May
21st

Riverdale Press Editorial on CEO Mayor May 14, 2009

Editorial comment:

A shareholder’s report on NYC, Inc.

As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars.

Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better – or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard – the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park.

When he made the deal in the back room of Bronx Democratic Party headquarters that brought the plant to the park, Mr. Bloomberg notoriously enticed legislators to vote for the project with a promise of $220 million in city funds to be spent on parks in their districts. But that was just a down payment.

Mr. Bloomberg may be able to finance his own campaigns, but for the others who sat around the table that day the real windfall was campaign cash from the contractors and construction unions that would build the plant. Our mayor waded waist-deep in the pay-to-play culture of city politics.

Let’s turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let’s observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can’t add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air.

The DEP’s most recent broken promise is its pledge to excavate in the vicinity of the Jerome Park Reservoir without resorting to blasting. Its decision to dynamite after all needs to be viewed in the context of its sorry record of miscalculation and misstatement. Here’s some of that record:

  • The DEP’s inability to comply with the schedule it set itself has cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in fines.
  • When the agency’s own draft environmental impact statement showed that our water bills would be lower if the plant were built in an industrial park in Westchester, the price tag underwent an unexplained $200 million increase. The new estimate in the final environmental impact statement was just enough to wipe out the potential savings and blunt an argument against building in Van Cortlandt.
  • With years of construction still to go, the project has already exceeded its budget by more than $2 billion.

The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?

The evidence is mixed.

The DEP did lie to cover its tracks when it upped the estimate for building in Westchester. A spokesman said town officials had negotiated a monetary trade-off for the inconvenience of hosting the plant. Not true, the town supervisors told The Press.

What about what the DEP characterizes as the “minor modification” of using dynamite? It’s tempting to conclude that it kept plans to blast in its back pocket, but there’s no way to know.

As to the DEP’s inability to contain costs, its track record argues for incompetence rather than dishonesty. It has been almost as wrong about the ultraviolet water treatment plant it is building in the Westchester industrial park as about the filtration plant. The cost of building the UV plant has ballooned from $597,000 to $1.6 billion.

Duplicity or ineptitude: either way, this sorry history has had real consequences. It has cost the residents of Norwood their tranquility, and now threatens the tranquility of Van Cortlandt Village and the schools along Education Mile.

And it has contributed to a rise in water rates that threatens the ability of non-profit organizations to maintain thousands of affordable apartments in the Bronx and elsewhere.

Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?

http://riverdalepress.com/full.php?sid=8617&current_edition=2009-05-14

May
6th

E-magazine: Yankee stadium lost parks – community advocacy fight

SIDEBAR

Dropping the Ball

How the New Yankee Stadium Turned Parks into Parking Lots

By Matt Johanson

When the Yankees opened their new stadium and pinstriped stars like Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera ran onto the field for the first time, the cheers of delirious New York fans echoed for miles. But to environmentalists and residents in surrounding neighborhoods, a Bronx cheer seems a more appropriate response to the new Yankee Stadium project, which they say isn’t nearly green enough, grass notwithstanding.

MATT JOHANSON’s book Game of My Life: San Francisco Giants can be found at www.giantsgamesbook.com.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4666

May
6th

NY Daily News: DEP blasting at JPR

DEP backtracks on excavation explosives vow

Less than nine months after telling a judge it would not use blasting on a Bronx water tunnel project, the city has gone back on its word – possibly lighting the fuse on a new lawsuit.

May
4th

NYS Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation got notice but not the court, or the people

Below are the two files we got from the State via Assemblyman Dinowitz’s office.

JPR is on the State and National Register, not just eligible as it states in the attached memos.  The Conservancy may have more comments on this at a later date.

As you can tell from the letter, the Sept 2008 memo is in response to the DEP’s July 2008 scope of work for the contract and discusses blasting.  The January 2009 memo expands on another request from the DEP, which begs the question — why didn’t they come to the community and/or started an EIS sooner.  If you look at old notices for EIS, they usually mention other agency approvals that are pending BEFORE they do the EIS, not wait until after.

Meanwhile the DEP told the court in an August 2008 affidavit and memo of law, that they were not ready to use blasting so it would be a moot question.  The Court agreed.  They also told the court that the hoe ramming on phase I would take 6 weeks.  They started March 23 and are still hoe ramming.  H mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May
4th

FIPNA running a survey on DEP

http://www.fipna.org/2009/05/03/dep-admits-they-did-not-do-a-good-job-on-the-eis-for-jerome-park-reservoir/

Go to the site and vote, and express your feelings.

May
4th

Some Old Legal Research: Things that make you go hmmm

  1. Affidavit of Angela Licata, January 2005 – see in particular page 24 on JPR
  2. Court of Appeals Decision, February 2001
  3. Prior notice of DEIS, December 2003 – see page 3 for impacts at JPR
  4. DEIS Exec Summary, December 2003 – see Table 4 on page 40
  5. Letter from the Friends of Jerome Park Reservoir asking same questions in 2004 as we did in 2009.

May
3rd

NYC DEP can not even put up a post

Well, folks, another promise made by the DEP just last Thursday night was that they would put the so called, Minor Modification up online.

All EISs are supposed to be online and available for the public to see. See the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) web page.

Here is the New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Critique to follow

May
3rd

NYC DEP “did not do a good job on EIS for Jerome Park”

You remember our past notes on what the DEP flip flop at the Jerome Park Reservoir. If not check out this link: Grass Roots Insure that Environmental Promises are Kept

Meanwhile, at the April 30, 2009 Meeting of the Facilities Monitoring Committee, NYC DEP Deputy Commissioner Angela Licata said, “we did not do a good job on the EIS for Jerome Park.”

This was her response after she commented that they had a choice between using a hoe ram or blasting as a method for removing rock across the street from the Bronx High School of Science. And when someone from the audience (could have been me) yelled where is it in the EIS, she replied, we have a list of methods so the word “hoe ram” is on the list. Excuse me? List? GMAB!

Deputy Commissioner Licata, you are in over your head.

Meanwhile, on this same day, the Mayor published an unbelievable press release and public survey. In the same way the Mayor Koch used to say, how am I doing, Mayor Mike is asking how he is doing with his environmental reviews. Check it out, it is a hoot. Comment if you like, but I am sure he has it rigged already.

Be sure to search waterblogged for the “court related” articles and/or something on “Jerome Park Reservoir.” Or check it out here

Check back for the next blog on: Why the DEP keeps refusing to do a supplemental EIS? If they had done it in June 2008, when first asked by the community, it would be over by now. So, what’s up with that? These changes are not minor modifications, but major changes to the FSEIS.
/Karen