gowanus-canal-05-26.jpg
The latest Gotham Gazette includes editorials from people on both the yea and nay sides of the Gowanus Canal Superfund debate. In the pro-Superfund corner is Riverkeeper attorney Joshua S. Verleun, who argues that “the ultimate goal must be a comprehensive and thorough cleanup of the canal, rather than a piecemeal approach by state and city agencies with different priorities.” Verleun also writes that Superfund status will guarantee that funds are eventually made available for the waterway’s cleanup, whereas the city’s pledge to rehab the canal leaves many open questions about where the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary for a full cleanup of the Gowanus will come from. Toll Brothers Vice President David Von Spreckelsen, meanwhile, pens an anti-Superfund piece arguing that the city’s cleanup plan is poised to begin this fall, and it would immediately begin to address the area’s most pressing sewage problems. A Superfund designation, he says, would be “counterproductive” in light of such plans. Von Spreckelsen also writes that the Superfund process would not be able to raise the estimated $400 million required for the cleanup by tapping private parties responsible for contamination since so many of those parties are small businesses. The EPA will make a presentation to the community about the proposed Superfund designation tonight at 6:30 at the P.S. 32 auditorium (317 Hoyt Street).
On the Gowanus, Say ‘No’ to Superfund [Gotham Gazette]
Brooklyn’s Lavender Lake Needs Superfund [Gotham Gazette]
Conflict over Gowanus Canal Superfund Status [Brownstoner]
Photo by lornagrl.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. I still think this canal should be filled in and natural grass or some type of green should be planted there. It doesn’t need condos, or anything since the area never had them to begin with. Why must every single morsel of land have to have a building on it. Lets leave a little natural green space just for the pure view of it.

    It will take 300 million to clean this canal, by the time it is done there probably could have been a forest grown on it.

    Sorry, but this canal has been nothing but problems for the area, it would be better off gone.

  2. I dont think the superfund designation makes a particle of difference either way…..the cleanup costs to make the area fit for human habitation are just too expensive (Whole Foods cant even make it clean enough for a grocery store) – But if Toll or any other developer wants to build apartments then it should be simple – they should be forced to buy insurance (not less than 5M per unit) to cover all potential health related litigation that may arise over the next 50 years.

  3. I’m glad they made such an effort to be balanced on this issue. Could they really only find a person with ZERO credibility because of his 100% vested interest to point out some of the many problems with superfunding a site. SO LAME!