To the editor,
I lived next the Gowanus Canal for 10 years — so I’m interested in the “Superfund” dustup (“City could be holding bag for feds’ Gowanus clean-up,” April 24). The fact is the Gowanus area is quite polluted — besides the sewer overflow and the growing underground toxic plume, the area was an industrial center for around 150 years.
The Superfund designation fits because this is too big a problem to be handled piecemeal, lot by lot.
Why is the area being considered for housing at all? Do we really want families with young children or seniors living in this environment? Why not reserve it for industry?
I’m sure there are people in the Gowanus or Wyckoff Houses who would welcome a good-paying, blue-color job. Industrial development works — we only have to look at the Navy Yard (at 100-percent capacity) for an example.
Lastly, I’m sick of Brooklyn neighborhoods being bullied by developers. If Toll Brothers is blackmailing us now, how good a clean-up are they going to do when their dollars are on the line?
Peter Levinson,
Windsor Terrace
• • •
To the editor,
We think that the Superfund designation is the best thing that has ever happened to our neighborhood.
The canal, the contaminated result of many decades of abuse by pollutants and polluters alike, is nothing short of a major public health hazard. It is an absolutely appalling, environmental disgrace, an open sewer in one of the greatest cities in the world.
For a very long time, we have been told by elected and civic leaders that the only way to get the canal clean was to develop it for residential housing. But, there was never any explanation of which mechanism would be put into place exactly to make this happen.
Placement on the Superfund list appears to be the best, indeed, the only mechanism by which the required thorough, comprehensive remediation can be achieved. The word “comprehensive” is by far the most important aspect of what Superfund status offers us as a community.
There has been a great deal of press about how Toll Brothers has expressed its reluctance to continue with its project if the canal is indeed made a Superfund site because such a status would stigmatize the area and make it impossible to market apartments.
But any sighted, living creature only has to take a brief glimpse at the canal, even on its best day, to see that there is something terribly wrong with it.
Some have said that Superfund supporters are really just anti-development factions in disguise. This is utter nonsense. We are for the Superfund designation. We are not anti-any development — but we are against placing densely populated developments on quasi-remediated sites. We believe that a comprehensive clean-up should come before any development.
The federal involvement in this process gives us a much more secure feeling that the remediation will not only be done properly, but, will be vigilantly monitored to insure its success.
We are not concerned about the length of time this process will take. It is too important to rush. We are not at all concerned about our property values. The ultimate goal here is a clean, healthy canal and waterfront area.
Once accomplished, all in proximity are lifted in value and more important, by the healthier environment.
Lucy DeCarlo, Rita Miller, and Triada Samaras,
Carroll Gardens
Lard ask
To the editor,
I’m a native of Carroll Gardens living in London, where, this Easter, as tradition dictates, I made my late mother’s recipe for lard bread because lard bread doesn’t exist in the United Kingdom (“Lard and clear: Caputo’s bread the talk of Iraq,” The Brooklyn Angle, April 24).
Reading your article made my mouth water! Vito Gentile,
London, England
Gym neighbors
To the editor,
I want to clarify a few points in your story about St. Joseph’s College’s plans for a new fieldhouse (“Gym-Nauseam,” April 24) that I think are confusing:
1. The Society for Clinton Hill has not yet taken a position on the proposal.
2. Sister Elizabeth, president of St. Joseph’s College, made a presentation at our March meeting about the proposed gym. She took a number of very intense questions. At the end of the session, she stated that the college would consider the many questions and issues raised at the meeting.
3. In the following week, the college postponed its presentation to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and we assumed it was for the purpose of additional study of the location, design, and financing of the gym.
4. As an organization, we felt this was positive and that we and probably others would want to wait before making any decisions until a final design was presented.
Sharon Barnes, Clinton Hill
The writer is a board member of the Society for Clinton Hill.
•••
To the editor,
I’m going to fight St. Joseph’s College’s horrible basketball arena on Clinton Avenue tooth and nail.
St. Joseph’s can do a great small building on Vanderbilt Avenue (where they have huge empty parking lots) and still give the students what they need. They MUST understand that the new building should enhance the campus, not destroy it.
It’s a good idea located in the wrong spot. There are lots of mature trees, beautiful historic houses, it would be just such a bad idea.
Dana Laudani, Clinton Hill
Circus freaks
To the editor,
Coney Island will welcome animal cruelty this summer as Ringling Brothers brings elephants and other animals who travel long distances in rail cars, suffer from boredom and are forced to “perform” for our entertainment (“The circus IS coming to town!” April 24).
The rest of the time they are in chains.Wayne Johnson,
Brooklyn Heights
People power
To the editor,
The Brooklyn Paper’s Politicrasher columnist recently covered a candidate’s forum in which he described one of my comments as radical (“Candidates to succeed Yassky yawn it out in Brooklyn Heights, April 24).
Touché. I heard the writer loud and clear as his point is well taken.
Here is my revised position on my proposal to give community board’s “veto power” over land-use decisions.
• Let’s give borough presidents a veto power over rezoning and eminent domain that triggers a mandated referendum in affected Council districts.
• And when community boards reject a rezoning and a use of eminent domain by a two-thirds majority, the same kind of referendum should also be triggered.
Land-use and rezoning are big issues. Let’s let democracy decide!
Doug Biviano,
Brooklyn Heights
The writer is a candidate for the City Council seat currently occupied by David Yassky (D–Brooklyn Heights).
