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

Dec
17th

From Other Editorial Pens: Norwood News LAND GRAB

Published in the December 11, 2008 Edition

Editorial

Land Grab

The city is trying once again to tack on another new and loathsome component to its already disastrous filtration plant project.

It proposes to snatch a chunk of parkland used by local kids to build a parking lot for the new golf course right next to Sachkerah Woods Playground, the only neighborhood benefit of what is shaping up to be the biggest boondoggle in Bronx history.

Because it’s technically for a park use, the city says it isn’t alienating additional parkland.

Maybe so, but after a litany of monumental screw-ups — not least of which is a tripling of the original price tag to around $3 billion —  you’d think they’d shy from riling the community yet again and show a little sense.

And while golf is a recreational purpose, it is barely one that benefits this community enough to warrant slapping down more asphalt. After all, the parking lot is obviously for people who live far away from Norwood.

The city should stick to its original plan and keep the parking lot on the north side, where it is now and was originally slated for after the project’s completion.

But we’re not naïve. We know this will take another push by advocates and elected officials to get the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to do the right thing — like when they stopped the agency from blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir.

Maybe after taking another drubbing, the DEP will focus on finishing the plant and think twice before springing anything like this on the community again.

We can dream, can’t we?

http://www.norwoodnews.org/story/?id=1303&story=land+grab

Filed under Bronx Media, Court related

Sep
12th

Judge’s decision: DEP stated no blasting & issued a reasonable study

decisionbceqvdep090908

Check out articles on the web at: BCEQ and FIPNA

Sep
6th

Grass Roots Assure Environmental Promises are Kept

On September 3, we returned to court to argue that 76 days ago on June 19, 2008 – the DEP announced for the first time, that it was going to make a substantial change to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the work proposed at the Jerome Park Reservoir related to the now almost $3 Billion Croton Water Treatment Plant (CWTP).

This change was not a minor deviation from a prior approved plan but rather a literal bombshell dropped by DEP when it proposed to blast a shaft through soil and rock along “Education Mile” adjacent to the Jerome Park Reservoir. Had DEP stayed this ill-advised course, this substantial change would have resulted in numerous significant adverse environmental impacts as outlined in Plaintiff’s brief.

The subject matter of this dispute involves an important project to ensure that NYC continues to enjoy plentiful and safe drinking water and the impacts of this project were reviewed for many years culminating in a then and now (even more so) seemingly wrong-headed decision to locate the plant on parkland in Van Cortlandt Park at the Mosholu Golf Course and not in Mount Pleasant at the Eastview site where we now know it would have been much less expensive to build.

Be that as it may, the many years of environmental review under CEQR, SEQRA & ULURP also resulted in a decision not to undertake major construction of the plant at the Jerome Park Reservoir or to blast there in large part because of the significant potential for adverse impacts. Final agency action and exhaustion of the then available administrative remedies occurred on July 16, 2004 with DEP’s issuance of a Statement of Findings.

Yet, knowing the concerns of the Bronx community for this site and its sensitive nature with many residential and institutional receptors of adverse impacts, DEP nonetheless proposed this past June to undertake blasting – an ultra hazardous activity – without a supplemental environmental impact statement. It proposed to do this even after the FSEIS stated that there would be “no blasting or surface drilling” at the Jerome Park Reservoir. Nothing could have been clearer – no blasting meant no blasting. This agency action motivated the Bronx Borough President to write DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd on July 11th to express his dismay that DEP did not bring this decision to blast to the public sooner. Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz echoed the Borough President’s dismay in a late July letter.

We are delighted that this litigation caused DEP to re-think this arbitrary and capricious decision and now concurs with DEP – if indeed blasting at the JPR as it pertains to work related to the CWTP project is off the table and is no longer being considered as an available alternative – that this issue is now moot.

We reminded the Court that DEP has flip-flopped on the issue of blasting. In the 2004 FSEIS, it said “no blasting,” yet on June 19, 2008 DEP was extolling the “Benefits of Controlled Blasting” in its PowerPoint presentation “Upcoming Construction at the Jerome Park Reservoir.” In the late August 2008 just released Technical Memorandum (prepared solely in response to this litigation) DEP announced “updated design and construction changes” and mentions “mechanical excavation” but does not mention either blasting (or hoe-ramming or surface drilling for that matter). It is only by looking at litigation documents for this case – the August 28th affidavit of Gary Heath of the DEP that the community learned that DEP decided to proceed with mechanical excavation (i.e. hoe ramming) instead of blasting.

Because of DEP’s flip-flopping and its continuing attempts at purposeful vagueness and, while we believe Mr. Heath, we were prepared to ask the Court to conform the pleadings to this new evidence available only for the last 2 business days by amending our request for relief to now become either: a) an extension of the preliminary injunction and TRO issued by this Court on July 29th up to the date and time that DEP reviews this proposed “updated design and construction change” not to blast with the Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (FMC) as required by City Council Resolution # 933 or b) to ensure the sincerity of DEP and to ensure that DEP ratifies its Director’s assertion that no blasting will take place, the Court issue a permanent injunction barring DEP and its contractors from any and all blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir site as it relates to the CWTP.

The community won a big fight as there will be no blasting at the reservoir.

While the Court denied our request for a permanent injunction, it was because the Judge believed DEP when it stated that the “blasting” issue was Moot.

Justice Betty Owen Stinson will make her final decision on remaining issues concerning the FMC and surface drilling by the end of the month.

The DEP intends on beginning “hoe ramming” by the end of the month.

On July 29, 2008, the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality joined by other community organizations and leaders brought an Order to Show Cause to stop the City from blasting at the Jerome Park Reservoir. This first successful temporary restraining order (TRO) brought against the City on the Croton Water Treatment Plant (CWTP) project, was prepared by a group of community pro-bono attorneys. Aimed with the premise of we are not going to be pushed around, this grass root effort demonstrated how Bronx community people working together could assure that promises made in environmental impact statements by agencies and developers are kept. We hope this message is clear and has been heard!

/Karen and Walter