Not it My Backyard: New York City’s Plan for the Gowanus Canal Cleanup
Nessy Dahan Aline Elmann Penina Levitin Miryam Sperka Devorah Rostker
Imagine a beautiful public park connected to a waterfront esplanade. New apartment buildings especially designed to accommodate the needs of this unique neighborhood complete this picture. Where is this idyllic place you may ask? The
Upper West Side? Battery Park City? Hudson Heights?
You may be surprised to hear that these are the plans for the new up and coming area of the Gowanus Canal. The now infamous site of sewage, toxic waste, and sediment- laden water is slated to undergo an enormous renovation. The
Department of Housing Preservation and Development has chosen a group of developers, including Hudson Companies Inc. and Toll Brothers Inc., to develop the area by building a public park, waterfront esplanade, apartment housing, storefronts, and space for community organizations. The development will serve a dual purpose; the revitalization of the existing area and the creation of a vibrant new community. By investing in a neighborhood that combines affordable housing, luxury condominiums, storefronts, and a waterfront esplanade, Hudson Companies will achieve its goal of maintaining the diversity of the Gowanus Canal area, while at the same time stimulating economic and residential growth by appealing to a broader population. Gowanus will become the ideal area for New Yorkers who seek an oasis of calm with city convenience. The plans for the neighborhoods surrounding the canal are concrete, practical, and achievable, but they all hinge on one factor, the cleanup of the
Gowanus Canal. There can be no serenity while there is still sewage and no toddlers playing amidst the toxins. Serious efforts must be expended to rid the canal of pollution and to create a solution for the raw sewage problem, of that all are in agreement. The debate lies in who is best suited to address the problem. The clean up of the Gowanus Canal can be completed by city of New York or by the Federal government’s program Superfund under the jurisdiction of the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Superfund was created on December 11th, 1980, President
Jimmy Carter signed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund), to deal with toxic waste sites around the country in three different ways. The Superfund can then either conduct the cleanup itself using money from its Trust Fund and then seek to recover its costs from the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), or compell the PRPs to perform the cleanup through administrative or judicial proceedings; or enter into settlement agreements with PRPs that require them to clean up the site or pay for cleanup.
Extensive exploration of New York City’s plan, under the Bloomberg administration, as well as the Federal governments proposal, under the Superfund designation, points to a strikingly clear answer. The city’s proposal is the most effective option. While a Superfund designation may boast Federal dollars, history has shown that progress is obstructed by endless litigation and blame shifting, resulting only in the passage of time. More importantly, designating the Gowanus
Canal as a Superfund Canal will completely defeat the purpose of the cleanup. If we seek to create a place where people can enjoy better quality of life and boost the neighborhood to stimulate much needed growth, why invite the EPA to stigmatize the area, discouraging residents and investors from moving in. Sites such as the
Love Canal have taught us that Superfund designation causes an immediate plunge in real estate values, and a neighborhood without a healthy and vibrant residential market is no neighborhood at all. Perhaps most crucial to the debate is the issue of water treatment and sewage overflow damage. The health risks, stench, and overall diminishment in quality of life in the areas surrounding the Gowanus Canal are all as a result of the thousands of tons of sewage that pours into the canal after significant rainfall. The city will construct a pump to effectively dispose of the sewage, ridding the canal of its current filth, and preventing any build up in the future. The
Superfund plan completely overlooks the sewage overflow issue. It is difficult to understand how the government can promise a thorough cleanup of the canal, while ignoring the primary source of the pollution. It is for these reasons that City of New
York should lead the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal. A clear analysis of the situation reveals that there is no debate after all; the city is the only real option.
The Superfund cleanup plan is dependent on funds that they intend to obtain through lawsuits and litigations. The EPA plans to sue potentially responsible parties, companies that they believe to be responsible for the Gowanus Canal’s pollution problem. This entails a lengthy litigation process, which will involve suing current polluters as well as descendants of past polluters. Such a process will take decades; the EPA must hunt down the companies responsible, and undergo the actual litigation process. However, lengthy cleanups are to be expected from the
Superfund as the Superfund is infamous for prolonged and costly cleanups.
The first Superfund site, the Love Canal, took more than twenty-four years to be completed, and it is disputable whether this cleanup was even considered a success. The Hudson River was designated as a Superfund site in 1984, and is still not complete today. These are just two examples among the many sites that
Superfund left unfinished, or took decades to complete. As reported in the NY Post,
“Superfund would likely require decades of research and litigation before the feds actually start doing anything.”1
In addition to the delay that will be caused due to lawsuits, this litigation process presents another crucial problem. The EPA believes that they are providing consequences to those who are responsible for adding to the pollution of the canal; in essence they believe that they are “punishing” those who participated in increasing the industrial waste in the canal. The problem is that these “responsible parties” were involved in dumping before there were any actual laws in place against these behaviors. If this is the case, it seems unjust for these companies to be held responsible for activities that were legally permissible at the time. With these facts in hand, it is easy to understand why PRP’s will fight tirelessly to protect their interests, leading to years of expensive and drawn out litigation.2
The city, on the other hand, ensures a faster, more thorough cleanup, without any lengthy litigations. Because these potentially responsible parties will be forced
1 Vitullo-Martin, Julia. “Don’t Superfund the Gowanus.” NY Post.
National Grid agree to voluntarily cooperate in order settle their liabilities and avoid litigations. According to Cas Holloway, chief of staff to Bloomberg's deputy mayor for operations, “A key factor in getting through the logjam is getting people to do it willingly." 3
As opposed to waiting around for the Superfund to hunt down companies and gather the funds, the city is ready to begin the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal right now. As Mr. Von Spreckelsen told the press, “upgrading and modernizing the flushing tunnel and pumping station, as well as selective dredging and capping of exposed sediments, can begin under the city’s plan this fall; the city has allocated at least $175 million to accomplish this urgent goal.” 4 Mayor Bloomberg says that he is ready to begin the actual cleanup process as soon as next month.
Both the federal government and the city agree that the Gowanus Canal is a predicament that must be dealt with as soon as possible. The problem is that the
EPA’s costs for Superfund sites are increasing, while program appropriations and expenditures are declining. 5 The Superfund’s plan to acquire the necessary funds is a drawn out process that will take years, if not decades. The longer we wait, the worse the problem gets. The Superfund will delay the cleanup, and when they
3 Vitullo-Martin, Julia. “Don’t Superfund the Gowanus.” NY Post.
Why support a plan that will take decades if we can begin right now?
Designating the Gowanus Canal a Superfund Site will only increase the negative associations with the neighborhood, only further deterring people from inhabiting the area. A city-run cleanup would avoid the stigma that comes with a
Superfund designation Stigma is defined as, ”a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation.”6 Marking an area as a Superfund site publicly declares one of the filthiest places in the country, an area so toxic the federal government deems it a national priority. Both residents seeking an inviting neighborhood, as well as developers seeking appealing business opportunities, will run from a Superfund designation. No one wants to be involved in a toxic mess, and a Superfund designation would halt the development of an up and coming neighborhood.
As of right now, there have been many interests from investors to provide the area with much needed development. By far the biggest developer, and the most active in the debates, has been Toll Brothers Inc., a major real estate company. The
Toll Brothers project site is located along Bond Street, Carroll Street, Second Street, with 460 linear feet lying along the western side of the Gowanus Canal. This zone is about three acres large, and it encompasses two blocks worth of area. They plan on building six buildings and 460 living units, with housing prices ranging from permanently affordable to market-rate multifamily prices. Additionally, they have
6 "Stigma Definition | Definition of Stigma at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Web. 01 Dec. 2009.
The second major company that has set their sites on the Gowanus Canal area is the Hudson Companies Inc., another major real estate developer. Similar to
Toll Brothers, this firm plans on developing the area by building a public park, waterfront esplanade, apartment housing, storefronts, and space for community organizations. The development will serve a dual purpose; the revitalization of the existing area and the creation of a vibrant new community. Of the 774 apartments to be built, 542 will be below market rate, with 120 reserved for the growing senior population. By investing in a neighborhood that combines affordable housing,
7 Welcome To Toll Brothers Gowanus. Web. 18 Sept. 2009.
luxury condominiums, storefronts, and a waterfront esplanade, Hudson Companies will achieve its goal of maintaining the diversity of the Gowanus Canal area, while at the same time stimulating economic and residential growth by appealing to a broader population. Gowanus will become the ideal area for New Yorkers who seek city convenience without some of the craziness. As their project leader David
Kramer explains, Gowanus "feels quiet and off the beaten track, and on the other hand is very close to all the city services and urban fabric,"9 making it the perfect location for families, seniors, and young professionals looking for some serenity.10
By being associated with the dirtiest areas in the country, the Superfund designation would create a stigma that will destroy any chance of attracting investors and developers to the area. Among these, Toll Brothers Inc. and Hudson companies have already announced that they will pull out of Gowanus and cease their development plans if the Superfund takes on the clean up. This seemingly drastic step is clearly understood when studying the history of property value decline in Superfund sites. Hudson Companies and Toll Brothers will not invest millions in a risky endeavor that will not yield dividends. Several studies have been conducted on the effects of Superfund upon real estate values. As recent as 2005, an article entitled, “Can Stigma Explain Large Property Value Losses? The Psychology and Economics of Superfund,” was published in the Environmental and Resource
Economics journal. This article was actually a research project that examined the
9 “Steve Ross Can’t Catch a Break; Hudson Companies Wins Gowanus Project!” The New York Observer, Web. 19 September 2009. http://www.observer.com/2008/hudson-companies-wins-gowanus-project-steve-ross-just-can-t-catch- break. 10 “Hudson Companies to develop Public Place in Gowanus “. The Real Deal, Web. 19 September 2009. http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/hudson-companies-to-develop-public-place-in-gowanus. long-term effects of delayed cleanup on the value of property in areas near
Superfund sites. The research was done throughout a thirty-year timescale, and it used sales prices for over 35,000 homes in Superfund areas as its main data. The final results of the project show that property values have indeed decreased, correlating to the stigma brought forth by the EPA’s involvement in the areas.
Additionally, in response to the already diminished property values remark, the study suggests that the best way to reduce losses is to decrease the number of stigma-filled events, and to do the cleanup as quickly as possible. In other words, the
EPA’s plan would cause more harm than benefit, as the cleanup would be dragged on for years. This has certainly been the case for other Superfund sites in New York, such as the Hudson River. 11
A more in-depth analysis of the study provides further proof of this phenomenon. It examines four case studies of past Superfund sites, including
Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill, Los Angeles, California, Montclair, West Orange &
Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Industriplex and Water Wells G & H, Woburn,
Massachusetts, and Eagle Mine, Colorado. All four of these sites were discovered in the late 70’s and early 80’s, and were completed in the 90’s, with the cleanup ranging from 13-19 years. As seen in the accompanying chart and graphs, total cleanup cost ranged from $70 to $600 million, and total property value loss ranged from 8.9% to 39.5%, including inside and outside the area listed. These statistics clearly demonstrate the effect of Superfund designation on the decline of property
11 Schulze, William, Kent Messer, and Katherine Hackett. “STIGMA: THE PSYCHOLOGY AND ECONOMICS OF SUPERFUND*.” Environment and Resource Economics (2004). Web. 23 Nov. 2009.
12 Ibid.
As one can see, a Superfund designation would have a drastic impact upon the present state, and justifiably, the future of the Gowanus Canal, and its surrounding neighborhood. Major real estate companies will refuse to invest their millions of dollars into the area, leaving the community undeveloped and stagnant.
If the Federal government designates the Gowanus Canal a Superfund site, both residents and developers will suffer, completely defeating the purpose of the revitalization of the area.
The Bloomberg administration’s proposed cleanup of the Gowanus Canal is far more extensive than the Superfund option. Unlike the Federal proposition of “Superfunding” the Gowanus, or placing it on the National Priorities List, the City plan goes far beyond simply dredging the 1,000 feet of industrial waste and sewage sediment that has settled at the bottom of the Canal. Bloomberg plans to dredge the sediment, and fix the flushing tunnel and sewage pumping stations in the Gowanus to stop the combined sewage overflow (CSO) that leaks into the Canal. The city will then rezone the surrounding Gowanus area to allow for more diversified use, build a public waterfront location for Gowanus citizens to enjoy, and develop the area into a sustainable community with the help of numerous public developers. The City plan envisions a renewed neighborhood for middle to low income New Yorkers that is a safe, clean, and enjoyable place to live. Its not simply a cleanup plan, it is an all inclusive neighborhood renovation proposal that will create public satisfaction, economic stability and environmental protection in the Gowanus Canal area.
The first step in the city’s grand renovation is ridding the Gowanus of its hazardous environmental contaminants, toxins, and potential health threats.
According to Mayor Bloomberg, cleanup can begin as early as November 2009 with the repairs of the Gowanus Flushing Tunnel and Sewage Pumping Stations. The tunnel is located at the mouth of the Canal and contains a large propeller that circulates water between the Gowanus Canal and the New York Harbor, thereby improving water quality and limiting sediment formation. In recent years, the faulty mechanical construction of these facilities has caused the accumulation of millions of gallons of raw sewage and industrial waste sediment to contaminate the Canal.
However, according to the Brooklyn Paper, Bloomberg has announced it will begin cleanup by dedicating $85 million to the renovation of pumping stations that will reduce CSO by 34%. Renovation plans include the installment of four new sewage pumps and the construction of a mile-long sewage pipe that connects the Gowanus canal to Red Hook sewage treatment plants. In the past, when the sewage treatment plants of the Gowanus canal area filled with sewage and storm-water runoff, pumping stopped and excess sewage and liquid simply flowed into the Gowanus canal and remained there. However, under this new construction, the annual 300 million gallons CSO from storm-water runoff will be pumped and treated in multiple plants, thereby reducing the sewage contamination in the Gowanus. In addition, the city plans to fund a $50 million repair of the flushing tunnel that will pump relatively clean water from the Buttermilk Channel into the canal and flush the dirty water into New York Harbor. Plans include replacing the single existing single pump with three new pumps to increase the flow of oxygen rich water by 40%.
Furthermore, with the help of the Army Corp of Engineers, Bloomberg plans to dredge a 750-foot stretch of the upper canal to remove the sediment that reeks when exposed during low tides. These restorations and repairs will restore the
Canal to the proper standards of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and pave the way for a clean, healthy neighborhood around a clean, healthy Gowanus Canal. 13
Unfortunately, the Superfund plan only includes the dredging of sediments located at the bottom of the Canal, leaving the rest of the cleanup, including water quality issues and CSO problems, in the city’s hands. According to an article in the
13 Muessig, Ben. “Cleaning the Gowanus.” The Brooklyn Paper.
Brooklyn Paper, the EPA announced that is not responsible for water contamination in the Gowanus, because under the Clean Water Act such issues fall under the States jurisdiction. Section 320, Paragraph 7, item c4 states of the Act, “local governments having jurisdiction over any land or water within the estuarine zone, as determined appropriate by the Administrator…” The Gowanus Canal is considered an estuary zone as it is a mix of the salt water of the New York Harbor and freshwater of surrounding rivers. However, because of such jurisdiction restrictions, the EPA refuses to conduct a comprehensive cleanup of the entire Gowanus Canal contamination. Therefore, after the EPA dredges the Canal, the city must then go to work on projects that will complete the removal of all contaminants in the Canal including the continued flow of raw sewage into the canal, which will not be stopped by simply dredging the sediment. It seems the obvious answer is to skip the Superfund designation in the first place and allow the city to conduct its all-inclusive cleanup efficiently and effectively.14 The second aspect of the city’s plan is the rezoning of the surrounding Gowanus area to diversify land use and promote commercial markets and residential establishments for the middle to low-income public. In July 2007, the Brooklyn Community Board 6 held a meeting to discuss the land use framework of the Gowanus area. According to the New York Dept. of City planning, “framework is a set of guiding principles relating to issues including use, density, bulk, and waterfront access, intended to provide standards for formulating and evaluating 14 Muessig, Ben. “Cleaning the Gowanus.” The Brooklyn Paper. proposals for future land use changes.” In short, the establishment of the framework enables the City to build and renovate without deterring certain goals and ideas that are to be achieved during redevelopment. Such goals include encouraging a mix of uses where appropriate in the area, providing waterfront access to the Canal for public enjoyment, support affordable housing opportunities, maintain areas for continued industrial as well as commercial activities, consider neighborhood context and character and support environmental improvement. By achieving these goals, the administration essentially creates a balance between the redevelopment projects and private profits of investors, economic stability caused by increased commercial market revenue in the area, improved public happiness and standard of living by providing affordable housing and environmental protection. These goals are only achieved by a complete rezoning of 25 blocks near Gowanus from an industrial and manufacturing district to diversified zones of land use. With the help of private developers like Toll Brothers, Hudson Companies, National Grid, the City plan can create an urban oasis of public enjoyment and commercial activity in a harmonious and high functioning neighborhood. Such plans take the Gowanus cleanup a step further by extending it to the functionality of the surrounding community.15 15 “Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework.” NYC Department of City Planning. In stark contrast, the Superfund remains one sided and unprogressive in this aspect. While the Superfund designation claims to offer a comprehensive cleanup, it does not provide a future for the Gowanus Canal area.. In actuality it is detrimental to the continuation of any proposed redevelopment plans because of the infamous stigma it carries with its name. If Superfunded $400 million of private investor money dedicated to achieving the vision described above will be automatically withdrawn due to a decrease in land value and consumer demand. Therefore, the Superfund effectively strips away any future that the Gowanus Area might have because of its heavy negative implications. 16 Despite the positive nature of the City’s plan, many criticize Bloomberg for placing his economic agenda before environmental health in the issue of Gowanus Canal cleanup. They question Bloomberg’s motives, arguing that his “acquiescence to developers flies in the face of his carefully crafted image as a committed environmentalist.” Many argue that the help enlisted by private developers will not be sufficient for the extensive cleanup planned. However, one must understand that Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York and therefore, many motives come into play in the formulation of the city’s proposal to counteract the Superfund Designation of the EPA. The city’s plan combines environmental protection and health with an interest in the economic stability of New York. By merging the efforts of private investors, Army Corps., residential volunteers and other resources, the City will conduct an extremely extensive cleanup and produce a fully redeveloped neighborhood. Bloomberg’s motives are bifocal in that they understand the full implications of a Gowanus cleanup. The city’s plan strikes the perfect balance between agendas, both environmental and economic, a relatively difficult accomplishment in such a frayed political atmosphere. 17 16 Introduction to the Clean Water Act.” US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/ 17 Hawkins, Andrew J. “In Gowanus Canal Clean-Up, Bloomberg the Environmentalist Vs Bloomberg the Developer.” City Hall and Manhattan Media 2009. http://www.cityhallnews.com/newyork/article-1028-in-gowanus-canal-clean-up- bloomberg-the-environmentalist-vs-bloomberg-the-developer.html However, there is the question of Bloomberg’s disinterest in the Superfunding of Newtown Creek in Greenpoint. One might ask, if he is so completely balanced, why hasn’t the mayor worked to create a City plan in that area and stop the Superfund from occurring there as well? It seems that he’s only fighting for the Gowanus Canal because of an interest in developing the area. However, in his effort to deter the Superfund stigma, Bloomberg has demonstrated an enormous understanding and use of resources in the form of developmental opportunities near the Gowanus. Because of investor interest in the Canal area, Bloomberg understands that any stigma can effectively remove potential improvements of the canal waters and surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, he proposed a plan that can accomplish more than the Superfund can, in a shorter period of time, without its negative impact, simply by enlisting the help of private developers. Newtown Creek simply lacks these opportunities for redevelopment due to an absence of developer interest in the surrounding areas. Therefore, a Superfund stigma can cause no harm in possible real estate potential. It can only help by conducting the necessary cleanup. In short, Bloomberg is the right man for the job, demonstrating a balance in motive, an understanding of the future, and the know-how to accomplish set goals for the cleanup and redevelopment of the Gowanus Canal and its surrounding area. While Superfund may be the best choice for other toxic sites in the country, it is not the most effective option for the Gowanus Canal. A Superfund cleanup will be mired in litigation, surrounded by stigma, and will result in only half a job. The city has the tools, the ability, and the desire to take on this immensely important project and see it through until the end. The Gowanus Canal is an important New York waterway, and as such, the leaders of New York City are determined to see it restored to its former glory. With the help of private investors, the Bloomberg administration will completely clean the canal, thereby creating a ripe environment for development and growth.