Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Citizens Union



Council Wants To Safeguard Power Lines From Future Storms


NEW YORK — Almost without fail, when a big storm hits the city, the power is knocked out somewhere. With Superstorm Sandy, it was much worse.

The day after the storm on Oct. 29, 2012, nearly 2 million resident were without electricity, with all of lower Manhattan south from 39th Street darkened along with large communities in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. Wind or falling trees or limbs took down about 140 miles of cable. A record storm surge inundated substations and underground equipment.  

In an effort to respond to the tremendous toll on the electrical system caused by the storm, the City Council voted unanimously on Wednesday to explore moving vulnerable overhead power lines underground.

Councilman Leroy Comrie, deputy majority leader and a sponsor of the legislation, said in remarks before the vote that the greatest impact of any study would be on the outer boroughs where most overhead power lines are located. "When we have a storm or ice storm or wind or heavy rain, we are losing power in our communities," he said.

The bill would require the city's Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability to gather data from public utilities and analyze it for outage patterns; determine the estimated cost of moving power lines underground; and recommend neighborhoods that would not be good candidates for moving power lines underground.

Consolidated Edison, the utility that operates much of the city's electrical infrastructure, is exploring its options for dealing with the problem of overhead wires.

At a Jan. 18 Council hearing on emergency planning and management during the storm, John Miksad, a senior vice president of electrical operations at Con Ed, said the utility was "looking at selective hardening," saying that the utility had looked at burying overhead lines in the past but that "it is very pricey."

"But we think perhaps targeted undergrounding may be something that is appropriate," he said in his prepared testimony. "We're also looking at other system designs, with different polls, different connectors, different wire that would be more storm resilient."

The director of the Office of Long-Term Planning, Sergej Mahnovski, has also underscored that underground wires may be part of the solution — but certainly not the only one — to improving the resiliency of the electrical system.

"Underground networks have their own weaknesses, including vulnerability to flooding and salt deposition in coastal areas," Mahnovski said in prepared testimony dated Jan. 18. "Underground feeders are also more subject to overheating under peak summer conditions."

Since power outages have been the bane of urban communities for so long, the debate surrounding burying power lines underground is long and rich and has largely focused on the high cost of doing so. So while Superstorm Sandy may have exposed the fragility of the city's electrical system in a much larger scope, there was little surprise in it.


How Hurricane Sandy May Have Finally Killed Albany's Convention Center Boondoggle


ALBANY, N.Y. — It’s been almost eight years in the making. Four governors have been in office since the planning officially got underway. The state has spent $12 million so far and allocated $75 million to it. The total cost is estimated to be around $220 million. But so far all there is to show for it is an empty parking lot in downtown Albany next to a Greyhound bus station that time forgot.

And that is likely all the New York State Convention Center is ever going to amount to because funding is expected to be zeroed out this year. Facing a looming $1 billion deficit that is expected to grow thanks to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, the state is likely to have more immediate concerns in the coming years. A convention center in Albany seems like a luxury when compared to the reconstruction and storm preparation needed in the five boroughs.

For the state to move forward on the convention center, it would have to commit to giving the remaining cash initially allocated for the project and to paying up to $9 million a year in rent to the authority. If, as it seems, the state cuts its funding for the project, then the saga of the convention center will become an example of how political patronage and state spending from the governor on down to the Assembly and Albany's mayor, can intersect and lead quite simply to waste. If somehow it becomes more than an empty lot, critics will still openly wonder why the state got itself into the convention center business — in Albany of all places.

Convention Authority Chair Gavin Donohue says Albany is a “capital of a state of 19 million people” that lacks,“a proper place to gather and do business.” Albany, meanwhile, is a city of around 97,000 people and over 700 abandoned buildings. Nevertheless, Donohue said he expects the center to boost the local economy and create jobs as well as be a convenient place for people with business in front of the Legislature to convene.

Assemblyman Jack McEneny, who also serves on the convention center board, said he believes the center will be funded.

“I expect to find an item for $75 million," he said. "The money has been there for several years. If it was zeroed out, if the item wasn’t there in the governor’s budget then it’s all over. Forget it. It would mean the governor is taking no ownership of it. I wouldn’t wait. I would resign from the board. But if the allocation is there, there is still hope.”

Cuomo failed to mention the Albany convention center in his State of the State speech this year when he debuted his plan for a privately funded convention center in Queens. At the time, Donohue told The Business Review he was “disappointed” by the omission.

When asked about funding for the convention center by the Times Union this October, Cuomo said he would defer to the area’s Economic Development Council. Cuomo created 10 of these councils last year. He said any discussion over cutting funding to the project would be made in consultation with the EDC. "You wouldn’t want the state to be funding a project they don’t believe in," he said.

Donohue says the convention center is totally separate from the EDC. “This is a unique thing. We have a separate funding source, separate funding in the budget," he said. "We were listed in their report but there is a pre-existing statute. If we were asking for money (from the EDC) and got turned down then I would be worried.”

Cuomo will set his budget priorities in his State of the State address in January, and won't unveil his budget until later.


It’s been called everything from Albany’s savior to a “white elephant” and a cash sink. It was Gov. George Pataki who first allocated $75 million for the project and it was Gov. David Paterson who released $10,000 to be spent on acquiring land in downtown Albany where the convention center would be built.

The convention center has it’s own authority made up of seven distinguished Albany residents. The Authority takes in more than $1 million a year from an Albany hotel tax.  It has two staff members — one who earns $118,890 a year and another who earns $77,626. Both employees are eligible for state pension benefits.

Critics, including a number of Albany Council members, have pointed out that Albany already has a convention center — it just so happens to be part of the Empire State Plaza (the megalith of urban design overseen by Gov. John Rockefeller that uprooted Albany communities and placed a gigantic concrete mall, concourse, state office buildings and underground system in the middle of the city’s downtown). But supporters of the new convention center insist that the existing convention center isn’t big enough to attract the kinds of conventions that would boost the city.

Critics like Albany Councilman Dominick Calsolaro have also noted that convention centers have historically been drags on local economies, have depressed business for existing hotels in the area, struggled to draw visitors and to pay for costs of operation. Those kind of results were achieved in cities like Boston, Chicago, Columbus Ohio, Dallas, Austin and Minneapolis — cities with a higher profile than Albany.

In fact, convention centers have been popping up and expanding across the country and competing for the same convention business. “Why did Minneapolis struggle to hit projected targets after it enlarged its convention center in 2002?” wrote Steven Malanga in for the Wall Street Journal in a December 2011 article titled “Have We Got a Convention Center to Sell You!”

"Other cities expanded right along with us,'' Minneapolis's convention center director, Jeff Johnson told the newspaper.

A study by Heywood T. Sanders of The University of Texas at San Antonio, Called "Convention Myths and Markets: A Critical Review of Convention Center Feasibility Studies" found that feasibility studies are bent to suit each individual market — with the outcome always being a recommendation to build or expand.

“This article reviews studies for more than 30 cities and demonstrates that they have been consistently flawed and misleading,” reads the description of the study. “Some analyses argue that successful convention centers need to expand to remain competitive. Others conclude that failing centers need to add space to succeed. Studies repeat the same positive findings verbatim from one city to another and fail to account for contradictory data. These market and feasibility studies thus offer no real basis for public investment and serve to bias public decision making and choice.”


So how did the state get involved in the convention center business? The long version is fairly complicated but the short version is two words: political patronage.

Gov. George Pataki set aside the cash for the convention center after die-hard lobbying by Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings who actually defied his party and endorsed Pataki in the 2002 election.

Jennings was a friend of now Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and the convention center project has been called the baby of the 20-year mayor. He began talking about the project in 1997.

But it wasn’t just Jennings' connections to Pataki that made things move for the plan — Jennings got the money allocated — it took the power of the influential Assembly to get the money moving. Albany Assemblymen Ron Canestrari and Jack McEneny were both instrumental in getting the funding for the center during tough financial times.

Jennings and McEneny have touted the project as a way to revitalize Albany and insisted that the project would create construction jobs, service jobs and draw tourists in to the economically depressed city.

It was Gov. David Paterson who gave the project $10 million out of the allocated $75 million in 2008 — a year when the economy was collapsing and the state was digging itself out of a $15.4 billion deficit.

Canestrari and McEneny are influential people. Canestrari is Assembly Majority leader and McEneny is a member of LATFOR, the state redistricting commission. Both are senior members of the Assembly and important allies of Speaker Sheldon Silver. But that is coming to an end. Both members are retiring this year. Their retirement likely has a lot to do with why funding for the project seems to be in jeopardy.


Even Albany’s mayor has backed off on the project. At a meeting of the convention center authority in October, Jennings began publicly backing off the idea that the state would foot the bill for the entire convention center. "It's unrealistic for us to think that the state is going to free up a quarter of a billion dollars," Jennings was quoted as saying by the Albany Times Union.

Some observers believe that Jennings has read the political tea leaves. His friend Cuomo has advocated building a convention center in Queens, but private gambling interests would pay it for. Others say that Jennings has financial concerns of his own, since Albany’s budget is becoming hard to manage and he would rather have Cuomo increase aid for municipality funding rather than sink any cash into the convention center.

Calsolaro, who has consistently advocated the state to fund alternative economic development plans for the city, says he is sad to see the money go to waste. “The convention center has basically become a property management company over the last couple of years. They are overseeing closed parking lots and twiddling their thumbs," he said. "It has been seven years and they haven’t even put a shovel in the ground. It’s the longest running public works project where no construction has actually taken place.” The councilman would favor investment in rehabbilitating Albany’s hundreds of abandoned buildings or other economic initiatives for the city.

Donohue said the expects to see funding in the budget and plans to continue acquiring needed land for the project and perhaps invest in expanding existing sewer and electric lines in the area. He acknowledges that Cuomo may have bigger budget concerns.

“You always have to be concerned about that," he said. "The governor has a problem that is a big dollar problem and it is important but Albany is also important and I don’t think that has changed for the governor.”

Of course, if it seems the state is overwhelmed by the price tag, it could be revamped. The project has already undergone a number of revisions. The plans have been truncated over the past 7 years as development slowly moves forward. It could be that the convention center will live on in some form no matter what kind of funding the state decides to commit this year.

Chicken Little, a Ferris Wheel and Disorderly Development on Staten Island's North Shore


STATEN ISLAND — Exactly nine days after Superstorm Sandy devastated Staten Island, leaving 19 dead and hundreds without homes, about 150 Islanders made their way to the Snug Harbor Cultural Center to attend a meeting sponsored by the New York City Economic Development Corporation. 

The topic for the evening was not the EDC’s disaster recovery programs, bolstering the coastline to prevent future storm surges or potential dangers from the dozens of contaminated sites that line the North Shore and that were flooded during the storm.

Rather, the meeting that night centered on a new plan to build the world’s largest Ferris wheel on the St. George waterfront. Known as the New York Wheel, the ride will sit between the ferry terminal and the baseball stadium — in both areas that could flood during 100 and 500-year storms. Approximately, 1.5 miles north, Superstorm Sandy’s fierce waves washed a 712-ton oil tanker ashore.

The wheel is set to rise 84 feet higher than the Singapore Flyer, currently the title-holder for world’s largest Ferris wheel and will be accompanied by a 340,000-square-foot designer outlet retail complex and a 130,000-square-foot hotel.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the mega-project this September, saying it will bring much-needed economic development to the struggling North Shore of the island, which in 2010 had poverty rates 58 percent and unemployment rates 13 percent higher than in the rest of Staten Island.

Although a handful of residents, small business owners and union members at the Nov. 13 meeting on the development welcomed its promises of jobs and investment, more commonly, residents’ two-minute testimonies included adjectives like “insulting,” “outrageous” and “insensitive.”

"Part of our island was just devastated in the floodplains. And this is actually going to be built in the floodplain,” said local resident Stephanie Woodard. She called the structures “enormous, vulnerable.”

Officials with the company that will raise the New York Wheel assured meeting-goers that the structure would be designed to withstand 300-mile per hour winds and surges from storms as super-sized as those created by Sandy.

The rest of the complex, meanwhile, will be built to at least silver LEED certification and could actually help prevent damage from such storms, according to the company’s website. Furthermore,  the buildings will “include almost five acres of green roof” and a water capture system to absorb rainwater and release it on a controlled basis into the harbor, according to the site. “It is safe to say that our project significantly protects what is now an exposed and relatively old retaining wall at Richmond Terrace.”

However, Nancy Rooney, a nurse who attended the Nov. 13 meeting commented, "I think the timing is poor and we need to reconsider our priorities on this Island."

City Councilwoman Debi Rose, who said she “generally supports” the project, prefaced the meeting by stating that it “should have been postponed” in light of the fact that “Staten Island was ground zero for Hurricane Sandy.”

If the juxtaposition of the two events seems contradictory, closer observation of various land use plans and projects reveals that the New York Wheel tops a long line of seemingly contradictory development initiatives on the North Shore.

This 5-mile stretch of waterfront currently houses approximately 21 sites that are contaminated by previous or existing industrial development. All of them sit less than 70 feet from homes and along the shores of the Kill Van Kull, a tidal straight that is also part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, the most costly cleanup ever undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Long before Sandy hit, local activists were practically begging city officials, through emails, testimonies and public meetings, to better consider the effects of rising sea levels and climate change on the area. Beryl Thurman, president of the North Shore Waterfront Conservancy of Staten Island, has raised concerns about the city’s inattention to climate change, sea level rise and storm surges so often that some colleagues refer to her as “Chicken Little.”

Now that Chicken Little’s sky has actually fallen, will the Bloomberg administration proceed with the proliferation of development projects set to punctuate its end? Or will Sandy signal the start of a more systematized and careful approach to development that takes seriously toxic legacies on the North Shore and the effects of climate change? Events on the North Shore over the past two weeks indicate that Sandy’s alarm bells are growing faint indeed.

Mixed Use and Then Some…

The North Shore has always been a “mixed use” neighborhood. During the industrial revolution, Staten Island's waterways became integral to the city's growing economy, and industries multiplied along the North Shore, which was already the borough’s most populous area. Although 1961 zoning laws required that new residences be protected from certain kinds of industries, the city did not require that existing industries build buffers between their operations and homes.

Today, thanks to its industrial past and present, the North Shore hosts three federal Superfund sites, 15 state Superfund sites, an over-capacity sewer treatment plant, an industrial salt plant and other chemical-using businesses like a furniture reupholstering company, home heating oil company and auto body shops. The North Shore is also home to one of the East Coast’s busiest ports, and hundreds of ships and diesel trucks visit the neighborhood daily.

In the wake of Sandy, local activists are calling for the city, state and federal government to answer their questions about whether — and to what degree — those contaminants were distributed by flood waters.
In an email to city officials, Victoria Gillen, president of Elm Park Civic Association and the North Shore Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, wrote, “The bigger question is WILL THERE BE TESTING? People often live right next to these operations ... Can we get some GENUINE responses regarding our toxic sites on Staten Island? … Were we and our families and businesses, exposed to toxins?”

One of Gillen’s major concerns is a former linseed oil manufacturing plant owned by Archer Daniels Midland, or ADM. From 1939 to 1942, ADM agreed to use a portion of their property on Staten Island to store 1,200 tons of high-grade uranium ore en route from the Belgian Congo to be used in building the atomic bomb. However, at some point (either during initial delivery or eventual shipment), uranium spilled on the waterfront property, leaving levels of radium and uranium contamination nearly 10 times higher than allowable standards in some places.

Seventy years later, in 2010, the EPA announced that the US Army Corps of Engineers would assess and clean the site, now referred to as the “Richmond Terrace Radiological Site.” Currently remediation is set to begin in 2014.  

Last month, Sandy’s waters inundated site, according to neighboring residents. In a post-Sandy statement, the EPA states that it does not “believe that any [of its short-term removal or long-term remedial] sites were impacted in ways that would pose a threat to nearby communities.” But some Staten Islanders remain highly concerned that future storms could unsettle and distribute radioactive contaminants from the site.

Local residents are now calling for the city to halt the development of approximately 89 two-family homes across the street from the radiological site. The houses will be in an “A” zone,  subject to a 100-year flood. Not only are residents worried that chemicals about the flooding, they say they are also concerned that the site may be located on a former wetland.  

At a Staten Island Community Board 1 Local Area Committee meeting last Tuesday, November 21st, Dan Walsh of the Office of Environmental Remediation maintained that the site is not in a known wetland. The site is likely to undergo additional environmental review, however, considering that it is in a flood area close to known environmental hazards.

Seven blocks west, a second property faces similar controversies —  a self-storage facility where high levels of chemical compounds were recently found in vapor samples. The owners of the site have enrolled the facility in the New York City Brownfield Cleanup Program. Partial remediation to mitigate is set to begin next year. But, local activists claim that it, too, is located in a historic wetland and is likely to flood often.

For Thurman, plans to partially remediate chemicals at the site are inadequate because they do not address enough of its contaminants and do not “deal with the possibilities of sea level rising, storm surges and flooding conditions.”

During Sandy, all of the units on the first floor of the storage facility flooded, and customers suffered significant losses.

Joelle Morrison of Stapleton and her husband were storing belongings at the facility temporarily as they prepared to move into a new house. “About 20 percent [of our belongings] are left,” she said. “And it all has to be cleaned… It smells terrible. There were sewage plants nearby and God knows what else.”

Even further west, the EDC is partnering with the New York Container terminal to expand the site to include a 50-foot-deep container ship berth. That berth site, which includes two city-owned parcels, extends into approximately 16.38 acres of tidal wetlands that will require filling or dredging.

The expansion coincides with the raising of the Bayonne Bridge to accommodate so-called “post-panamax ships,” or massive supertankers that will soon be coming through the Panama Canal. Meanwhile, recent studies find that regularly sized container ships can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing material chemicals as up to 50 million cars.

The EDC is currently preparing an environmental impact statement that it says will address the project’s impact on existing wetlands and other environmental implications, including air pollution from mobile sources such as cargo ships.

Sustainability Schizophrenia

Certainly, in dense urban spaces, especially industrial areas, competition between environmental, economic and other priorities is always fierce.

In a planning document entitled “The North Shore 2030,” the EDC outlines an ambitions set of goals for the 5-mile stretch of land: “Create and retain jobs in the active maritime industry; protect environmentally sensitive areas; enhance historic residential and commercial neighborhoods; provide greater public access to current and future recreational areas.”

The plan also notes that the area needs infrastructure improvements, including better stormwater drainage, sanitary sewers and traffic/road conditions.

Since the publication of the plan a year ago, industrial priorities emerge as clearly winning the race to the top of the EDC’s agenda. In particular, development practices support local activists’ claims that the current administration is paying insufficient attention to dangers from both climate change and environmental contaminants.

This past summer, the EDC announced its intent to designate portions of the North Shore as a new “Industrial Business Zone” or area “of land already used by the industrial sector that will be preserved for industrial purposes (as opposed to commercial and residential development).” Companies within these IBZs, or companies that relocate to them, are eligible for tax credits, enhanced sanitation services and employee training programs.

North Shore residents, however, were incensed to hear that their neighborhood might host more industries. “Bottom line: the areas with people of color, people without tremendous economic resources, are paying the price for Bloomberg's projects — while our taxes support these changes, we do not share in the benefits, and find ourselves, here on Staten Island, once again a dumping ground for the city's unwanted garbage,” wrote Gillen in a response to an editorial in Architect’s Newspaper.    

Also this summer, the Department of City Planning launched a new partnership with the Northfield Local Development Corporation on a state-funded “Brownfield Opportunity Area,” or BOA, grant to create a strategic plan for part of that same area. The BOA website states that project goals include “supporting new retail services and jobs, strengthening the working waterfront and providing needed amenities including open space and waterfront access." Importantly, the BOA is intended to “restore environmental quality to areas affected by industrial contaminants.”

But the areas designated for the BOA and the IBZ overlap. Thus, redevelopment stemming from the BOA will also have to comply with the IBZ, meaning redevelopment will have to prioritize industrial properties. The degree to which those types of properties will achieve the goal of restoring “environmental quality” to the area remains questionable.

As Thurman said, “We also don't want more industrial/manufacturing, which is going to poison us with contaminants and pollutants while being condoned by our officials … as something that is being done for the greater good.”

In other IBZs, the EDC has emphasized the need for bringing in industries that promote “environmentally friendly and efficient practices.” However, the EDC has provided no further details about whether it will seek such businesses on the North Shore, or what they would look like.

Taken together, the various plans and projects — the IBZ, the Container Terminal, the New York Wheel, the residential developments — promise to deliver more of what the North Shore already has.
Before development brings more business, more residents, more shoppers and more workers to the North Shore, residents want to know whether the city can first make the waterfront safer and more stable for those living and working there now.

“We need to bolster whatever efforts that are being made to prevent climate change issues from further damaging the shore line leading back to the residential communities,” Thurman said. “Nothing should be going on that waterfront unless they have a workable solution to combat climate change. Clearly we can do better than what we are doing, which amounts to continually shooting ourselves in the foot with poor choices.”


Melissa Checker is associate professor of Urban Studies at Queens College, and of Anthropology and Environmental Psychology at the CUNY Graduate Center.

Images of New York Wheel, Staten Island development courtesy of the mayor's office and the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice

Gotham Gazette: East New York Rezoning, One Year Later East New York Rezoning, One Year Later Gotham Gazette: City Council Members Opt Out of Campaign Finance Program City Council Members Opt Out of Campaign Finance Program Gotham Gazette: Cuomo Contradicts Bharara on Prosecutors & Government Oversight Cuomo Contradicts Bharara on Prosecutors & Government Oversight Gotham Gazette: De Blasio Attempts to Clarify Latest Media Insult De Blasio Attempts to Clarify Latest Media Insult


The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.