Toll Folds, Hudson Holds In Gowanus
The full real estate ramifications of yesterday’s decision by the EPA to place the Gowanus Canal on the Superfund list won’t be known for quite some time, but the threat of a decade or more of lawsuit-riddled remediation was enough to make Toll Brothers, the developer of one of the two mega sites planned along…
The full real estate ramifications of yesterday’s decision by the EPA to place the Gowanus Canal on the Superfund list won’t be known for quite some time, but the threat of a decade or more of lawsuit-riddled remediation was enough to make Toll Brothers, the developer of one of the two mega sites planned along the banks of the contaminated waterway, to announce it was pulling the plug. “We don’t see any possibility of our doing a project there,” said Toll’s David Von Spreckelsen. “We can’t get financing. We can’t get insurance.” Meanwhile, The Hudson Companies, the other developer with big plans for the area, announced it was going to stick it out. We’re in full support of the project, and we’ll work with the E.P.A., said Aaron Koffman, a spokesman for the Hudson Companies. In related news, McBrooklyn has a round-up of who’s happy and who’s sad about the Superfund listing.
Gowanus Canal Gets Superfund Status [NY Times]
Feds Declare Gowanus Canal a Superfund Site [NY Post]
EPA Adds Gowanus Canal to Superfund List [NY Daily News]
Photo by beau-dog
Trokenmatt,
I said an ice rink isn’t a polluted canal, I was using it anecdotally. To play it the other way, if a government entity can’t build an ice rink in 6 years you trust a government entity to clean a polluted canal?
As for the private route…
… for instance, if the City allows Toll to clean it up, I bet it happens faster and more efficiently than Government oversite (“big bad developer” aside, their financing and insurance on future developments would hinge on them doing it correctly).
As for the EPA, it’s going to take them upwards of 24 months to fully evaluate the site (which occurs only after Superfund designation). They will then put out for bids. Using contractors requires at least 3 bids with a 90-120 day window for submission. Then there is evaluation process by the EPA of which bid to pick. Then they go back for adjustments, etc. It might take 1 full year just to pick a contractor. That puts actual start time back 3 years.
I see it this way, when the Feds run something they run it slowly and poorly, lots of cooks in the kitchen kind of thing. When a private entity is in charge it is in their best interest to complete if quickly and effectively.
Anyone that has questions about funding sources and process should attend at least one of the community meetings the EPA will hold. That way, you can have questions answered directly by the EPA. From what I have seen they are extremely forthcoming.
Crimsonson — Ok, I get that. I don’t think anything will change there, but we’ll just have to see how it shakes out. According to what I’ve read in the past few days, the rules for lenders don’t change if there’s a superfund designation. Decisions on lending are already supposed to take into account that a nearby site is polluted. Whether they actually do or not, I don’t know.
Antidope — I read somewhere that the EPA generally recovers 70% of remediation costs from polluters. And it is not uncommon that the polluting goes back a long long ways. So that’s the good news. Unfortunately, I suspect that one of the polluters in the case of the Gowanus is probably the City of New York. Some of what’s in the Gowanus is sewage overflow, which I think the city is responsible for.
who will get sued here? are any of the original polluters still in business?
if the epa is unsuccessful at getting $$$ from the past polluters, who pays? is it funded?
if it is funded whether or not epa can identify the polluters then this will be a win worth waiting for.
have to say an unfunded commitment from an overextended city budget = highly likely money shortfall = delay after delay.
Trokenmatt
I am talking about everyday practical things like mortgages, loans, rates, insurance, zoning, etc
Building a rink is not cleaning up a toxic canal.
EPA offered a timeline in this case. Maybe that’s unusual and it happened because Bloomberg offered his own plan.
Basically, you’re saying that without any evidence that private cleanup would be faster or cheaper than an EPA cleanup, and without any evidence that anyone would even cleanup the site, you’d prefer a private route. But I’m not even sure anymore what you mean by a private route. You say that we can’t identify a private entity to clean up the site until we open it up to bids. Not only does the EPA sue polluters to pay for the cleanup, they generally hire private contracters to do the work, by soliciting bids. So when you say private cleanup, what do you mean? One performed by contractors paid for by the government based on bids for the work? That’s how the EPA does it.
So again, what exactly is your objection? That some other government entity manage the process?
go on us
Trokenmatt,
An example of a private clean up occurring after a government budgeted proposal of the same site is hard to find. Why? The EPA doesn’t offer a timeframe. And a private company wont put together a full bid on a project if the EPA is considering taking it over. A private bid/proposal would only happen after the site was released to the private sector for bids.
The Superfund averages come from the GAO after observation of how long things actually take, not based on any EPA projection.
It goes to my point, the Feds never offer a timeline or budget, they don’t have to. A private clean up would at least offer a timeline and budget that they could be held to. Superfund basically “takes as long as it takes” Some sites up to 40 years.
Hell, Superfund sites can take as long as 24 months after designation just to evaluate before proposals can come in for the actual cleanup. In some cases it can take 8 years from designation to actual work (the joys of Government proposal process).
Here is an example of private enterprise over government ineptitude (I realize it’s not a pollution issues, but it goes to my point…)
Wollman Rink.
Back in the 80s the City spent $12 million over 6 years trying to get the rink renovated and working. Never happened. Donald Trump came in and did it 3 months ahead of schedule (18 months total is I remember correct) for less than $3 million.
http://tinyurl.com/yfsuuvm
You guys might enjoy these 1924 aerial photos of the Gowanus showing the locations of the three major manufacturing polluters of the canal. http://imby.blogspot.com/2010/03/1924-aerial-photo-tour-of-gowanus-canal.html