Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

In Defense of the Port


Remnants of waterfront fortifications more than three centuries old dot New York harbor. These historic port defenses are among the most impressive sights on New York's oceanfront. Yet, these sites are unknown to many New Yorkers and much of their history is being lost.

New York was both a target and battlefield, but the shape and size of the harbor provided a strong defense from the days of the Dutch.

In 1776, fearing British attack, the colonial army built a series of harbor forts. Geographically, the most impressive is Fort Washington, built on a high point of Manhattan near 181st Street. In that era, New York required defenses against attack by British ships sailing south as well as north along the Hudson River.

The southern entrance to New York's harbor has historically been the most important for shipping and commerce. Consequently, the military expanded its defensive network adding new forts and advanced technology.

Castle Clinton, which was built in 1811, is located at the Battery. This low, round, stone fort operated in conjunction with Castle Williams (1811) and Fort Jay (1800) on Governor's Island. They were Manhattan's main defense against British attack. Fort Wood located on Bedloes Island (now the massive granite pedestal for the Statue of Liberty) was added to the harbor defenses in 1814.

In the aftermath of the War of 1812, new fortifications were built away from Manhattan at the Narrows. Fort Hamilton, built in 1831 on the Brooklyn shore is today an army base. Its water's edge battery, Fort Lafayette, was destroyed during the construction of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

In 1856, Fort Schuyler was built at the Bronx tip of Throgs Neck. In 1862, Fort Totten was built on a bluff in northeastern Queens with a commanding view of the narrow passage between Queens and the Bronx (now spanned by the Throgs Neck Bridge). Fort Totten operated jointly with Fort Schuyler. These coastal forts guarding the northern harbor entrance went unchallenged by the British and Spanish. Their guns never fired in anger.

Today, the great stone structures are museums to the era of stone, cannon and gunship. While history's ghosts abound in museums at both locations, visitors to these shorefront locales find tranquil and far-reaching views of the surrounding seas that once held the specter of foreign threat.

Fort Weed, now part of Fort Wadsworth, was begun in 1841 on the Staten Island side. Fort Wadsworth now houses Coast Guard and National Parks Service offices. At water's edge in the shadow of the giant steel bridge, is the impressive stone structure known as Battery Weed. This bastion completed in 1860 is well preserved. From this site, during World War Two, naval mines were deployed in the Narrows.

At the harbor's periphery is Fort Tilden, located on the Rockaway Peninsula by the open ocean. Today, at Fort Tilden, now administered by the National Park Service, one can visit fifty-foot high concrete gun emplacements that for decades anchored the Army's hidden artillery. These guns, together with matching batteries in New Jersey, six miles across the harbor entrance, guarded the port for half a century. Today, these wartime remnants exist between sand dunes and a beachfront forest.

Not far from the gun emplacements are the remnants of a NIKE missile battery built to defend the New York area from Cold War missile attacks. A second NIKE base was located off New Rochelle in the Long Island Sound. The missiles were removed in the seventies. Outmoded technology and detente led to a new waterfront park.

Sounding Off

New York's harbor remains threatened. Governmental neglect undermines waterfront parks and open space. Toxic dumping delays port modernization and needed expansion. Sensitive wetlands are threatened by over use and pollution.

Maintaining the port's world-class status in the context of its natural resources and its recreational potential requires that new resources be invested in the port. The public agencies whose bridges and facilities overshadow and undermine these historic monuments should contribute to their maintenance. Defending and preserving the harbor's historical resources should be among the first steps toward the preservation of the city's maritime treasures.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.

 

Not In My Backyard


Famed chef Daniel Boulud expects his patrons to drink wine with their dinners. So when he was planning his Restaurant Daniel on East 65th Street, he applied for a liquor license. This apparently inflamed some of his neighbors. They protested that the Upper East Side would be overtaken by alcoholic abandon, as well as double-parked limousines.

Also on the Upper East Side, Woody Allen and his neighbors have been fighting Citibank's plan for a residential tower above its Carnegie Hill branch, saying it would destroy the neighborhood's character - and a prime film set. Testifying before the community board, Allen said, "I've always filmed in Carnegie Hill because it's one of the great small neighborhoods." Citibank has scaled back its plans, but not enough to make it fit in with the filmmaker's next production; Woody Allen testified against the new plan in City Hall.

In Queens these days, it is neither new restaurants nor new residences that have been inspiring the most ire from community groups. It is new schools. Although Queens has the most overcrowded schools in the city, opponents are attacking one proposed new school because it would add to congestion and another because (surprise) it would attract kids.

It is called "Not In My Backyard," or, simply, NIMBY, and it is everywhere in New York. This is a city, says David Lutz, executive director of the Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, where "no good idea goes unopposed." And no bad idea either.

People fight facilities that, they say, should not be anywhere, such as sex-related businesses -- and facilities that they say should be everywhere (except on their block), such as schools. They oppose projects that are generally viewed as needed but undesirable, such as homeless shelters and methadone maintenance centers. But some have been fighting parks. The battles that have been getting the most attention lately are those over new power plants, and over new places for our thousands of tons of daily garbage.

No one would argue that every facility conceived by any developer or politician should be built. But many fear that the balance has tipped too far against change. City Councilman John Sabini, chair of the council's siting subcommittee, says that government officials are reluctant to propose anything new. "We are not rewarded for proposing change in our neighborhoods."

Politicians are caught between demands from competing groups of constituents -- parents clamoring for smaller classes versus homeowners who see teenagers as a threat to their quality of life. Caught in this quandary Queens Borough President Claire Shulman has virtually begged for help.

"I don't mind taking heat from a neighborhood that doesn't want a school," she told community leaders "But please support us, because it is difficult enough as it is."

NOT ONLY IN NEW YORK

Some say that NIMBY, as a phrase if not a movement, began throughout America in the 1960's, as communities moved to take mentally ill people out of institutions and place them in small group homes.

"Nobody wanted such a group home in their backyard," writes Brenda McCormick. "They didn't want this population around their children. And NIMBY - not in my backyard - was coined."

High land costs and community opposition have made it so difficult to site schools throughout the country that many districts place them on abandoned landfills and industrial sites or next to other polluting facilities, according to a recent report by a coalition of environmental groups.

Opposition to new development is blamed for shortages of affordable housing in many cities. On the Long Island Expressway, NIMBY objections to a public comfort station force many motorists to drive the 60 miles to Riverhead in discomfort if not distress.

But perhaps the most arresting example comes from North Hollywood, where some residents favor alcohol over academia. A proposed school, property owner Guy Weddington McCreary told the Los Angeles Times would be "a knife in the back of the business district. We won't be allowed to have a liquor license close to a school. That will kill our night life."

Given New York's diversity and lack of space, NIMBY thrives here. According to one article, naysayers gained strength with the development of community boards. Although the boards' votes are merely advisory, they have influence over other government agencies and the city councilmembers who appoint them. Then too, New York's maze of laws helps activists to use lawsuits to delay or block almost anything.

I AM NOT NIMBY

NIMBY is one of those terms people never use to describe themselves. Instead, opponents present altruistic arguments to bolster their positions. A high rise would alter the architectural character of the neighborhood. School children should not have to cross a busy thoroughfare to get to school.

However valid the arguments, the other side tries to shoot them down with an accusation of NIMBYism, which has become a common pejorative:

"This is the usual NIMBY stuff that you face in New York City," Mayor Rudy Giuliani said last year dismissing critics of a proposed minor league baseball stadium in Queens.

At a forum for candidates for Manhattan borough president in 1997, one candidate accused another of appointing a "notorious NIMBY." to a community board.

An organization promoting needle exchange has distributed leaflets telling its supporter "How to deal with NIMBY opposition."

The charge has been raised in a range of recent battles, fairly or not:

SCHOOLS

Although the city has been adding new classrooms, some 53 percent of the public schools remain overcrowded, according to a survey by the Public Advocate. The crowding is particularly bad in Queens where classes frequently have 35 to 40 students. Officials say solving the problem is a priority, but they face a number of obstacles: money, staff shortages and, sometimes, community opposition.

Last year, residents of Maspeth attempted to block the building of a school, with some going so far as to say they'd rather see a Staples store on the Grand Avenue site. "We have too many schools in the neighborhood," resident Ralph Carbone was quoted as telling a city council subcommittee. "When school gets out, the kids destroy the neighborhood, graffiti, everything."

Sabini, whose subcommittee has to vote on school sitings, has said such problems arise partly because "there are no good sites left in the city. They've been taken."

But observers note that they can also reveal generational and ethnic divides. People whose children are already grown don't want to see an influx of young people, many of whom are the children of immigrants, in their community. In fact, in opposing the Maspeth school, one resident wrote, "We do not wish to become immigration's roadkill."

The Maspeth school is being built, but other controversies continue. One involves Queens College's proposal for a permanent home for a school on its campus focused on math and science for kindergarten through eighth grade. The school currently uses mobile classrooms on the campus

Queens College spokesman Ron Cannava said the college has tried to mollify the naysayers. But, he said, there continues to be "a small group of people finding another reason and another reason to object." Some of these opponents, he thinks, simply "feel very comfortable with the status quo," while others are against "anything in their community that is not exclusively for members of their community." The school would accept youngsters from all over Queens.

Arthur Alex, president of the Kew Garden-North Homeowners Association, has said his group is committed to stopping the school from being built anywhere on the campus. Citing increased traffic from school buses, as well as a need for parking spaces for staff, Alex charges the school could bring "untold environmental problems" to the community.

"ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM"

The closing of Fresh Kills landfill has sent some 13,000 tons of residential garbage a day to 13 waste transfer stations. There the refuse is taken off sanitation trucks, compacted and loaded on to other trucks that will take it to landfills outside New York. Not surprisingly, it's a dirty business, with diesel fumes from the trucks mixing with foul odors from the garbage.

Mark Izeman of the Natural Resource Defense Council, an environmental group, says such facilities "are among the most detested and unwanted land uses in the city." And they are concentrated in a few neighborhoods, largely poor and minority areas of the Bronx and Brooklyn.

Many of these communities are also slated for power plants, leading to charges of environmental racism -- the concentration of polluting facilities in poor and minority communities. Rather, such critics say, neighborhoods throughout the city should receive their fair share of the goods and the bads.

Eddie Bautista, a lawyer representing Williamsburg groups fighting power plants, has said, "It's NIMBY when communities that are not overloaded environmentally don't want a facility that's polluting in their community because of property values. . . .There's a clear difference between that and areas where there is worse air quality and higher asthma rates."

In her article on siting waste facilities in New York, Juliana Maantay, an assistant professor of environmental and urban geography at Lehman College, argues the issue is not only which neighborhood should accept a dirty plant. Instead, she argues, solutions, such as improved technology, should eliminate or reduce "the need for these noxious uses. So, she says, "Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) must become 'Not in Anybody's Back Yard (NIABY).'"

PARKS
"I'm very surprised when people say 'we don't want a park in our neighborhood,'" says David Lutz of the Neighborhood Open Space Coalition. But some people do.

Plans for a new Brooklyn Bridge Park are going ahead but not without drawing opposition from some Brooklyn Height residents who, wrote Julian Barnes, "fear the park will attract hordes of people from outside the neighborhood to the narrow streets of well-preserved brownstones." While some residents say they object to traffic and congestion, their critics argue that the Brooklyn Heights residents really fear less affluent blacks and Hispanics from elsewhere in Brooklyn.

In the Bronx some residents decided not to link to a greenway because says Lutz, "The community to the north is scared of the community to the south."

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Proposals for huge retail "superstores" and multiplex theaters have spurred heated battles throughout the city. Toys 'R' Us lost a bid for a store at 80th Street and Third Avenue, Pathmark encountered opposition as it attempted to place a store in Harlem, and people in Brooklyn are already preparing for a showdown over a possible Ikea store near the Gowanus canal.

Tonier development has its opponents too. Soho residents have opposed a new, small hotel on Thompson Street, acting, Deride Shaw observed in the Observer, like "an army of Erin Brockoviches -- except they were lacking any pitiful tale."

Whether power plants or power bistros, toilets or toy stores, homeless shelters or elegant hotels, NIMBY was here.

 

Power Plant Siting


A man dressed all in black stood beneath the black and white plumes of smoke rising from a power plant. He was wearing a gas mask. Another man carried a blue-faced puppet -- blue for lack of breath -- with an asthma inhaler stuck in its mouth. Other protesters banged on pots and pans and toted signs that read: "Con Ed Let Me Breathe."

They were protesting Con Edison's plan to increase power production at its East River power plant, located on 14th Street between Avenues C and D. Power is being increased there to make up for the energy lost because the company is shutting down completely another plant further uptown, just south of the United Nations. Con Ed sold that plant and some surrounding property last year to private developers, for $680 million.

Since the plant being shut down is in a rich neighborhood, with a large population of white residents, and the plant being expanded is in a poor neighborhood, with a large population of people of color, the shift seems the clearest possible example to the protesters of what they call environmental racism.

Environmental racism is the charge that hangs over a better known power play as well, the effort by the New York Power Authority to build six new temporary power plants in New York City by June 1. Protesters of that effort say that the plants are going up only in low-income and minority neighborhoods, drawing more pollution to areas that already have more than their fair share.

The decision makers reply that none of these decisions have anything to do with environmental racism, and everything to do with efficiently avoiding a crippling energy crisis this summer. Con Edison says that its plan to expand the East River plant will actually reduce pollution overall. State energy officials and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani say the choice of sites for the six new plants had nothing to do with discrimination; they are all in industrial areas that were readily available and had connections to gas and electric lines.

As the weather heats up and the humidity builds, so does the debate over where to place new power plants, what to do with the older, dirtier ones, and how much energy policy should take into account the environment of particular neighborhoods.

HOT IN THE CITY

New York's demand for electricity is at an all-time high. Over the past four years alone, the demand has increased so sharply it is as if the city has suddenly been asked to provide electricity for 700,000 new households.

Everybody agrees that the increased demand is causing a strain, and has to be addressed. Conservationists argue that alternative energy sources like solar and wind power should be tapped, and that steps should be taken to use more efficient technologies in everything from public buildings to streetlights. Most people in authority, however, say that new power plants are the answer.

Private companies are planning to build several large plants in low-income sections of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. Each plant will have over 1,000 megawatts capacity, enough to serve one million homes. (One megawatt is enough power to provide electricity to 1,000 homes). But these plants will not be put into use for at least three years.

In the meantime, the New York Power Authority has broken ground on several of six new plants around the city. (A seventh plant is being built in Islip, on Long Island). The plants, which will cost a total of $510 million, will house 11 natural gas turbines in windowless metal buildings. Two plants with two turbines each have been sited within four blocks of each other in the South Bronx. A few other plants will also have two turbines.

The Power Authority's plans have evoked outrage from mayoral candidates, borough presidents, members of Congress, members of the City Council, and community activists of all kinds. Opponents say the agency avoided environmental reviews in an attempt to speed up construction. They did this, the critics charge, in the most blatant of ways: Any generator is subject to environmental review and community comment if it produces 80 megawatts of power; the Power Authority's generators would each generate 79.9 megawatts.

Opponents charge that the siting process also has discriminated against low-income and minority communities. They now point to a report from Governor Pataki's office, leaked to the press last month, which makes clear that the state was aware that new plants are being built exclusively in low income and minority neighborhoods.

IN THE COURTS

Earlier this month, the opponents of the power plants thought they had scored a coup in court. A State Supreme Court judge in Queens ordered the Power Authority to halt construction on one of the plants, intended to house two turbines on the Long Island City waterfront, until a full environmental review is completed. The judge said that the agency needs to take "a hard look" at several environmental issues, including the effect of digging up old pollutants and the impact of the plant on the neighborhood's residents and businesses. The case was brought by local politicians and Silvercup Studios, a film and television production company with plans to build another studio on a parcel next to the new generator.

But last week an appellate court judge ruled that construction should continue while an appellate panel reviews the case. The panel's decision is expected early this week.

And just two days after the judge in Queens issued his ruling, a State Supreme Court judge in Brooklyn ruled against a coalition of neighborhood groups who made similar arguments in challenging the rest of the plants. The judge said the power authority could continue construction, and that it had not violated any environmental laws in choosing the sites.

Mayor Giuliani, an adamant supporter of immediate plant construction, was elated. The Power Authority declared vindication.

The other side was not pleased. "The decision sends a message the process can be manipulated and maneuvered to ram projects through, particularly in low income communities or communities of color," said Gail Suchman, a lawyer with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest who represented the plaintiffs.

Some opponents of the sitings say that the power authority may indeed not have been in violation of the laws, as the Brooklyn judge concluded, but that the laws themselves are riddled with loopholes. The Department of Environmental Conservation is not even required to look at the impact of soot, charges Mathy Stanislaus, vice-chairman at the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. Soot, or fine particulate matter, causes asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Children and the elderly are particularly susceptible to it. So to Stanislaus, it makes a gruesome kind of logic for the authorities not even to consider how much soot exists in a neighborhood already and how much would be generated from any new plants there. "If you don't look at it, you don't have to deny a permit or modify a project."

FEEDING THE BEAST

Giuliani says New York is facing "a real emergency." He has warned that the city will suffer blackouts and brownouts this summer if the plants are not built.

He is supported by state energy officials. The New York Independent Systems Operator, the agency set up after deregulation to oversee the state's network of electricity lines, says in mid-summer the city could fall short by about 400 megawatts, enough to affect 400,000 homes.

Power plant proponents say the city cannot buy enough energy from outside suppliers to meet peak demand. The city, which already imports about one-quarter of its energy, could potentially look to upstate or other out-of-town generators. But the grid that serves the metropolitan area consists of old, heavily trafficked transmission lines. Bottlenecks make it very difficult to bring in power on especially hot days, when the extra energy is needed most.

Most experts, however, do not believe there will be blackouts if the new plants are not built. What is likely, they say, is a price surge. Indeed, some who oppose the plant sitings contend that the energy crisis stems not from a shortage of supply but from an ineffective deregulation plan that allows generators to overcharge just when demand is highest.

"Last summer, the governor's plan for deregulation did not prevent price-gouging," Mathy Stanislaus says. "Rather than deal with price manipulation, he's dealing with artificially-created excess supply. We went from a highly structured system, where you have to show the need for power, to an open door. We're all asking: 'What's the plan, here?'"

Before deregulation, state energy officials fed surplus power from one area to another area in need. Now, those channels are controlled by private power merchants who sell to the highest bidder. Last summer energy imports clogged up on hot days, and local generators upped their prices. Consumers wound up paying an extra $100 million for air conditioning.

The state and city seem to be improvising their way through New York's transition to a completely deregulated market. The new plants were originally intended to be temporary, and the state environmental agency issued three-year permits for their operation. Yet, the plants may not disappear after their first term, admits Eugene Zeltmann, president of the Power Authority. Zeltmann reported to the state Assembly that the plants might be sold to private owners, who would charge whatever they could get. The Power Authority, on the other hand, says it will charge only enough to recover its costs. Zeltmann also said there may be more small plants on the way next year.

THE TALE OF TWO PLANTS

The fight over Con Ed's plan to shift power production from midtown to the Lower East Side has been getting less attention than that over the new power plants, but in some ways it is a better story.

Con Ed's Waterside plant, the steam station located just south of the United Nations, is a century-old relic from the city's industrial past. As late as 1946, it was surrounded by a visual cesspool of slaughterhouses, meatpackers and cattle pens. But, following a neighborhood regeneration instigated more than 50 years ago by legendary developer William "Big Bill" Zeckendorf -- perhaps best known for negotiating the deal that led to the Rockerfeller family's donation of land to the United Nations -- the old plant is now surrounded by a spate of high-priced highrises, including the 35-story Rivergate, the 44-story Horizon condominiums, and the 57-story Corinthian, which stands catercorner. The developers who purchased the plant -- a team that includes the Fisher family and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter -- intend to demolish the plant and build luxury highrises, hotels and upscale chain stores in its stead.

The East River facility comprises a large brick building with four smokestacks rising more than 350 feet in the air on the north side of 14th Street, and a square block of transistors and large-scale wiring on the south side. Situated on the fringe of the continuously gentrifying but decidedly lowrise East Village, it is surrounded by city housing projects and gut-renovated tenements. The neighborhood comprises about 20 percent low income families, and about 20 percent people of color, and has the second highest rate of asthma in the city. The plant itself has been out of compliance with environmental regulations for five years. The New York Public Interest Research Group has listed it as one of the highest polluting plants in the state.

Under New York's gas-and-electric deregulation scheme, Con Ed, the city's long-time monopoly, has been unloading its power plants on energy companies who want to compete in the new free markets. Waterside is the only plant that has been sold to a private developer.

To make up for steam lost at Waterside, Con Ed wants to install new steam and electricity generators on 14th Street. The repowered plant would produce three million pounds of steam/hour and 360 megawatts of electricity. Waterside currently produces 2.4 million pounds of steam and 163 megawatts of electricity.

The protesters call the move environmental racism because the damages caused by siting the industrial pollution will be suffered disproportionately by poor people or people of color. "You look where air emissions are going to be reduced, where increased, and you look at the consequence of that shift as a whole," Mathy Stanislaus explains.

Susan Steinberg, president of the East River Environmental Coalition, a group created to resist Con Ed's plan, says increasing production on 14th Street without first cleaning up there is an injustice. In a lawsuit before the state Public Service Commission's Siting Board, Steinberg claims the company failed to consider alternative sites for its new generator, as it should have done. She suggests that Con Ed look to an existing plant on 74th Street and a piece of land in Kips Bay to share the load. She says Con Ed should raise its smokestacks, stop using diesel fuel in the old part of the plant and install cleaner technologies before pushing ahead with any expansion.

The company insists East River is the only viable option. It says the 74th Street site is too small, and that the Kips Bay site was sold as part of the real estate deal. The Siting Board has ruled that an investigation of the uptown site is required, and that the sale of the Kips Bay site, which depends on government approval, is not yet a done deal.

The utility has promised to use clean, natural gas technology. Chris Olert, a spokesman, says "the equipment going into East River is state-of-the-art. We're not adding any more smokestacks. This is a super environmentally-friendly project." Con Ed says the city will see a 10 to 25 percent reduction in air pollution from what it was when the two plants were running. In addition, Con Ed maintains that closing Waterside and upping production at the 14th Street plant will result in more office and housing space, more access to the East River for midtown residents, increased tax revenues and rate stability for customers.

Their opponents are unmoved. "In every instance those [other plants] are in areas where people have greater income, and the land values are greater," says Susan Steinberg. "We object to the fact that our neighborhood is being slammed with pollution. We want Con Ed to realize that our community is not going to go away, and we're not going to take this sitting down. We want them to do something about that plant."

Related Links

 

After Fresh Kills


When the great mountain at the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island closed down, the piles of garbage in waste transfer stations started to rise. At the same time, street level traffic around the storage facilities picked up considerably. Some of the stations are located in isolated industrial areas. But others are in residential neighborhoods. The increased truck traffic, residents and community leaders say, is putting people there at risk of serious illness.

The city argues that it has to move its garbage. Fresh Kills, the city's last in-house refuge for refuse, handled 13,000 to 15,000 tons of residential trash everyday. Trucks would carry the stuff to city-owned collection sites on the water, where barges would pick it up and carry it to the landfill. Now, 13 private, land-based stations which formerly contracted only for commercial rubbish are handling the far more personal tonnage, doubling their daily intake. The stations are basically warehouses which serve as motels for garbage on its way to landfills in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and other points west. The city now exports 100 percent of its trash.

The transfer stations are located in the same communities as the new power plants presently under contruction - the South Bronx, and Williamsburg and Greenpoint in Brooklyn, for example - and there have been similar charges of environmental racism. Congressmembers Jose Serrano of the Bronx and Nydia Velazquez of Brooklyn have both filed civil rights complaints over the high number of waste transfer sites in low-income and minority neighborhoods in their districts.

With the increased number of diesel trucks carrying garbage to and from the stations, people are seeing more and more soot clogging the air. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that there is a link between the tiniest particles of soot - those below 2.5 microns in diameter (a human hair is 100 microns) - and thousands of premature deaths nationwide each year. The microscopic bits of soot are the product of emissions from power plants and vehicles. Diesel trucks are among the worst ground-level polluters. The particles lodge deep in the lungs, causing asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Studies have shown both a higher death rate and an increased incidence of children entering hospitals with asthma attacks in areas with high levels of small soot.

The agency has issued a report that reviewed more than 3,000 scientific studies conducted since new national air quality standards were proposed in 1997, and found need for change. The new standards would limit concentrations of particles smaller than 2.5 microns to an average of 15 micrograms per cubic meter measured for three years in a row. The existing standards have limits of particles 10 microns and smaller, but not on the smallest ones. A final report is expected around the end of summer.

Residents in neighborhoods burdened with the stations have more complaints than air pollution. The plants cause severe odor and noise problems as well. Yet, they will stay in action. The city's long-term plan for putting residential garbage back on the water is not expected to kick into gear for up to five years. Until then, it is most likely that all of the city's residential and commercial waste will pass through these stations. And even then, they may start to import trash from Long Island and other areas.

Related Sites:

Michael Burger is a freelance writer and native New Yorker. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, The Earth Times, Terrain, Artbyte, and other magazines."

Who Owns the "578 Miles" of Waterfront, and How Are They Being Used?


(April '01) The first official measurement of New York City's waterfront, so the story goes, took place during the Lindsay Administration. Mayor Lindsay was asked the extent of the city's shoreline, forcing staff members to take ruler and string to a city map. Absent scientific method and computerized mapping techniques, these 'experts' determined that 578 was the official number of miles.

That is a reasonably good metaphor for what could charitably be called the spontaneous approach that the city long has taken towards one of its most spectacular resources.

Back then, the city's waterfront was decaying and its waters were notoriously polluted. Today, the waters are cleaner, the shore more accessible, and water-related activities on the rise. A new focus on coastal issues has emerged. Knowing who uses and controls the "578" miles is more important than ever.

Surprisingly, as it turns out, city residents own the vast bulk of waterfront lots. Three-quarters of all shorefront parcels are zoned residential. This ranges from eighty-five percent in water-enveloped Queens to thirty-five percent in highway-girded Manhattan. Still, perhaps fifteen thousand residences are located on the city's shores.

Lot size and use varies. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of residences with private docks and boats in far-flung corners of Queens and the Bronx. There are large swaths of the city's coast covered by park. The waterfront, in other words, is not all industry or commerce. This is the discovery of a report on shoreline use and ownership by a group called Community Cartography prepared for the New York City Partnership.

There are 274 "park" parcels comprising one-third of all waterfront acreage in the city. While considerable in the aggregate, these park acres are distributed unevenly around the city's littoral. For example, more than ninety-seven percent of the 3652 acres of park waterfront in the Bronx is located in the Northern and Western Bronx. In the South Bronx, for eight waterfront miles, ringing perhaps a half-million residents, there is virtually no waterfront access. No other coastal strip in the city is so devoid of access.

There is discontinuity in Queens too. The National Park Service, through the Gateway National Recreation Area, administers a vast empire of bay and beach acreage around Jamaica Bay. Public access to much of this land is sharply limited. While some of these lands are wildlife refuge that must be protected, much of this waterfront is in effect locked up. Though motorized craft have the run of the waters, the park service limits and discourages launching of hand-powered craft. Meanwhile, under the park service aegis, waterfront communities such as Breezy Point have access to public lands that are virtually unavailable to the bulk of the public.

Old military bases and coastal strips in all five boroughs are in the hands of city, state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, these agencies move at a glacial pace when it comes to turning over and providing public access to places that they no long use, such as Fort Totten in Bayside, Manhattan's West Side waterfront, the Brooklyn piers, and Governors Island.

Waterfront lots zoned for manufacturing or commercial uses comprise about a third of citywide coastal acreage. These working waterfront parcels include airports, power generation facilities, petroleum storage depots, sewage treatment plants, and shipping companies from barge and tug operators to cruise ship lines. Commercial uses vary from a very few waterfront restaurants to a surprising number of private beach clubs and marinas to tourism, eel fishing and many, many, parking lots.

The report shows that twenty percent of all waterfront acreage is vacant or abandoned. That is more vacant acreage than the acreage of all the waterfront parks in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx combined.

Sounding Off

While it is obvious that vacant waterfront can not be moved to the places where most people live, the statistics tell a powerful story about who has access to this important part of urban quality of life. Most of New York City's vacant or abandoned waterfront land is public. Many undeveloped parcels and many slow-moving government waterfront projects are in the heavily populated parts of the boroughs. There is an imbalance and disconnect between the amount of city waterfront and the public's perceived access or practical access to it. Public policy should turn in the direction of immediately opening up the coasts.

As the weather warms, it should be noted that there are only fourteen miles of public beaches, barely more than two percent of the 578- mile shore.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.

Ferries


Fifteen years ago, the Koch Administration, with a push from a private ferry operator, helped launch the modern era of private ferry services in New York harbor. Five years ago, the Giuliani Administration pushed hard to spur new private ferry services to Yankee Stadium. The city has substantially completed a multi-million dollar reconstruction of Pier 11. Pier 11 is the Wall Street hub for the harbor's private ferry operators. At present, there are four private operators and over 30,000 passenger trips a day.

Support, whether legal, administrative or infrastructural, for the activities of the private ferry companies has been a hallmark of the "private" ferry revival of recent years. In addition to New York City, the State of New York, the Port Authority and the State of New Jersey have partnered with these and other private ferry companies.

Into this public/private froth comes the Harbor Ferry Loop proposal. This idea, a vision from the non-profit Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, calls for a fleet of eight vessels, each with a capacity for 99 passengers, circling the upper harbor as a commuter service on weekdays and as a recreational/cultural loop on weekends. The loops would connect sixteen waterfront "commuter" stops and over twenty harborside cultural landmarks. Key transfer stops would include lower Manhattan, Exchange Place in New Jersey and St. George in Staten Island. These stops connect to mass transit hubs. The proposed one-way fare would be $1.50.

These loops highlight a truism held by waterfront advocates that at its heart the city is a maritime metropolis. The loops would allow New Yorkers, people from New Jersey and millions of visitors to discover hidden wonders of the region's shores beyond the crowded straight line that links the Battery to the Statue of Liberty. Many of the proposed stops should be major destination sites and would be if they were easier to get to. Such sites include Governor's Island, Fort Wadsworth, Liberty State Park and Fulton Landing. National Park Service sites outside these loops including Riis Park, Fort Tilden and Sandy Hook in New Jersey might one day also be connected by ferry.

These waterborne connections open the promise of linking local residents to a city much larger than they now know. In the same way that the subway, a century ago, linked a newly consolidated city to its distant parts, ferries at the millennium can unite the metropolis with its far-flung maritime extensions.

Of course, these visions require money. The proposal of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance assumes outside assistance of about $20 million to finance the vessels and build the landings. It also assumes an operating subsidy to augment the proposed fare. Unlike most other ferry proposals where private companies sought limited public assistance, the Alliance's plan has no private capital at this stage.

Sounding Off

At present, the city and the region subsidize many transportation services. From the heavily subsidized PATH trip to the barely subsidized subway trip to the lavishly subsidized commuter express bus trip and the free Staten Island ferry trip, New York, New Jersey and the Port Authority frequently contribute both operating and capital funds.

While subsidies sometimes do go toward bottomless pits, they can also be used to stimulate market creation or serve as catalysts for development. Successful efforts may depend on the exact mix of public assistance and private interest. In the Yankee Stadium service, the private operator provided the boats and took the economic risk. The city and state provided access and paid for many physical improvements.

If the Harbor Loop is built will they come? A market study is needed. Who would use such a service? How often? At what price? Will they use it in the winter? Will they overuse it in the summer? Are loops the way to go?

Private investment will likely follow a firm belief in a significant market of future users. The Visitor's Bureau, the Port Authority or the ferry industry should fund the study. If the right questions are asked, the harbor's potential for recreation, culture, transport and commerce will match a considerable untapped market demand.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.

Turbine Turmoil


The New York Power Authority's plan to install 10 temporary, gas turbine generators around the city in preparation for next summer's predicted energy frenzy has been met with resistance by environmental justice activists in Brooklyn and business leaders in Queens. The activists point out that the generators, which pour smog-causing nitrogen oxide into the air, are, as usual, being placed in low income and minority communities: two on 23rd St. and 3rd Ave. and one on River Street. Silvercup Studios, producers of HBO moneymakers "Sex in the City" and "The Sopranos", has said it would abandon plans to build studios on its acreage along the East River in Long Island City because of its proximity to two of the proposed generators.

But the Power Authority's plan limits the generators' capacity to 79.9 megawatts, falling - not coincidentally - just shy of 80 megawatts, the threshhold at which facilities undergo a siting process that includes a comprehensive environmental review and funding for groups that want to challenge the placement. While Silvercup Studios may be able to throw its financial interest into the fray and have the generators located elsewhere, the agency is nonetheless sneaking its agenda through the system, leaving neighborhood and environmental concerns without a forum.

At least a few of the temporary generators will employ General Electric's turbine technology. As reported in Newsday, GE is funding a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign aimed at undercutting a federal program that places strict pollution controls on new power plants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already issued draft guidance and a background paper that suggests power plants that install specific turbine technology - like GE's - might not need to include emission controls that can cut nitrogen oxide and other pollutants by as much as 90 percent.

The Power Authority intends to use the temporary generators for two years, at which point private energy companies looking to break into the city's deregulated energy market will begin to supply power from new and rebuilt plants around the city. Several of those new plants - including a 500 megawatt unit at the Poletti facility in Astoria and a 750 megawatt facility in Riverhead - will employ GE's turbine technology. If GE is successful, those plants will be free to spew forth their pollutants into the city's already destitute air. Their cost-cutting will cost New Yorkers plenty.

Michael Burger is a freelance writer and native New Yorker. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, The Earth Times, Terrain, Artbyte, and other magazines."

The Missing Marshes of Jamaica Bay


Jamaica Bay's marshes are shrinking. According to the Eco-Watchers, a Queens citizens' organization, the Bay's saltwater marshes have shrunk by over 1200 acres (one and one-half times the area of Central Park) over the past seventy-five years. In the last five years, the rate of loss is said to be five times the rate from 1924-1974. Their statistics suggest that by 2024, the salt water marshes of the central bay will cease to exist.

Though the rate of loss is not universally agreed to and the causes for the shrinkage are incompletely understood, there is agreement that such a loss would be catastrophic for the ecology of Jamaica Bay. Dr. John Tanacredi, Natural Resources Chief for the Gateway Unit of the National Park Service states, "salt water marshes are the most productive areas for biomass production, feeding, and breeding for birds and fish". Tanacredi adds "one-fifth of all bird species in North America" migrate via Jamaica Bay each year. The Bay with an area roughly equal to all of Manhattan, though unknown to many New Yorkers, is a critical, probably irreplaceable, stop on the Atlantic flyway.

For the Eco-Watchers and for their chairman Dan Mundy, who calls himself "an environmentalist with sanity", Jamaica Bay is well known. For decades, these citizen naturalists have explored the bay. Over time, they began to share their separate observations of marsh loss. Eventually, they banded to measure the marsh extent and chronicle their loss. With maps in hand, they contacted government agencies and politicians. Their research was corroborated when the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released maps of the Bay's marshes that echoed the Eco-Watchers' estimates.

Fearing annual losses exceeding fifty acres, Mundy and his group asked the United States Department of the Interior to intervene. Though it is not exactly what they wanted, a "blue-ribbon panel" of marsh, weather and coastal scientists will convene in March to assess causation.

Tanacredi notes that sea level rise may be the culprit. He cautions that "marsh accretion and erosion are natural processes and getting in the way of natural phenomenon may not be desirable." He wants to establish a five-year research agenda to establish cause and effect scientifically. He also notes that the National Park Service lacks funding for significant interventions.

Mundy is wary of the study approach. He is also concerned that the Park Service might allow a "Yellowstone" by letting natural causes destroy the marshes he has fished and explored for half a century. Mundy wants immediate action. The Eco-Watchers and their allies believe that sediment deprivation is a likely cause of the marsh erosion. To redress that condition, he advocates experimental sediment restoration efforts (dumping sandy soil onto de-vegetated marsh areas) in selected locations. Mundy urges that "pilot projects should begin now."

For a decade, the Army Corps of Engineers (the federal government's official and best-funded muck-moving entity) has been planning a Jamaica Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. The Corps recently selected twelve Bay sites for study. Two sites, suggested by the Eco-Watchers were added, but the central bay marshes remain off the list. According to the Corps' Robert Will, "we hope to have funding from Congress in 2002, if they like our sites". He notes that the Army Corps' official position is "we can do nothing immediately to stop the (marsh) erosion problem."

Sounding Off

So will the muck stop here? It is hard to say. Government agencies, no matter how well meaning, move slowly, though perhaps with wise deliberation. The passion of focused citizens can move elected officials to take necessary, though perhaps hasty, positions. Science is often non-conclusive. Nature moves in mysterious ways. Man's action cause problems. Man's reactions cause problems. What is certain is that habitat destruction for animals has been a hallmark of human "progress".

The wildlife refuge in Jamaica Bay centers on the large contiguous marshes of the central bay. This is the place striped bass, turtles, ducks, geese and hundreds of species of birds call home even if just for a day. Their bed and breakfast in the bay is a matter of life or death. For them, why not try a few pilot projects now? If nothing else, such experiments will provide an expanded array of observations for the scientists to consider.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.

Light at the End of the Rail Tunnel?


When the Port Authority of New York was created some seventy-five years ago, it had among its primary purposes the construction of a rail tunnel under the harbor. Such a tunnel would have linked the now scattered parts of the New York area waterfront. Goods and perhaps people would have avoided congestion by moving beneath the surface. The port itself might have benefited from the interconnectedness. Area road tunnels, bridges and roadways would have been spared much wear and tear. All sectors of the local economy, consumers, producers and shippers would have benefited from price competition between rail and truck. Nationwide, today, 30 percent of goods for urban areas move by rail. In the New York metropolitan area, the figure is three percent.

When Mayor Giuliani formally proposed a new version of this idea, it had a mixed reception. Detractors talked about how nothing big can be built anymore in New York. Proponents noted the importance of his vision. Today, three years into the planning process, it remains to be seen if there will be light at the end of this tunnel.

According to Seth Kaye, Executive Vice President at New York City's Economic Development Corporation, the tunnel makes sense and may well happen. The Draft Final Report, for the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Study, states that there is a market that would amount to forty trains a day (over three thousand railcars). That volume of rail traffic would lead to a reduction of one million trucks a year at crowded Hudson River Bridge crossings. To best develop that market, the city has asked the financial community for an expression of interest regarding innovative mechanisms through which the tunnel could be operated and financed. The report suggests that federal funds be sought for infrastructure improvements to existing rail facilities east and west of the tunnel.

The proposed two-track tunnel is estimated to cost $2.3 billion including a half billion dollars for infrastructural improvements. A one-track tunnel would cost $1.5 billion with improvements. In addition to the federal sources, the proposal assumes some amount of state and local revenue including a toll surcharge on trucks, charges to the rail users and revenues from right-of-way sales.

Jim Tripp, General Counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund sees "significant advantages to a tunnel that operates efficiently". He cites likely reductions in air pollutants such as the particulate matter generated by diesel trucks. Al Appleton, Senior Fellow, at the Regional Plan Association adds, " the rail tunnel is the key to any major shift in travel mode." Rail under the harbor " would offer congestion benefits to New Jersey and it would enhance the value of the port as a whole." Appleton noted that Alameda, California addressed a rail corridor improvement project as a congestion reduction and economic development opportunity.

Chris Ward of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey remains unconvinced. He noted that the Port Authority questions the capacity of local roads near proposed Brooklyn and Queens rail depots to handle the volume of truck traffic. He suggested "that there would be significant land-use issues" to be faced. Ward also noted that the study's support for expanded rail float barge operations was worthy of further review. In particular, he mentioned the expansion of interport barge operations to Baltimore, Albany and New Haven.

Bringing light to this task will ultimately depend on cooperation between the governors of New York and New Jersey. According to Kaye, "the congestion reductions in New Jersey and the overall port improvements speak for themselves". He believes New Jersey will see the light. Of course, the cast of characters will change. Governor Whitman will be out of office in fifteen months. In New York City, Mayor Giuliani will be also be replaced in November 2001. Governor Pataki's fate is uncertain. Seeing the light may well depend on whose eyes are focused on freight down the road.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. 

Election Special--The Major Local Issues, from dredging to access


Election 2000 finds the waterfront a more heavily used and more important resource than it has been for generations. In New York, more citizens use the water's edge than vote. But many do both.

The major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate have both shown interest in the Long Island Sound. Rick Lazio has a record of support for issues affecting shoreline preservation in the Great South Bay and relief efforts for the beleaguered Long Island Sound lobstermen. Hillary Clinton indicates her support for clean-up efforts in the Sound.

But there are a half dozen important waterfront issues that are directly connected to New York City:

Dredging. If the New York port is to expand, or even operate efficiently at current activity levels, muck from the harbor bottom must be dredged and dumped somewhere. Shipping the muck by train out of state is expensive. Placing it in pits within the harbor or even in "dumps" outside is fraught with environmental issues, affecting fishermen, ecologists, local communities and relations with neighboring New Jersey. The Clinton administration has attempted to balance New Jersey and New York concerns. Would a President Gore lean toward Senator Clinton on this matter?

Water Quality. The water is markedly cleaner due to regulations on industrial pollution and municipal waste release. The Clean Water Act is given much of the credit. Hillary Clinton supports marine research of water quality issues. Rick Lazio is considered a moderate on many environmental issues. His Republican Party is much less so. Can a junior Republican resist calls from his party's leadership to weaken these laws? Few did when the GOP challenged many environmental laws in 1995.

Governor's Island. For years, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's idea that the federal government should sell Governor's Island to New York for use as a public resource has languished in studies, delayed by Pataki-Giuliani rivalry. The promised one-dollar purchase price may expire in ninety days as President Clinton and the senior senator fade from the scene. At any higher price, the island may have to be sold to those, like Donald Trump, who can afford it. Universities, park uses, historical preservation would all suffer. Senate Republicans have tried to price the Island at $500 million. Would Senator Lazio resist? Presumably Hillary would seek to keep the promised price, but would a President Bush give her such a plum?

Access. Who can get to the water and where? The proposed new Hudson River Park and the Brooklyn Bridge Park are getting many millions of dollars. What about other waterfront communities? The South Bronx, hemmed in by highways, seeks funds for waterfront renewal. But swimming, sailing, kayaking, and sitting by calming waters have statewide appeal; Erie Canal towns from Tonawanda to Waterford are also seeking funds. Neither candidate has focused directly on water as "quality-of-life," though Clinton has expressed support for waterfront revitalization and restoration through legislation that promotes public-private partnerships.

Remediation. Harbor muck ranges from muddy and brown to horribly toxic. The toxic material can be left alone, capped or cleaned up. Costs are high. Private companies such as General Electric have resisted full clean-ups. PCB's released by GE decades ago sit in muck on the Hudson River bottom. RFK, Jr. supports Clinton. Governor Pataki has moved slowly on GE. Would Lazio break ranks?

Industrial. The building of a tunnel beneath the harbor is perhaps the most important single step New York is taking for its economic development and infrastructure. Neither candidate has had much to say about it. Whoever is elected will get many, many chances to do so.

Peter B. Fleischer, currently writing a book on the New York City waterfront, was formerly a transportation and environment policy advisor to New York City Mayors David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years