More meeting coverage from a Brownstoner reader, this one about a hearing on the threatened future of PS 133. We wrote a post last month that summarizes the issue and there’s a petition here. You can also check out the State’s opinion that PS 133 is a building of historical significance in this PDF.

Yesterday morning the City Council’s Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses heard testimony on the SCA’s proposed plan to demolish PS 133 and the community garden and replace it with a large building that will take up the top of the block between Butler and Baltic Streets. The SCA made a brief presentation that stressed the deterioration of the existing building (admitting that it had received little funding for upkeep) and stating that it would take approximately $15 million dollars to simply address the deterioration of critical building components. (This was the first time this figure, or any mention of existing building conditions had been raised by the SCA). The SCA called the Snyder school (the first one he built in Brooklyn) quaint and lovely but deteriorated.

SCA representatives continued their practice of misinformation saying that they didn’t know if local residents had received requested source documents that describe contamination in the soil and ground water on the school site (the truth is that two weeks ago the SCA told residents that they will have to file for the documents under the Freedom of Information Law despite the fact that they were cited in a public document); saying that the program for the school will be decided in the future (the truth is that the SCA has maintained in public presentations that the school serve two distinct school districts 13 and 15 and have even designed separate entrances for children from each district); saying that they had been in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office on options for preserving the school (the truth is that SHPO has told plan opponents that they have been waiting, since December, for the SCA to provide a cost benefit analysis of new construction versus renovation); and maintaining that they have been consulting with local community representatives about the school design (the truth is that they have conducted two hearings at which residents were limited to 3 minute comments.)

Members of the Subcommittee asked pointed questions about the program for the school, about plans for remediation of hazardous conditions, about environmental protections for area residents during demolition and construction, about the differences in cost between demolishing the building and building a large new building and renovating the existing building and building an annex (the SCA says the difference is about $10 million, but had no figures to back up that number) and it was clear that Council members had read the material provided by opponents of the plan. The standard SCA response was that they would be conducting monitoring.

During the public comment period (which was the only opportunity for public comment during Council proceedings) thirty people signed up to speak and all but one (the District 15 Superintendent) opposed the plan. Speakers represented a remarkable coalition of community and civic groups, preservationists, area residents, gardeners, a parent from PS 133, lawyers, and environmental scientists and activists all united in opposition to the SCA plan. The 660 people who have signed the online petition to save the school and community garden are also part of that coalition.

The ask of opponents was that the SCA withdraw their current proposal and work with a broad and representative group in the community to develop a plan that would: 1) preserve and renovate the existing historic PS 133 building while also developing another school building on the site that accommodates the need for increased school seats; 2) ensure the health and safety of students, teachers and the larger community by fully disclosing the environmental data and risks associated with the contamination on the school site and designing a remediation plan that complies with New York State environmental law and involves NYS oversight; and 3) balance the need for open space and a permanent community garden.

The Council members on the committee indicated that they saw no problem with a delay, but also told opponents that council courtesy dictates that they would not go against the wishes of the Council member in whose district the school would be built, and that would be Councilman Yassky. Unfortunately, while acknowledging a flawed process of community consultation, Yassky continues to indicate that he wants the SCA plan to move forward as is.

The Committee will vote on the plan this Thursday morning, so opponents of the plan are asking people who share their concerns to call Yassky’s office on Wednesday, and tell him to do the right thing withdraw his support of the SCA plan. Remind him of the significant community opposition to the SCA plan.

CM Yassky Email: yassky@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-875-5200
District office fax: 718-643-6620

Council members DeBlasio and James have indicated their opposition to the plan (students attending the proposed plan would come from both of their districts), but have not lobbied their colleagues to vote against the plan. Call their offices and urge that they send Dear Colleague letters to their fellow council members, outlining their opposition to the SCA plan.

CM DeBlasio Email: deblasio@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-854-9791
District office fax: 718-854-1146

CM James Email: ljames@council.nyc.gov
District office Phone: 718-260-9191
District office fax: 718-260-9099

Councilwoman Gonzalez, whose district also includes children who would be attending the school, has not yet spoken out on the plan. Urge her to oppose the current SCA plan, as so many of her constituents have.

CM Gonzalez Email: gonzalez@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-439-9012
District office fax: 718-439-9042

There is a very small window left to prevent a plan that is so wrong, on so many levels, from becoming a reality. If you oppose the SCA plan, please ACT NOW.

PS 133′s Most Desperate Hour [Brownstoner]
New PS 133 Plans Revealed [Brownstoner]
SCA To Build New P.S. 133, Tear Down Old Building [Brownstoner] GMAP
Proposed School Replacement Facility for P.S. 133 [DOE]