StructureHub

Earlier this week, the EPA designated Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal as a Superfund site, much to the chagrin of developers and local group Clean Gowanus Now! (their punctuation, not mine), two groups that generally prefer Mayor Bloomberg’s faster, cheaper cleanup plan, which (because it is faster and cheaper) would allow for major development projects to proceed much more quickly.

But as I wrote a few months ago, as imperfect as the Superfund program is, it is nonetheless our best method for scrubbing clean the nation’s most polluted properties.  Does the process tend to get bogged down with litigation and take a long time?  Generally, yes.  But it is worth noting that unlike many Superfund sites, both the economic and ownership histories of the Gowanus Canal surroundings are well-documented and the EPA already knows the identity of those most responsible for pollution.  Moreover, it bears repeating that the Gowanus Canal is exceeding dirty - so much so that the EPA put it on its “priority” list, which is reserved for the “worst of the worst.”

Since opponents to designation could not truthfully claim that the Bloomberg alternative would do a better job cleaning the canal, they instead repeatedly pushed the “faster and cheaper” angle, with a dash of ”hundreds of well-paying construction jobs” thrown in as well.  Indeed, construction jobs would materialize if development projects went forward now and it is also true that Bloomberg’s plan is less expensive.  But remember why it is less expensive: it would not fully clean the canal (one indication of this: every environmental group that has expressed an opinion on designation thus far has favored it over Bloomberg’s plan).  As for jobs, Superfund designation does not foreclose their creation - it simply delays inevitable developments until the polluted site is actually capable of hosting a clean, livable community.

As for the claims that re-development efforts would be poisoned by the stigma of being named a Superfund site, they are rather disingenuous.  To begin with, the Gowanus Canal is legendaryfor being so polluted; it achieved its mythic (and quite stigmatized) stature without the EPA’s assistance.  Stigma-related qualms are even more puzzling when you consider that even the best alternative plan would not clean the canal as thoroughly as can be expected with designation.  The reason why Gowanus Canal has a stigma for being dirty is not because it is named “Gowanus Canal,” but because of the filth that is implied by that name.  Assuming, for a moment, that the Gowanus Canal did not already have stigma for being polluted, it seems odd for someone to prefer a stigma-free, albeit dirtier neighborhood over an assuredly clean (by way of Superfunding) neighborhood.

Perhaps the most disingenuous arguments against designation were made by Clean Gowanus Now!  That group recently released a fear-inducing study and graphic alleging that if designation occurred, then all mortgaged-originated real-estate activity within 3,000 feet of the canal would be blocked.  The hook for these claims was a federal housing regulation that, as Carroll Gardens Diary already noted in some detail, is not so threatening as it appears.

The claims made by Clean Gowanus Now! make much more sense when you consider its roster of underwriters.  Among them: construction and realty firms, at least three local developers (including Toll Brothers), and property owners who may be liable, under the Superfund program, for costs associated with cleaning up pollution caused by them or their corporate predecessors.  Similarly, the roster of underwriters explains the group’s dogged support of the Bloomberg plan.  Under that plan, many of these same underwriters would reap a financial windfall either from development project profits (significantly, Toll Brothers) or in the form of avoided/negotiated-down environmental liability costs (Bayside Fuel Oil Corporation).

There are enough perfectly valid reasons to oppose Superfund designation for one to avoid making conflict-of-interest laden and mis-leading arguments against it.  In the long-term, the best way to foster development (and fight stigma) on polluted land in a rundown-neighborhood is to clean the land.  If you think “Superfund” is a tough word to deal with in your development’s marketing materials, just imagine how tough it is to use “Gowanus Canal” without hurting sales.  Oh, right…

Related Post:  On possible EPA designation, Brooklyn’s Gowanus Canal:  Superfund me!

Image courtesy of listenmissy.