Well, that’s hopeful thinking. The EPA may be experts at diagnosing a problem; listing the pollutants in the contaminated area; but they are not experts at solving the problem. Having the EPA manage the clean-up will be like having a contractor come to fix your kitchen; demolish it and then leave – not for months or years but decades. And, unlike the nightmare of a normal remodel you won’t be able to find another contractor because the EPA is, at that time, the only game in town. You won’t be able to call your local TV channel for an expose, nor will the Better Business Bureau be able to help you.
It would be best to have the EPA list the problems and to confirm that the work was done as promised.
Why is the EPA not the answer? The Brooklyn Paper editorial (July 10, 2009) in favor of the Superfund explains it perfectly.
The feds favor an approach that identifies polluters … and then forces them to pay for their toxic handiwork. That process is often mired in litigation. ...
You think? First the sued companies have to still be in business; then the government has to prove liability and the extent of the liability; and finally the company has to have the funds to be able to pay for the clean-up. This is a stupid, do-nothing approach. The right approach is to get developers who want to capitalize on the area to pay a portion of the clean-up funds; have the City, State, and Federal governments pay for the rest of the clean-up and have their investment repaid by the tax dollars that would result from the sale and use of the reclaimed properties. This would be a true example of “stimulus spending.” We would create usable and more valuable property generating millions of tax dollars per year.
The developers would have an incentive to get the job done – the EPA doesn’t. We wouldn’t trust that developers would do the job correctly so the EPA will verify that the toxins are encapsulated properly, removed and disposed of according to law.
New York, Brooklyn, the Gowanus and neighboring communities will get beautiful new homes, shops, and a “river walk.” Local, State and the Federal governments will get tax dollars from the sale and use of these properties and then could spend the monies in a myriad of ways.
We need to get this area cleaned-up; we don’t need years or decades of lawsuits; tens of millions of dollars spent on lawyers; more bankrupt companies with more unemployed workers before anything is even started. We need this started now so that in 5-10 years Brooklyn is even more beautiful than it is now.
If you don’t want the area to change then Superfund the Gowanus. If you want to bring in new housing, new shops, new jobs; a beautiful river walk; millions in tax revenue for schools and a social safety net then the Superfund is not for you.
