'Inconceivable': Bloomberg mocks Liu and de Blasio for flipping on an Upper East Side garbage issue
Bloomberg in Bay Ridge. Dana Rubinstein
1:09 pm Feb. 25, 20139
Mayor Michael Bloomberg this morning lashed out at public advocate Bill de Blasio and comptroller John Liu for their newfound and "inconceivable" opposition to his waste-management program.
"It's inconceivable that Bill de Blasio and John Liu would ever have said what was reported in the paper, that they oppose that," said Bloomberg today at a press conference in Bay Ridge. "Because when they were in the City Council, they both voted for it."
On Saturday, five Democratic mayoral candidates attended an Upper East Side forum in front of a crowd of opponents of the waste-transfer station on the East River. Four of the candidates promptly questioned the Bloomberg administration's plan to build it.
It's one of four marine transfer stations that the Bloomberg administration is building to help take reduce truck traffic on city streets. The plan passed with de Blasio's and Liu's approval when both were in the Council in 2006.
On Saturday, at the forum, both Liu and de Blasio, as well as former comptroller Bill Thompson and former councilman Sal Albanese, said that the station's East 91st Street site should be reconsidered, given its concerns about flooding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.
Eddie Bautista, the executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, told my colleague Azi Paybarah that the candidates' rhetoric "smacks of pandering."
When I asked Bloomberg today about the candidates' remarks, he feigned disbelief.
"I think you must be wrong," he said, adding, "John Liu's office registered the contract about a year ago. So It can't be. You must have your facts wrong."
His spokesman, Marc Lavorgna, "corrected" him.
"Huh?" said the mayor. "Two months ago he registed the contract? In two months he can't have changed his views. So I'm sure that what I've read in the paper is wrong."
According to LaVorgna, Liu registered the contract in December, well after the hurricane-induced flooding that apparently prompting him to rethink his stance on the matter.
I asked Bloomberg whether he had coordinated his response with Quinn, who has his tacit support, and whose support of the waste-transfer station was immediately touted by the mayor's aides. He didn't quite answer.
"I don't need to coordinate with anybody," he said. "Christine Quinn, if the paper is to be believed, stood up for what she had voted for back then. The issue here is, we have a concept that every borough will try to take care of as many of their problems as they can without [foisting] those on other boroughs, as some attempt towards fairness. And also, too many times, it's just been poor neighborhoods that have had these kinds of things [foisted] on them. And so the City Council, in its wisdom, with certainly some urging from the administration, and I signed the bill, found a ways to make every borough responisble for solid waste removal. But also, remember, every borough is benefitting, including wealthy and poor neighborhoods, from getting the trucks off the roads, to the extent that this does that."
Neither Liu nor de Blasio had any immediate comment.
It's not "inconceivable". The current SWMP, the planning of which dates back to the late 90s, is already antiquated and seriously flawed. In 2013 the city's focus SHOULD be on recycling, cutting back on waste, and composting, NOT sending more waste to landfills. By contrast in 2013, San Francisco currently sends only 25% of its waste to landfill and is on track to being a city that sends 0% to landfill. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/jan-june13/recycling_01-25.... Under the Bloomberg/Quinn years NYC's recycling rate has to fallen to 15% from a high of an admittedly paltry rate of a bit over 20% in 2001. The rest-- 85%, is sent to landfill.
The SWMP also doesn't take into account the rise in sea levels and pattern of catastrophic flooding during the recent storms that are expected to continue in the future. The East 91 St. planned MTS (waste to landfill) was under 6-18 ft of water during Hurricane Sandy according to FEMA maps.. It is folly and throwing millions, if not billions after bad by locating a huge industrial waste transfer station in Hurrricane Zone A, between a playground, an aqua-center, and ball fields, in the densely populated, diverse neighborhood of Yorkville/East Harlem, which suffered severe flooded during storm Sandy.
It's not "inconceivable". The current SWMP, the planning of which dates back to the late 90s, is already antiquated and seriously flawed. In 2013 the city's focus SHOULD be on recycling, cutting back on waste, and composting, NOT sending more waste to landfills. By contrast in 2013, San Francisco currently sends only 25% of its waste to landfill and is on track to being a city that sends 0% to landfill. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/jan-june13/recycling_01-25.... Under the Bloomberg/Quinn years NYC's recycling rate has to fallen to 15% from a high of an admittedly paltry rate of a bit over 20% in 2001. The rest-- 85%, is sent to landfill.
The SWMP also doesn't take into account the rise in sea levels and pattern of catastrophic flooding during the recent storms that are expected to continue in the future. The East 91 St. planned MTS (waste to landfill) was under 6-18 ft of water during Hurricane Sandy according to FEMA maps.. It is folly and throwing millions, if not billions after bad by locating a huge industrial waste transfer station in Hurrricane Zone A, between a playground, an aqua-center, and ball fields, in the densely populated, diverse neighborhood of Yorkville/East Harlem, which suffered severe flooded during storm Sandy.
It's not "inconceivable". The current SWMP, the planning of which dates back to the late 90s, is already antiquated and seriously flawed. In 2013 the city's focus SHOULD be on recycling, cutting back on waste, and composting, NOT sending more waste to landfills. By contrast in 2013, San Francisco currently sends only 25% of its waste to landfill and is on track to being a city that sends 0% to landfill. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/jan-june13/recycling_01-25.... Under the Bloomberg/Quinn years NYC's recycling rate has to fallen to 15% from a high of an admittedly paltry rate of a bit over 20% in 2001. The rest-- 85%, is sent to landfill.
The SWMP also doesn't take into account the rise in sea levels and pattern of catastrophic flooding during the recent storms that are expected to continue in the future. The East 91 St. planned MTS (waste to landfill) was under 6-18 ft of water during Hurricane Sandy according to FEMA maps.. It is folly and throwing millions, if not billions after bad by locating a huge industrial waste transfer station in Hurrricane Zone A, between a playground, an aqua-center, and ball fields, in the densely populated, diverse neighborhood of Yorkville/East Harlem, which suffered severe flooded during storm Sandy.
Mayor Bloomberg and Christine Quinn are just completely out of touch with reality. The decision to put a 10 story garbage dump in the middle of a densely populated residential area (a spot that is also in a hurricane flood zone A) is simply wrong. Obviously, they want to gain some political points by doing this, and touting ideas of "equity" and "environmental justice." Please do not be fooled by the administration's failure to disclose the true facts.
First, Manhattan does handle its own garbage, and it does not "foist" it on other boroughs. It is sent to a waste to energy conversion facility in NJ (the type of facility that Bloomberg himself was talking about building not too long ago). So the "fairness" issue they keep throwing around is completely irrelevant.
Second, the Independent Budget Office report stated that processing the same garbage through the MTS, should it be built, will cost over 2.5 times what we currently pay to send it to NJ. Financially, all boroughs will lose in this deal.
Third, the only reason the city is able to put the MTS in this location is because they retain the permit from when the original MTS was built there. That permit was granted in the 40's when the neighborhood was industrial. In fact, Asphalt Green got its name because the site it occupies was originally an asphalt mixing plant for the city. No one disputes that if the prior MTS had never been there, that the city would never be able to put one there now. Frankly, that should be the end of the discussion. For the city to disregard decades of change in the character of a neighborhood is unconscionable, and should not be how the city makes urban planning decisions. In a letter from Christine Quinn to members of the community opposing the MTS, she said that this location is the right one because there was an MTS there before. That's kind of like saying that someone who wants to open an adult entertainment shop should put it on 42nd street (perhaps next to the Hello Kitty store) because that's where they were before. Would anyone find that to be anything other than a huge step backwards?
Fourth, the administration has tried to act like the area around the proposed location is extremely wealthy and entitled. Actually, the area is very diverse socio-economically. While there are some luxury buildings, there is also public housing (in very close proximity to the site), and everything in between. In fact, the NY Times recently identified the area as one of the few remaining areas in Manhattan that is accessible to the middle class, and also said it was one of the three least expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan. With all of the talk about the need to provide affordable housing for the middle class (Quinn proposes to spend a lot of money to build such housing), does it make sense to decimate an already established area that provides what Quinn, and others, say is needed?
Finally, the proposed site, in hurricane flood zone A, was reported to have experienced 6-18 feet of flooding (the highest level identified by the city in its own report). Flood zone A means mandatory evacuation in the event of an incoming storm. The city has acknowledged that the proposed MTS will receive waste that is radioactive, contains mercury, and is otherwise toxic (they will be placing monitors to detect the level of radiation - i.e., they fully expect there to be radiation, and they just want to know when the levels get too high). It defies logic to think that it is a good idea to put a 10 story garbage dump full of toxic waste on the river (a ramp going over the FDR will be the only way in or out by truck), particularly when it will have to be abandoned should another superstorm sandy, or worse, hit us. Everyone seems to understand that climate change is a real problem, and that we should expect more such storms, not less. For Bloomberg to criticize others for recognizing this as a crucial issue makes one wonder who the fool really is.
Correction: as noted by kathyvv, it was a FEMA map that identified the level of flooding at the MTS site.
NNM wrote " The decision to put a... garbage dump in the middle of a densely populated residential area (a spot that is also in a hurricane flood zone A) is simply wrong."
That is what is in place in Greenpoint, Brooklyn at present. And it is in a flood zone at MUCH higher risk due to coastal geographic makeup and the superfund site at Newtown Creek.
The logical arguments you make for the UES are even more true in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Using Hurricane Sandy as a pre-condition is a convenient red herring for the UES. In Greenpoint, Newtown Creek caused ACTUAL pollution problems in the neighborhood. Not a rhetorical situation.
Furthermore, Greenpoint does in fact handle the trash of the Upper East Side. You are terribly misinformed. Where do you think UES garbage is processed before the state of NY ships it out to NJ? Do you think sanitation drives it straight to the garden state after curbside pickup?
The garbage goes to waste transfer stations.
Community district 1, Greenpoint-Williamsburg, has more garbage transfer stations than any other district in the city. It houses 19 of the city’s 58 waste transfer stations and handles a staggering 40% of the entire city’s waste (source - http://www.habitatmap.org/habitatmap_docs/BargeNYC%27sGarbage.pdf).
Community District 1 also has the highest childhood poverty rate in the whole 5 boroughs (source - http://www.cccnewyork.org//wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CCCKeepingTrack201...).
These are facts, not hypotheses.
Sorry to be presumptuous, but it is not any wonder that you miss the philosophical point of what "environmental justice" means. It means the poorest people take on inordinate amount of environmental responsibility.
Tell yourself all the justifications you like, they are logical fallacies. You have made it clear you prefer for the most underprivileged children in the city to be exposed to more garbage because you don't want it in your own backyard. UES is clearly and historically not doing its part.
The truth has been put before you. Do with it what you wish.
Well said, NNM.
NNM wrote " The decision to put a... garbage dump in the middle of a densely populated residential area (a spot that is also in a hurricane flood zone A) is simply wrong."
That is what is in place in Greenpoint, Brooklyn at present. And it is in a flood zone at MUCH higher risk due to coastal geographic makeup and the superfund site at Newtown Creek.
The logical arguments make you argue for the UES are even more true in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Using Hurricane Sandy as a pre-condition is a convenient red herring for the UES. In Greenpoint, Newtown Creek caused ACTUAL pollution problems in the neighborhood. Not a rhetorical situation.
Furthermore, Greenpoint does in fact handle the trash of the Upper East Side. You are terribly misinformed. Where do you think UES garbage is processed before the state of NY ships it out to NJ? Do you think sanitation drives it straight to the garden state after curbside pickup?
The garbage goes to waste transfer stations.
Community district 1, Greenpoint-Williamsburg, has more garbage transfer stations than any other district in the city. It houses 19 of the city’s 58 waste transfer stations and handles a staggering 40% of the entire city’s waste (source - http://www.habitatmap.org/habitatmap_docs/BargeNYC%27sGarbage.pdf).
Community District 1 also has the highest childhood poverty rate in the whole 5 boroughs (source - http://www.cccnewyork.org//wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CCCKeepingTrack201...).
These are facts, not hypotheses.
Sorry to be presumptuous, but it is not any wonder that you miss the philosophical point of what "environmental justice" means. It means the poorest people take on inordinate amount of environmental responsibility.
Tell yourself all the justifications you like, they are logical fallacies. You have made it clear you prefer for the most underprivileged children in the city to be exposed to more garbage because you don't want it in your own backyard. UES is clearly and historically not doing its part.
The truth has been put before you. Do with it what you wish.
@NNM: The MTS won't handle radioactive material (recording to the Sanitation Department of New York).
Nonetheless, trucks will be scanned before they enter the facility - If the load contains radioactive or toxic material the truck will be rejected. That means trucks will still go up the ramp (through Asphalt Green) with toxic materials loaded. Worst case: The toxic garbage can get stored for days at the 91st Street MTS until the toxic waste gets picked up to transport it to a facility equipped to handle this radioactive and/or other toxic waste.
@mcpucho:
The 91st MTS doesn't only process waste form the UES - it's processes mostly waste from Midtown - where most commercial businesses, tourists and people who work there produce garbage. Also the 91st MTS will be in a densely populated residential area and in the middle of a non-profit athletic facility, which serves thousands of children. Is it fair the trade the health of kids in Yorkville for health of kids in Brooklyn?
I agree that Greenpoint - Newtown Greek has a high share of garbage transfer stations but fact is: Newtown Greek is an industrial zone - and because some people move in an industrial doesn't make it a residential area.
Like you said: I like to put the truth before you -even if it isn't a political correct tone.
Fact is: Like everything in the US, New York City and most of the world everything is about money or short "Capitalism". People in Greenpoint (especially Newtown) can't afford to life at Battery Park, UES or fancy Central Park West - so they move to neighborhoods they can afford.
And why are those neighborhoods more affordable? Because there are drawbacks like bad infrastructure, bad schools or in our case more pollution and/or garbage transfer stations (the UES has the worst air quality of all Manhattan by the way). Logically, residents who live in "affordable" neighborhoods are poorer.
What to you think will happen around 91st Street if the MTS gets built? People who can afford will move. Real estate value will decrease the neighborhood gets poorer. Average household income will drop and the neighborhoods life quality will drop too. Yorkville is a mixed income lower, middle and upper class neighborhood - this is a mix that is positive for everybody.
Nobody from Brooklyn can tell me they wouldn't move into the Time Warner Center, Battery Park or to Park Avenue if they could afford it. And yes....YES OF COURSE when people pay 6000 USD a month for a 2 bedroom they don't want a garbage facility in front of their window. If you pay 900 USD,.. guess what??
You really think Bloomberg and Co care about fairness? They just don't put a MTS on the East River in Williamsburg because of multi-million dollar developments (google "Domino Sugar Fabric"). In Yorkville is no space for new developments - also public housing. Why don't they build another MTS on the Westside/Midtown of Manhattan to ease the garbage burden of Brooklyn even more? I have an answer: Cruising ships on the Hudson (Tourism) and the Hudson Yard Project (just 2 examples).
It is just terrible that people in Queens/Bronx/Brooklyn/Yorkville fight against each other when they should fight against Bloomberg.
To all: If you don't want garbage stations in your neighborhood then fight the source of garbage! The source of garbage would be YOU! New York City has a "throw-away" attitude. People are just too lazy or dump to recycle or to buy environment friendly packed products. So far every neighborhood in NYC deserves a garbage station - let's put one in the middle of Central Park too!