Nov
8th

Croton owed to Van Cortlandt Park docs

The Feasibility Study for the Pedestrian Bridge Report is below from a link on the CB 8 web page under the Croton Water Treatment Plant, Van Cortlandt Park, Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study
Van Cortlandt Park Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study Part 1
Van Cortlandt Park Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study Part 2

VanCortlandtMap-2007-11x17

Nov
2nd

Chapter 175 of the Laws of 2003 in NYS, MOU & ULURP

As part of the 2003 State Legislation (Chapter 175 of the Laws of 2003, Assembly 8069C and Senate 4791C) that was passed, the city and the state entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was signed by the Mayor, and the Assembly and Senate Leaders, and approved by the NY City Council in 2004.

A 8069 C is the bill A8069C

A8069C with highlights and shortened A8069C with highlights

A8069C votes or the HONOR ROLL Assembly Vote 8069

2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) including Project List as required by Chapter 175
MOU-scanned-Sept-2004

1999 ULURP Resolution and List of Projects
Reso-933-of-1999
Mosholu-Mitigation-Res-993-of-1999

Letter sent to City Council with Excel List of Projects
09.13.04-BronxWaterFiltrationPlant
Updatedlistfor10m091304

Oct
20th

Croton Funding MOU from September 2004

MOU scanned Sept 2004

This was passed by the City Council on September 28, 2004 – Communication from the Mayor ….. transmitting the memorandum of
understanding entered into pursuant to chapter 175 of the laws of 2003 in connection with the Croton water filtration facility and the funding of certain eligible projects in the borough of the Bronx.

MOU also references the one and only ULURP on this project passed in 1999.

Here we are in October 2011 and the DEP has admitted that of the $200 million in the MOU and the $43 million in the ULURP has been frozen.

Feb
16th

Yankee Stadium still stands: 2010 barely

As of this past weekend at the end of March, we watched as the last part was taken down, but it is not completely finished.

In March, Joyce Hogi and Karen Argenti wrote again. State_OPRHP_02162010 response 033110

In March, the OPRHP Commissioner responded with this note:  fax-6088808

In February, BCEQ wrote to the Head of the National Parks Service:  BCEQ NPS YS 02192010

In February, Joyce Hogi and Karen Argenti wrote a note to the State to get them to act in the public interest and demolish Yankee Stadium:  State_OPRHP_02162010 a

Here is the link to the Federal Court Decision from November 2006:  061115_Buchwald_Decision

Here is a note from the Parks Commissioner Benepe in August 2009: BenepeLetter082809

Last year, the Norwood News in the 2/5/2009 Editorial:  Tear Down the Stadium – Now! started a clock: http://www.norwoodnews.org/story/?id=1344&story=tear+down+the+stadium++now

Nov
9th

Pedestrial Bridge connecting Van Cortlandt Park East to West

This was discussed at the last FMC meeting on Nov 5, 2009.  It seemed to catch many by surprise.  The history of the bridge is repeated here for information:

In 1999, the New York City Council passed the ULURP resolution approving the site selection to build a filter plant in Van Cortlandt Park.  The resolution promising certain things, including the Facility Monitoring Committee.

The pedestrian bridge is mentioned in the resolution and on the list of projects.    If the project is feasible, and for some reason, too expensive, then we should be given the opportunity to raise the money elsewhere.  Parks should do the report, then it has to go to the CITY COUNCIL.

HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:

Among the many other items included is this one:

9.) DPR shall undertake a study and impact analysis (the study) to determine whether or not a pedestrian footbridge, crossing the Major Deegan Expressway linking the heretofore and connected east and west portions of Van Cortlandt Park is technically, legally and financially feasible. Said study shall be completed by September 2002 and the results of such study shall be filed with the Speaker of the City Council and the Director of the Land Use Division of the City Council within the ten (10) days of completion. In the event that said study determines that the construction of such a pedestrian footbridge is technically, legally and financially feasible, a Budget Modification, transferring from DEP to DPR funds sufficient to design and build it shall be introduced in the Council by the Mayor within sixty (60) days of the completion of the study;

VanCortlandtMap-2007-11x17

Jun
11th

Can anyone tell us what is going on at the Filtration Plant?

Rumors abound as to whether or not the DEP is going beyond, (yes you heard right, beyond) the LINES OF ALIENATION that they so wisely drew many many (it seems like centuries) ago.

As a reminder, here is what they proposed last November (check the category – Van Cortlandt Park):

http://www.waterblogged.org/design-commission-meets-today-on-golf-course-plan-to-take-the-peoples-park/

http://www.waterblogged.org/the-dep-is-at-it-again-taking-more-land-than-is-alienated/

Here is what the architect put in a professional newspaper:

http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=3231

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

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 “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