfall so that the waste, the street runoff and rain do not wind up "combining" and overwhelming the existing sewer system.

Once the rain and its ensuing runoff has subsided. the waste can be released and head on its merry way to the appropriate treatment plant---no open sewer, no free ride for any chemical compounds that may have runoff into the system during the rain and a cleaner, healthier Canal and therefore, environment for us all.

The EPA has scouted out and suggested two city owned properties suitable for underground tank installation
One at the location known as the salt lot on Fifth Street and Second Avenue, the other, within the Thomas Greene Park---A good portion of this park is required to undergo a cleanup by the New York State Department of Conservation since it  is sitting on a former gas plant manufacturing site and oozes toxic chemical compounds into the canal as well as into the ground the Park sits upon.

The park and the pool which many area residents enjoy, will have its use interrupted by the cleanup--retention tank placement or not.
The EPA did not choose this site capriciously....it is city owned land which saves NYC's taxpayers from purchasing costs, acquisition fees, etc and time.

More importantly, it sits at the head or the top of the Canal---a position which would allow the underground tank to grab those solids and hold them at a point PRIOR TO them entering the canal where they have already, undoubtedly picked up some additional matter and PREVENT them from attracting and depositing any chemical compounds that may have seeped into the canal further down its course.

So, why is there a problem? The City of New York does not seem to want to do this --- even though they are now not only required to do so under the ROD, but also under a Unilateral Order issued by the EPA to the City. LINK to EPA Administrative Order

The  City, under this new Mayor, issued a reply, which basically, the way we see it says, we, THE CITY, don't agree with you. The retention tanks you are suggesting may not be necessary, They may even be, under the law, requiring us to clean up to a higher degree than we have to. We are not saying we won't do it but we reserve the right to keep objecting to it, the proposed locations and the whole suggestion right now. 

This brings us to Commissioner Lloyd's visit to the CAG.
Commissioner Emily Lloyd is a warm, charming lady with a sweet smile and an engaging, calm, earthy manner.
Basically, she said that the City "never said that we weren't going to do it"--in reference to the retention tanks. When questioned about the City's wording in their reply letter, she calmly said we shouldn't pay attention to that. These are letters from lawyer to lawyer--nothing more...HUH?

Commissioner Lloyd claimed that they, the City, were still seeking appropriate locations for the tanks and had hired a consulting firm (Brown & Caldwell) to scout out additional possible locales.

 Apparently, the consulting firm, paid for by, as Ms Lloyd put it, "rate-payers", NOT "tax payers" money ( aren't all rate payers, tax payers too??) --- found scores of sites, most of which were not owned by the city--and some of them nowhere near the head of the canal.

But, Comm Lloyd claims that once some potential locations are automatically dismissed (like schools, NYCHA properties, houses of worship and residences) it will narrow down the field considerably.
The City will get back to the EPA by the end of September with their "list".
We assume that the rate payers are also going to pay for the production of that "list" as well as all the other steps in between the scouting and the final product. Think about it-does it really take almost four months to weed out the schools, NYCHA properties, houses of worship and residences??

Do the rate payers get a say in any of this?
Ms Lloyd said  that  she believed that there were private landowners who would be willing and eager to have their property purchased by the city on this list.

As rate payers, we now officially object....why should we pay for land ( at least in the Greene Park instance--right at the source of the incoming solids) situated in a less ideal location than the one the city already owns?

Ms Lloyd herself said in regard to retention tank locale, "...as I understand it, more North is better than farther South."
Yes, we know that there is fear that the park and pool will be lost--if not permanently, then for an unacceptable period of time. Yes, we know that  there is consternation regarding the pool being situated on or close to the retention tank. We do not take this lightly.

NYC has the ability to provide temporary respite for the community and really has the moral obligation to provide a park and pool to the community that they can use and feel comfortable with--whether that means re-locating the pool to another area within the park or purchasing property to locate it adjacent to the park.  THAT is something we rate/tax payers would not mind having our money spent on. 

The City has known for decades that all the former gas plant sites were polluted--the EPA told them just how much---rectifying  THAT is something we rate/tax payers would not mind having our money spent on.  That could not possibly cost more than what they are doing right now and it benefits everyone.

Commissioner Lloyd pointed out that we rate payers have seen our water bills rise more than 100% over the last eleven years.....how could the DEP even consider not using what they already own to fix a problem which they allowed to continue? If they need to purchase a parcel adjacent to the Park for recreational use and new pool installation, so be it. But to waste time and money bickering over the inevitable is not just wasteful. It is irresponsible.

Now let's cut to a Daily News article that appeared online sometime after 4PM yesterday. LINK to NY Daily News Article
In that article Ms Lloyd talked about retention tanks "not being good neighbors".  Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
It is only an underground storage tank, not a treatment plant. And although it is true that there will be some kind of maintenance involved, it is hard to believe that it could be more inconvenient, disgusting or as unhealthy as what runs through our "neighbor", the Gowanus Canal, right now.

Also in that article, Comm Lloyd's boss, Mayor de Blasio basically said that
the city is "still seeking cleaner greener solutions to the problem."
What WE hear is more legal fees paid by us rate/tax payers, more wasted time and the open sewer still in operation---so the city can avoid obeying the law and preserve its right to keep objecting to the EPA's order.

Gee...almost sounds like a tale of two cities....doesn't it?
To be continued.......

Is New York City really serious about cleaning the Gowanus Canal? "Canal Clean-Up 101" for the City of New York



Hello from CG CORD!

Is the City of New York really serious about cleaning the Gowanus Canal?
Or is NYC committed to indefinite stalling and wrangling with the EPA at the taxpaper's and the water bill payer's expense?

We at CORD are very very concerned.

"Over decades, the City has never shown the will to clean the toxins at the bottom of the canal which cause  real environmental hazards, nor has it ever addressed the Combined Sewer Overflow issue in any meaningful way." PMFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzWOOqPAEgs
While we compile our CORD summary from last night's CAG meeting we want to call your attention to a vital blog post at PMFA http://pardonmeforasking.blogspot.com/2014/06/dep-commissioner-lloyd-at-last-nights.html

Author Katia Kelly's blog summarizes the main points so well that we feel it should be a must read for all of us citizens of the Gowanus area and those who plan to invest their lives and monies and futures here.  And the City of New York should read it as well.

We could even call it "Gowanus Canal Clean-Up 101" for the City of New York.

CORD

Monday, June 23, 2014

Gowanus Canal CAG Meeting Tuesday June 24!

Hello from CG CORD!

The scheduled June Gowanus Canal CAG meeting will be held June 24, 6:30 PM at Mary Star of the Sea Apartments at 41 First Street, Brooklyn, NY 11213 (between Hoyt and Bond).

NYC DEP Commissioner Lloyd will be joining the CAG, and we also have resolutions from Water and Technical. 

All are welcome to attend.
CORD

Monday, June 16, 2014

SMITH STREET FUN DAY SUNDAY - JUNE 22, 2014

PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD --  THANK YOU!!

                                                                        Press Release
                                                                   Contact:  Bette Stoltz
                                                                        718-852 0328
                                                                 sbldcsmith@gmail.com

SMITH STREET FUN DAY SUNDAY - JUNE 22, 2014

For Visuals of Previous Years
Please visit us at www.smithstreetbk.com

Tired of the same old, same old Street Fairs??  Ours is really different.  You will find great vibes, smiling faces, and lots of unique and beautiful things you will really want to buy and take home,.  The crafters and independent designers call our event a “show”.  In their parlance that is a huge compliment. No tube socks, no sheet sets ..we promise, you will not be disappointed.  What you will see is the perfect mix of indulgences and creativity.

And the food … Smith Street is well known as a ”foodie” street with over 70 places to dine & drink.  Arrive hungry!!  What more can we say.

Our local neighborhoods of Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and Gowanus are filled with talented people.  Many of those who are musically inclined  will be entertaining you along the way -   Our Street Festival is one of the last independently produced and lovingly curated ones in the city.   

So spend some time with us from noon to 6PM and see how these Brooklyn  neighborhoods can still “Do it Right” .    8 blocks on Smith Street from Bergen to Union.   F or G to Bergen or Carroll Street.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Save the Gowanus Skyline!

Hello from CORD!

This just in from FROGG:
Please sign on to the petition to keep the Gowanus Icon, the Kentile Sign, a 
symbol of a unique Brooklyn community where the sky is not filled with expensive steal and glass towers.

Here's the link:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/879/602/891/save-the-kentile-floors-sign/

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Comments on the New York State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) Regarding Postponement from FROGG


Hello from CG CORD!
Below is a press release sent to us from FROGG regarding the postponement of the Review of the Gowanus Historic District Listing on The State Register of Historic Places:

Press Release by the

Friends and Residents Of the Greater Gowanus (FROGG):

Comments on the New York State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) Regarding Postponement of the Review of

the Gowanus Historic District Listing on

The State Register of Historic Places

SHPO was originally scheduled to meet on March 13, 2014, to vote on the listing of the Gowanus Historic District. SHPO was expected to approve the listing.  Instead, SHPO granted New York City a 60 day postponement, ending on May 12, for additional time to study the proposal and prepare comments.

On May 12, SHPO notified FROGG they would not pursue listing the district at this time.

Background:
In 2004, a United States Army Corp of Engineers Resources Assessment found the Gowanus Canal eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2008, FROGG began the process of formally nominating the Gowanus Canal District to the State and National Registers of Historic Places.  FROGG received funding from five major grantors (the most important grants were from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Preservation League of New York State) and from donations from Gowanus business owners and community members. These funds and donations totaled more than 50,000 dollars, which were used to pay for a Comprehensive Architectural Survey of the Gowanus Canal Corridor. This Survey was required by SHPO for the nomination to the State Register, and was prepared by the certified architectural historian, Gregory Dietrich. SHPO reviewed the Survey and subsequently established the boundaries for the proposed historic district.  The Gowanus and adjacent communities were continually informed on the progress of the nomination through FROGG meetings and activities, and at the meetings of the Gowanus Superfund Community Advisory Group (CAG), which comprise more than 60 members and various community organizations.

In January 2014, the nomination process required that all property owners within the proposed Historic District be notified through individual letters.  The property owners, and members of the community, were invited by SHPO, to attend an information meeting hosted by FROGG and SHPO representatives. The purpose of this meeting was to inform the property owners and the community about the significance of the proposed Historic District.  The meeting included a question and answer session hosted by the SHPO representative Daniel McEneny.   Members of Community Board 6 were in attendance.  Also in attendance were guest speakers, Simeon Bankoff, the Executive Director of Historic Districts Council, Gregory Dietrich, and Erin Tobin, representing the Preservation League of New York State.  Information handouts were made available to all meeting attendees.

The meeting kicked off a 30 day period for owners to consider the listing and submit objection letters to the State.  The invitation letters and the information presented by Daniel McEneny clearly informed the owners/attendees that the State would not go forward with the listing, should over 50% of the property owners choose to opt-out of listing their properties.  Daniel McEneny stated SHPO supported the listing, based on the historic merits of the proposed district.

FROGG Comments:
There has been much misunderstanding and misinformation about the Listing of the Historic District Designation.  A purpose of this press release is to present and comment on the various negative assertions about the Listing.

An attorney of the law firm Sive Paget, representing both the Lightstone Group and several Gowanus Superfund Potential Responsible Parties (PRP’s), released a letter in February 2014, which misrepresented the regularity impacts of the district listing. The letter makes the alarming and incorrect claim that the historic district regulations would follow the same regulations of a NYC Landmark district. Two groups – the Gowanus Alliance and the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation (GCCDC), armed with the attorney’s letter, led a “door to door” campaign opposing the listing. A GCCDC letter, along with the attorney’s letter, urged property owners to reject the Gowanus Listing. The Gowanus Alliance stated in the Daily News: “We don’t think it’s a progressive way of looking at Gowanus”. The GCCDC stated: “This would severely limit future development”. The GCCDC letter to the property owners falsely stated: “this proposed district could impose significant costs, complications, and restrictions of development, construction, renovation, maintenance and the operation of our properties.”

These letters and statements are severely misleading and are entirely false.

The purpose of the Designation is basically to honor the Gowanus’ industrial past and bring greater awareness of the contribution Gowanus has made in the development of America. The Designation is solely to encourage and reward property owners through tax breaks, not through regulating and restricting property owners’ actions. If the owner of a listed property wishes to receive tax credits when planning to make alterations, only then, will the owner be required to adhere to certain guidelines in preserving the historic nature of the owner’s property.  It should be noted that only listed properties are eligible for these tax incentives and that properties redeveloped for the purpose of providing affordable housing would be eligible to receive 70% tax credits.

The Designation will in no way allow SHPO to regulate the actions of private property owners.  According to a SHPO Fact Sheet, “If a property owner wishes to alter or demolish a historic property listed on or eligible for the registers with his or her own money, he or she is free to do so. No consultation with the SHPO is required.”

A full copy of the draft nomination is available on the SHPO website: www.nysparks.com.  For further information please consult the Fact Sheet published in The Brownstoner, Frequently Asked Questions: The Gowanus Canal Historic District.

To sum up, the Designation of the Gowanus Historic District will help preserve the historic nature only through tax break rewards.  It will not in any way require or impose any restrictions on property owners to preserve the historic nature of their properties.  Preserving the historic nature of a listed property will be solely up to the property owner.  According to Simeon Bankoff, the executive director of the Historic Districts Council, “The sole change that listing the district on the Register would be to make it possible for projects in the district to apply for NY State and Federal tax credits for rehabilitative work.  That’s it. It is entirely voluntary – listing on the Register does not place private development under any kind of regulation.  It encourages investment and economic development with tax incentives.  But that is only a by-product of the listing. The real purpose of listing on the National Register is to acknowledge and raise awareness of the importance of a site to the history or our country, to change the conversation from ‘the notoriously polluted Gowanus’ to ‘the canal  which built Brooklyn’. “

At the close of the initial 30 day review period for property owners, SHPO did not receive a critical number of objection letters. What they did receive is a request from NYC for a 60 day extension. They did not receive any letters from any elected officials opposing the listing. The city submitted no comments. But SHPO did receive numerous letters from lawyers from the firm of AKRF (which has been employed by Lightstone - the developers of the first residential structures along the banks of the Gowanus).  FROGG believes these challenges appear to have overwhelmed the small state agency, SHPO, which led to the decision to table review of the Gowanus Listing at this time.

There is no reason why the Designation will inhibit future development or job growth in the Gowanus.  Rather, the Designation will bring economic redevelopment tax incentives to the Gowanus for owners who voluntarily choose to participate in historic renovation and redevelopment of their properties.  And, it would bring substantial tax credits for affordable housing redevelopment. 

In addition, the Designation will in all probability create new jobs in the Gowanus through tourism, as was noted by Governor Cuomo, when he announced on March 24th, 2014, 21 new nominations to the State and National Registers of Historic Places.  Gowanus was one of the nominees.  He went on to say, “Preserving these historic sites helps
promote  tourism, one of New York’s fastest growing industries.”
May 30, 2014

The case for Gowanus on the National Register of Historic Places: Marlene Donnelly at TEDxGowanus
Gowanus is one of America's first Urban Industrial Districts: known as the final link in the Erie Canal System. Marlene is a founding member of a group that nominated this unique area of Brooklyn to…
00:09:47
Added on 4/24/14
435 views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbLS3kOYjGs

CORD HISTORY:

With the "Protect Our Homes" petition, CORD was formed in May, 2007. This petition arose as an overwhelmingly negative response to the coming of the over-sized 360 Smith Street Development at the corner of Smith Street and Second Place (Aka Oliver House; aka 131 Second Place). This petition, which had well over three thousand signatures, led to a new zoning text amendment in summer of 2008.

To: Our Elected Officials, Community Leaders, The MTA:
(MAY, 2007)

We the undersigned Carroll Gardens homeowners and residents, are appalled by the "as of right" ruling which allows owners and developers to erect buildings in our neighborhood with no regard to the impact they will present to our quality of life and the value of our homes........

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?crlgrdns