Christos Tsiamis, Chief Engineer of Gowanus Superfund project.
Despite the strong opposition of New York City, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and local Councilman Bill deBlasio, the Gowanus Canal, called one of the most polluted waterways in the world, was finally declared an EPA Federal Superfund site in 2010.
This meant that the canal would be subject to federal jurisdiction when it came both to cleanup as well the prevention of future pollution.
Adjacent properties were not under federal control, except insofar as they might contribuute to future pollution into the canal. Some of the poisons that are a legacy of past industrialization around the canal are deep in the ground, and can travel into the canal if untended. This is why the EPA is demanding that the Thomas Greene pool be dug up and toxins underneath be purged, a job to be done by National Grid, the British utility who bought the Brooklyn Union Gas Company, that site’s polluter.
Public Place is another notable adjacent property. Located west of the canal between it and Smith Street, between the two train stops, it too was the location of a gas company that left heavy toxins in its wake.
The land, which is really in Carroll Gardens, but adjacent to the Canal, is owned by NYC, hence the name. It is also called Gowanus Green, and an proposal to develop it back in 2007 was won by a group that included both non-profit and for profit developers. The non-profit developer is the Fifth Avenue Committee, which has been a major player in Gowanus.
That proposal was put on hold as the canal remediation went forward, but is now officially back in action as part of the recent Gowanus rezoning, which is a plan pushed through by DeBlasio’s successor at the City Council, Brad Lander, who had previously headed the very same Fifth Avenue Committee.
While the Public Place site has been under remediation by the National Grid company, many locals are afraid that this remediation, under the supervision of the state and city environmental agencies, is inadequate, as the standards of these local agencies are not as rigorous as the EPA’s.
As a result there have been calls to make Public Place its own Superfund. The Voice of Gowanus (VOG), a group opposed to the rezoning, Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus (FROGG), a longtime voice of the Gowanus community, and independent community activist, some of whom are members of the Gowanus Canal Local Advisory Group (CAG), are advocating this second Superfund site.
Public Place is still a major source of pollution in Gowanus, and the extent to which it has to be remediated before the City goes ahead with a plan to develop is the issue.
The City has plans to build 900 units of affordable housing and a school there. The project is called “Gowanus Green” and is a joint venture of Fifth Avenue Committee, the Bluestone Organization, the Hudson Companies and the Jonathan Rose Companies.
A letter from the EPA to the New York City Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) explained some of their concerns with development on the Public Place site, and large scale Gowanus development in general. In a recent CAG meeting Christos Tsiamis, the EPA senior project manager for the Gowanus cleanup, said he expects a response soon.
Whether that response will lead to Public Place’s inclusion in the cleanup is doubtful. As of yet, nothing is official but that the Public Place is undergoing Brownfield treatment. A Brownfield remediation is a capping of the contaminants with concrete, soil, or other sealants.
Responding to claims in that meeting that letting the DEC clean some sites, like Public Place and Thomas Greene park is not adequate, Tsiamis said that “it’s not a bad thing to have a combination of resources.” He did not cast doubts on the effectiveness of DEC Brownfield remediation, saying instead that EPA guidelines are being followed even when city guidelines are less thorough.
As mentioned, Thomas Greene playground which is on the east side of the canal near Wyckoff Gardens public housing, will also undergo remediation. Of concerns about the cleanup in both places, Tsiamos said “we brought issues to the fore, released a letter to the DEC… nobody’s looking away. The work is being done. Maybe not in the way we like it, but the work is being done.”
DEC and city planners have cited Stuyvesant Town in Manhattan as an example of safe development on top of an old gas company facility. This, however, may not be true. Just recently, coal tar was found at depths of 2 feet there, according to community advocate and blogger Katia Kelly. She says of Public Place, “the only thing that you can possibly do to keep people safe is to leave it open space.”
EPA counsel Brian Carr said of the proposed development: “while the community might not like what the developers are building, they (developers) aren’t fighting the EPA and DEC on the cleanup.”
Yet, the fight goes on.
Among the most alarming concerns with new development at Public Place and the entire rezoning of Gowanus is wastewater. A lawsuit filed by Voice of Gowanus, FROGG and others, claims that the Gowanus rezoning fails to abide by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA”) and the National Historic Preservation Act. It also asserts that the rezoning’s environmental impact statement violated the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA”), Environmental Conservation Law and the New York State Historic Protection Act. Specifically, that wastewater generation is expected to increase almost eleven fold once the proposed neighborhood development is completed.
That much sewage will drastically affect the Canal, which is already used by the city as an open sewer when significant rain overwhelms the city sewer system. The sewer system is, as it stands, insufficient. City-wide flooding from Hurricane Ida was just a recent extreme example.
In the lawsuit, a claim is made that the EPA hasn’t followed precedent in the Gowanus Superfund. That precedent is that the EPA should have taken under their tutelage every site that is responsible for pollution so that their project is actively stopping further pollution. To these allegations, Tsiamos said: “It’s complicated.”
“Have you considered that everybody knew the Canal was this polluted? Did it ever occur why it took until 2010 for it to become a Superfund? It’s complicated. It’s a good thing the community recognizes these things and brings them to the fore.”
Linda LaViolette, another advocate for the Canal and a longtime resident of Gowanus said that developments like this can be a Trojan horse.
“The developers clean the site, include some City money for NYCHA, get tax breaks, and put in some affordable housing. Their ignorance of environmental concerns is let slide.” LaViolette called the developers out on this, saying “they know pollution is there, and yet they still plan to put affordable housing on those sites… while you let massive 30 story high-end apartments be built in the rest of the area, and say this is all about rectifying environmental injustice.”
The EPA is working to prevent setbacks to the work they have done, including those threats posed by development in dubious settings.
Because of work done by Voice of Gowanus, FROGG, and others, the city should be aware of the risks that development poses. The City still favors development, as mainstream opinion is that housing has not kept up with population growth.
Speaking of Public Place, longtime Gowanus resident and activist Rita Miller said, “If they could reassure us that they got most of the coal tar out, who am I to say you can’t put houses there?” She went on to add, “I would prefer a park, though.”
With real estate, housing, environmental groups and community activists all vocal about this situation, and with a lot of construction and real estate money on the line, Tsiamos’ words: “it’s complicated,” are resoundingly true.
The politics of development are often clandestine and confusing to outsiders, and their motivations are seldom clear. Katia Kelley, speaking for the Voice of Gowanus, made hers crystal clar: “Do no harm. That’s motto number one.”
