The Gowanus Canal in south Brooklyn at the center of a formerly active industrial area once bustled with ocean-going ships. Today, it bustles with real estate investors who are pressing to convert industrial properties to condos and reinvent the canal as a miniature Venice.
One developer, Leviev Boymelgreen, plans to create a "Gowanus Village," and Bayside Fuel wants to build two 10 to 12 story towers along the canal. The city Department of Housing Preservation and Development is moving ahead with plans for housing on the eight-acre Public Place site, once the former owner cleans up the contaminated property. Last year the Department of City Planning completed a land use study of the area and is working on a rezoning plan that is likely to meet some of the expectations of developers for this district so close to the booming neighborhoods of Park Slope and Carroll Gardens.
Many residents and experts question whether any of this is sustainable and takes into account serious environmental and public health concerns. Will the rush to develop make the area worse in the long run? Will the real estate bubble burst before the gondolier's dreams can be realized? Will rising sea levels due to global warming put the new Venice under water? Will the piecemeal remediation of toxic sites obscure the long-term threats to the human and natural environment? And will the thunderous roar and pollution from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, the behemoth that looms over the Gowanus inlet, increase as more residents bring more cars so they can get to the area's new superstores like Lowe's, Ikea and Whole Foods?
The Gowanus Canal is one of the city's most polluted waterways. For over a century ships and industries dumped their untreated wastes in the canal. Sediment that has built up over the years at the bottom of the canal is known to be highly contaminated. There is no clear plan to dredge and dispose of the waste. Any plan to accomplish this would face serious regulatory and cost constraints.
The canal is also an outlet for massive combined sewer overflows. These are discharges combining stormwater and domestic sewage that occur during rainstorms because the city's wastewater treatment plants cannot retain and treat large volumes of waste.
To improve the performance of the flushing tunnel, which helps clean out the canal, the city Department of Environmental Protection and state Department of Environmental Conservation have proposed a $350 million project to reduce the sewage overflows by 34 percent and skim off 78 percent of the floatable solids. While a walk along the canal in the summer can make you dizzy, city officials expect their efforts to result in "a substantial reduction in odors." Water quality in the canal would meet the standard for the survival of fish, though it will still be a long way from the pristine inlet it was when Indians fetched foot-long oysters from its waters.
At a recent public meeting with the city's water experts many Gowanus residents did not exactly break out the sparkling to celebrate. Some remembered that when the flushing tunnel, which first opened in 1911, failed in 1961, it took the city almost 40 years to repair it. Over the years, the city has taken major action on water pollution -- building sewage treatment plants, stopping ocean dumping and addressing sewage overflows - only when the courts have forced it to. Thus it would be risky to wager on how long it will actually take to complete the work on the flushing tunnel or the expansion of the Red Hook sewage treatment plant, which will be needed to deal with all the new growth in the watershed (and forecast in PlaNYC2030). While the flushing tunnel project would address the problems at the surface of the canal, it will fail to reach the deeper ones. The water and earth below the surface throughout the area is contaminated. There is still no specific plan or budget to deal with the toxic sediment. Instead, development and remediation are proceeding one site at a time, only surface soil is being replaced, and many sites, like the recent Lowe's megastore, are mostly paved over. Park Slope Neighbors and FROGG-Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus) have complained that the Whole Foods store now under construction, which includes some elements of green architecture, will make stormwater runoff worse because the company refuses to build a green roof. Its hundreds of parsing space could increase traffic and air quality problems.
Neither the city, state nor federal government is studying the long-term effects of this kind of development. Residents of the Public Place site and other housing in the area could face serious health risks from the surrounding environment. Even if the individual site is cleaned up, residents could remain exposed to health risks from properties that are not remediated as contaminants migrate.
There is no systematic monitoring of environmental and health risks in the area. The environmental impact statements for the proposed projects are unlikely to address these risks in any serious way because adequate data do not exist. It is a recipe for chronic illnesses like cancer that develop over long periods of time.
And there is little to no discussion about the long-term effect of the BQE traffic. Typically, mitigation measures proposed in the environmental impact statements for new projects call for air conditioners and double-paned windows to deal with noise and air pollution, offering the ominous prospect of a residential population that must stay indoors in order to stay healthy.
Amid the rush to real estate deals, there are some cautionary voices. For the last several years a team of faculty and students from Columbia University's Graduate School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation have been studying the Gowanus and talking to community groups and city officials. In the book Eco-Gowanus: Urban Remediation by Design, edited by Richard Plunz and Patricia Culligan, the researchers propose using what is called restoration ecology to promote a restoration economy. This would entail creating new industries and institutions on the canal that specialize in environmental cleanup, stewardship and green industry. They question the prevailing "cap and pave" approach that hides long-term environmental and health problems and argue against creating a new residential "monoculture."
Given that the critical issues for the Gowanus are so big and have to be addressed over a long period of time, people may look to the city's planners for answers. But the city's long-term sustainability plan, PlaNYC2030, is quite broad and does not offer any solutions beyond the city-wide goals of improving sewage overflow, cleaning up brownfields and creating new housing throughout the city.
The City Planning Department's rezoning probably will offer a new regulatory regime without a long-term plan. It is likely to allow for residential development on one side of the canal, preservation of industry on the other (though the nearby residential growth will put more pressure on industrial renters and set the stage for an eventual rezoning to residential) and a mixed-use zone that will effectively open the door wide for conversion of industrial properties to housing.
The net effect in the long term is likely to be the residential monoculture that the Columbia researchers warn against. But City Planning could break precedent and go beyond zoning to deal with the complex planning issues in a way that is sustainable in the long run. Over two decades ago, the department did a detailed land use and business survey of the Gowanus that found a resilient industrial community and proposed measures to protect it. At a recent meeting of Brooklyn Community Board 6, the director of the Brooklyn City Planning office, Purnima Kapur, said of the current zoning study, "It will not be an easy or short process."
For more information:
Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus
Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation
Gowanus Roundup (Brownstoner)
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Progressive Planning Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning.Â
Finding an apartment in New York City is a challenge. Finding one with a Section 8 voucher or a Social Security check can be far more difficult.
A simple search on Craigslist reveals that many apartments across the five boroughs will not accept applicants if they pay their rent with government assistance. "No programs," reads a listing for a one-bedroom apartment in an elevator building near Prospect Park.
But under legislation approved by the City Council on Wednesday, that landlord would be subject to penalties under the city's human rights law for discriminating against a prospective tenant based on the source of his or her income.
In addition to the housing legislation, the council also approved a resolution urging the state Legislature to repeal a tax break for Madison Square Garden, a bill that commissions a study on the city's stormwater management and legislation that requires the distribution of information on subsidized health care at day care centers.
Any resident who receives a government-funded voucher for housing already must meet strict requirements, including income caps, location restrictions and time allotted to find an apartment.
According to a report by the council's Committee on General Welfare, at least 75 percent of Section 8 recipients, who receive housing subsidies from the federal government, must make less than 30 percent of the area's median income. They must contribute at least 30 percent of their own income to their rent and find an apartment in 180 days.
A study conducted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which was released last year, found that 21 percent of property owners in New York City have properties available that meet the federally funded program's rental limits, but less than 50 percent of them actually accept tenants with Section 8.
This led Councilmember Bill de Blasio to introduce legislation (Intro 61-A) that would include income discrimination in the city's human rights law. Any property owner whose building has more than five homes cannot base a tenant's selection on the source of his or her income, whether it is cash, a Section 8 voucher or any other government subsidy. The council approved the bill by a vote of 38 to 8.
It is estimated, according to the council, that 85,313 households lease Section 8 units from 30,067 landlords through the New York City Housing Authority. Currently, nearly 20 percent of people with Section 8 vouchers are unable to use them. When similar legislation was enacted elsewhere, like in Chicago, New Jersey or Massachusetts, studies have shown that Section 8 recipients able to actually participate in the program increased by an average of 12 percent.
Advocates hailed approval of the bill which was first floated at City Hall in 2004. Oversight of the legislation will be under the Commission on Human Rights.
"This law will provide sorely needed protection to tens of thousands of working families and seniors throughout New York City who rely on Section 8 to pay the rent and make ends meet," said Bertha Lewis, executive director of New York ACORN, in a prepared statement.
Members who voted against the measure were James Oddo, Dennis Gallagher, Vincent Ignizio, Leroy Comrie, Erik Dilan, Simcha Felder, James Vacca and Peter Vallone Jr. Kendall Stewart abstained.
Some opponents questioned the bill because it applied to landlords with as few as six units, meaning it would affect property owners who might not be able to deal with Section 8's so-called "red tape." Felder said there was no substantial evidence that Section 8 recipients are turned away because of the source of their income. He called the bill a "feel good thing."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also voiced opposition, raising the possibility of a mayoral veto. In a statement to the Staten Island Advance , the mayor said the bill threatened established case law as well as property owners.
In an e-mailed response, a mayoral spokesperson said the administration opposes the legislation. Instead the administration wants to reduce bureaucratic hurdles in the Section 8 program so landlords want to participate, not create obligatory legislation that targets landlords. The bill is a "solution in search of a problem," reads the e-mail.
The vote's approval margin, though, would defeat a mayoral veto.
After years of debate, the City Council approved a resolution urging the State Legislature to rescind an approximately $12 million annual tax break for Madison Square Garden, which has been in place since the Koch administration.
The resolution (Reso 90-A) was approved by a voice vote, and little opposition was heard.
For 25 years, city officials said, the Garden, whose parent company is Cablevision, has not had to pay approximately $300 million in property taxes. The exemption was first granted during the 1980s, a bleak fiscal era for the city, to keep several New York sports teams, including the Knicks and the Rangers, inside the city limits. Now, said city officials, since the city is no longer at risk of losing these athletic franchises, it is time for the Garden to start paying.
"Madison Square Garden is the only entity of the city of New York that has or has ever had an open ended tax abatement," aid Quinn. "They have been more than fairly compensated for staying in this city."
Some members, such as council members Letitia James and Domenic Recchia, questioned whether the resolution equally treated other developments or corporations in the city. Recchia pointed to breaks given to both the Yankees and Mets for their new stadiums' construction, while James cited the breaks given to Atlantic Yards.
The legislation's prospects, some observers said, does not look rosy, because Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is unlikely to take up the measure. (Some point to Bloomberg's doomed West Side stadium, which Silver blocked, possibly because of a lobbying effort by Cablevision in the state capital.)
In response to the resolution, the Garden released the following statement: “We have previously communicated with the mayor and agreed to discuss this issue with him at the appropriate time. The City Council’s decision to single out Madison Square Garden, an engine of economic activity that provides jobs for New Yorkers, when more than a billion dollars in benefits have been given to the other pro sports teams in New York City is obviously based on politics, not sound public policy.”
In light of PlaNYC 2030, Councilmember James Gennaro introduced legislation (Intro 630) mandating the city draft a stormwater management plan. The plan will incorporate green building tactics to divert pollutants from the city's waterways. The bill was approved unanimously by a vote of 48 to 0.
An estimated 27 billion gallons of untreated sewage enters waterways throughout the city annually, all because of a sewer system that is overwhelmed by more than one-tenth of an inch of rain. About 60 percent of the sewer system is connected to the stormwater system.
Overhauling the entire stormwater system, which some advocates say is necessary to really solve the problem, is an overwhelming and expensive task, officials have said. This bill would attempt to incorporate "progressive and cost effective strategies," such as green roofs and permeable pavement, to address stormwater management, said officials.
A bill unanimously approved by the council by a vote of 48 to 0 requires day care centers to distribute pamphlets on health insurance. The bill, (Intro 293-A) sponsored by James, would add day care centers to the likes of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which already distribute such information. James hopes with more information, the number of uninsured children in the city will decrease.
Under legislation (Intro 643) unanimously approved by the council, all rule changes by city agencies must be distributed to the public and the City Council at least 30 days prior to a public hearing. Though agencies are already required to distribute such information, the bill, which was sponsored by Felder, sets forth a timeline so citizens can fully digest and study the proposed changes. Â
Unified as perhaps never before, housing advocates have come together to launch a major campaign to change the state's housing laws. They call it the Real Rent Reform Campaign, a pointed poke at the Rent Reform Act of 1997, the name given changes the legislature passed in 1997 that weakened the state's rent regulation laws significantly.
At a recent organizational meeting, tenant groups from across the city and suburbs pitched this battle as historic. They are focusing on one pivotal goal: A Democratic takeover of the State Senate, a win that would end over a decade of control by Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, who called for the end of rent regulation in the 1990s and who effectively prevents passage of any progressive housing legislation.
For over a decade under Gov. George Pataki, housing advocates had virtually no influence on state housing policy. They were effectively neutralized by Republican control of the executive branch and the State Senate.
Already, barely a year after his election, Gov. Eliot Spitzer has at least changed advocates' influence on policy.
"Now we're able to get answers when we call," said City Councilmember Gale Brewer of her efforts to get information from the state's housing agency, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal. "I mean, we're actually talking."
The agency has been forging new ties to a variety of groups, signaling the change. A tenant advisory committee has been rejuvenated. Importantly to advocates, the agency is talking about taking action to enforce the rent regulation laws instead of just waiting for people to complain about landlords overcharging
Advocates thank Spitzer for all of these changes. But in the face of the affordable housing crisis, advocates want to undo state laws that they assert have severely eroded -- and continue to erode -- the supply of affordable housing. Winning the State Senate for Democrats will help undo some of the damage done to rent regulation laws by the Republicans.
The loss of rent-regulated apartments drives the new campaign. Simply put, advocates say, changes in the state's rent laws over the last decades have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of these apartments, which make up the largest stock of affordable housing in the city. And the hemorrhaging continues apace: Virtually every neighborhood in New York City and suburban counties are seeing significant increases in rents. While advocates welcome the city's efforts to build new affordable housing, the number already built under the mayor's program -- about 70,000 apartments of a planned 165,000 -- pale in comparison to the approximately 1 million rent-stabilized apartments in the city.
The state's housing laws are in need of a vast overhaul, but advocates have set their sights on four key issues.
Republicans hold their majority in the New York State Senate by the thinnest of margins -- 33 to 29. If the Democrats take just two seats from them in November, Democrats would control the body for first time since 1965. And that would effectively mean that a primary obstacle to progressive housing laws -- Republican Majority Leader Sen. Joseph Bruno -- would lose his clout.
"It's the only goal for 2008" said a campaign participant who is optimistic that tenants can make the difference for the Democrats. He requested anonymity because he was representing his personal views, not those of the agency with which he is affiliated.
Housing advocates have identified three vulnerable Republican seats: Serphin Maltese's and Frank Padavan's in Queens and Caesar Trunzo's in Suffolk County. "We're going to organize to take those seats -- we'll have phone banks, door knocking and other efforts," said Dan Jacoby of Democracy for New York City, a voters' rights group, and a member of the West Side Neighborhood Alliance.
"After years and years of seeing bad things happen, the anger at what our governments, at various levels, are doing to us has mobilized people," Jacoby said. "Whether it's housing reform or health care reform or any other kind of reform, I think it's given a new life and energy to the idea that ordinary citizens can make a difference."
Advocates know that Democratic control of the State Senate is not a guarantee that their agenda will become law. In fact, many blame Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver for allowing vacancy decontrol to become law after negotiations with Bruno and Pataki in 1997. But advocates hope that, if their efforts are seen as pivotal to helping the Democrats take control of the State Senate, they can use that as leverage to get the reforms they want.
The fight will hardly be easy, advocates conceded. Landlords will fight for their interests as well. In elections in 2006, landlord lobbyist groups donated almost $10 million to Republican campaign efforts, not much less than half what Republicans raised in total -- $26 million -- and roughly equal to what Democrats raised in total (about $11 million). Real estate interests have already been using their money at fund-raising events for likely 2009 mayoral candidates.
The main landlord lobby group, the Rent Stabilization Association, declined to comment for this article. They maintain that government regulation hurts rather than helps solve affordability problems. In the past they have told me increasing governmental regulation simply drives up expenses for property owners.
More recently, landlords have been flexing their muscles in opposition to legislation now pending in the City Council that would allow tenants to sue their landlords in housing court for harassment. City Council members told me that they have been inundated by calls, letters and visits from property owners across the city. The Rent Stabilization Association sent out a memo to owners about the bill, apparently unleashing the onslaught, a council member said. (I could not obtain a copy of the memo.)
Without huge amounts of money, housing advocates hope to bring out the tenant vote. Many tenants, though, do not know that they live in rent regulated apartments, a big problem that at least partly explains why so many are overcharged for their rents. Advocates plan information sessions across the city so that tenants know what is at stake in November and how a change in Albany could lead to legislation to protect rent regulated apartments.
For this to be successful, though, the advocates need to maintain their unity. Fissures and splinters, break-ups and make-ups have marked the tenant movement's history. For at least two years now, advocates have put together coalitions that appear very solid. But some advocates, who wished to remain anonymous to avoid appearing divisive, told me there could be a flare up of the old bad feelings. That might not break the unity, but it could hamper efforts.
Finally, there are the normal sources of stress that can affect any ambitious campaign: lack of resources, worker fatigue, miscues and snafus of every stripe. While the campaign looked good as its leaders kicked it off on a recent Saturday afternoon -- an auditorium filled to capacity with representatives of diverse groups from across the city -- it still has not developed a media strategy or set up a Web site.
Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations. Â