From the Times Newsweekly:
Copies of the EIS were distributed to Community Board 5 in February and to the City Council when the high school project was introduced for their consideration, said a spokesperson for the city's Department of Education (DOE).
The report, along with other materials pertaining to the proposal, were also made available for public viewing at the SCA's office on Thomson Avenue in Long Island City prior to the SCA's February public hearing, the spokesperson added.
Following standard procedure, the spokesperson said, copies of the EIS were neither posted on the SCA's website nor were they disseminated to attendees at the public hearing.
Interesting. The information was given to certain people, but intentionally hid from the general public. And this is "standard procedure." Let's continue...
[Environmental scientist Dr. James] Cervino stated...that he found the study "highly ambiguous and lacking scientific credit in its present format."
He requested to see the hard data chemical results from the project, pointing to recent news reports regarding the discovery at other school sites of elevated levels of heavy metals deemed hazardous under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.
So an expert is raising an alarm bell. Perhaps we should play it safe and conduct more testing by a third party before we proceed with construction or purchase the property.
Asked why environmental issues never came up during the debate, Board 5 District Manager Gary Giordano said in a phone interview that the advisory body was "so attentive to the issues at hand" regarding the school structure itself, the students it would serve and its impact on the surrounding community.
"We would hope that a government agency of significant size and staff, such as the School Construction Authority and the Department of Education, would make good judgments with regard to a proposed school site and any environmental issues," Giordano told the Times Newsweekly. "In this instance, maybe we were too trusting."
Why did you fail to inform the actual voting members of the board that this report was available?
Council Member Crowley said in a statement that "[t]oxins in soil on industrial sites is a given," adding that the SCA and DOE "are obliged by law to clean up any contamination on school construction sites before building a school."
Actually, no they're not. And if you read the SCA's report, you would understand that they have no intention of doing so. And since you said you, "will not allow a shovel in the ground until all cleanup efforts have been completed and the site has been given a clean bill of health," then I guess that means this school will never be built. Right, Liz? Let's remember you're supposedly against the school.
Photo from the Times Ledger