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
74 comments:
Dizzy Lizzy should not only take the contamination of this site seriously but she should consider all those cell towers across the street from the site pointing right at it. Hey Lizzy, here is your chance to redeem yourself to the people of Maspeth! Do something other than babling your mouth off about locally zoning. Unless you, yourself, are an expert in cleaning up contamination, you should really shut th f**k up and do something to stop this altogether. Other wise, you better start looking for another job.
She has stepped on her proverbial dick.She's done...............
This entire "process" regarding the Maspeth school has been an elaborate Kabuki dance, scripted and entirely choreographed to deceive.
The Commissar is absolutely determined to seize the property. His lackeys are absolutely determined to construct a school - any school, for any purpose.
The UFT is absolutely determined to add members and flex muscle.
Crowley is absolutely determined to appear concerned for "education".
But, none of this is about education at all. Otherwise, a small school would be built. Away from contamination and radiation.
It would be built where students' brained wouldn't be cooked each day in toxic fumes heated by the microwave beaming from the cell towers across the street.
Just like in any good Kabuki play, we the voters (audience) are supposed to play our role exactly so.
We are supposed to approve all this cynical loathing of youngsters and feel guilty of being "against education" because we believe that this is the wrong school, in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
Is it wrong for us taxpaying voters to think this through by ourselves and conclude that turning the brains of young people into cottage cheese so that some corrupt politicians enrich themselves all the more is wrong?
Make sure all the players in this act are replaced on November 3.
Let's take control of our community and its youngsters!
Commissar Death and Taxes is bad for education. Take him, the UFT and all the council members who played their cynical part in this fiasco out of our lives. November 3 is our day!
How can a woman (being female) step "on her proverbial dick"?
You've got a mixed metaphor son!
(Unless she's a trans gender).
They give the report to the Community Board, and to you this constitutes them "intentionally" hiding it from the public? Nice try.
You can keep trying to make a fake issue out of this, but everyone knows the real reason you are against the school is that you don't want anything built anywhere. If they were going to build a park on this site, you wouldn't be against it because it needed environmental clean-up first. Hypocrites.
So you think it's ok that SCA refuses to post the EIS of schools under consideration on its website for the public to review it and scrutinize it. I don't know about you, but I don't trust my community board, and the district manager pretty much admitted he fucked up by not informing his members about receiving the report. He also regrets trusting the SCA. It's a shame Liz doesn't feel this way.
Oh, wait, Liz didn't read the report or distribute it, either.
Hey to the one who respond calling us a bunch of hypocrites! ONE, I don't want the school due to the fact I have enough damn teachers flying up my street for parking. Second, we are already flooded with enough children and traffic. Thirdly, how could anyone in their right mind want to send a child to a school which was proven to be built on unremediated contaminated soil? Well, my son will be going to MOLLOY so thank God his brain won't be destroyed by the mercury and God knows what else in the soil, oh and let's not forget the phone towers directly across the street. So if your child does go there, I'll pray for you. By the way, two schools built, one in Ozone Park area and I believe somewhere else in NYC, the City is being sued, so good luck.
"You can keep trying to make a fake issue out of this"
How do you know this is a "fake issue" when the City will not release the numbers relating to the levels of contamination?
So Linda doesn't like teachers parking their cars, so let's not build a school. How selfish.
You are a rabble rouser. The land will be cleaned and made safe before a school is built.
I assume you will never let your children take a step in the new park off Grand Avenue, formerly known as GAS TANK park? Since there had been gas tanks on the site previously and they had to clean the land first? All you hypocrites here were ecstatic about having this park where children will be playing, even though it was built on a contaminated site.
At least they now have the themes for the school. #1 school, Cancer Research. Now they can study the effects of noxious chemical fumes on our children and learn by their mistakes for the future. The other theme school would be political corruption. How
to take property in an under serviced area by mass transit in an over saturated area on polluted ground with no parking facilities
next to 200,000 cars a day and cell towers and make it into a School. And all because of Union contributions that Crowley learned from Brian McLaughlin. When you graduate, Her cousin Joe Crowley takes you out for a $6000.00 Steak dinner (again paid for by Political Contributions} & Hevesi teaches you how to invest your money while Melinda Katz sings God Bless America.
Lash out at me i don't care my son is going to MOLLY and i can't wait! and to your comment about the PARK that's a fxxking joke in itself. Was suppose to have a grand opening this year and has been pushed to next year and with all the crap that most likely will be hanging out in it, nope don't think i want my son there. I find it so amusing that the so call parents in favor of the school lash out when their kids won't even be going there, so shut the hell up! or is it crowleys ass kissing morons.
*********************************
Great work representing the people.
To think you thought the predessors were bad. "they'll be back" without having to do any work.
**********************************
Nice photo of Crowley.
She looks like one of Dracula's wives.
("Back, back! How dare you touch him! He belongs to me!")
she looks like a dyke, maybe good frieds with quinn
Why does linda feel the need to keep shouting that her son is going to Molloy? Is she just trying to show off because she thinks she is better than parents who send their kids to public high schools? It's not like Molloy is Regis, Townsend Harris, Stuyvesant, Poly Prep, Bronx High School of Science or one of those top schools.
not showing off just pointed out my son won't be going to a school which will be contaminated and won't be hanging out in the park. oh by the way it was his choice, he was accepted to public schools, so kiss my ass. if i could save the thousands of dollars i would.
Where your son is going to high school next year has no relevance to this discussion at all.
Molly is a very good school and the numbers tell it all.
"The land will be cleaned and made safe before a school is built."
Completely false. Read the environmental report, twit.
The Gas Tank Park site contamination is being capped. Not so at the high school. Read the environmental report, twit.
Look at the huge school being built on 69 ave & metroploitan. Do we need another only a mile away? I think not.
You can keep trying to make a fake issue out of this, but everyone knows the real reason you are against the school is that you don't want anything built anywhere. If they were going to build a park on this site, you wouldn't be against it because it needed environmental clean-up first. Hypocrites.
-------------------------------
other than the amount of kids being dismissed at one time, we are talking over 4000 if that school opens up.
other than the traffic caused by the school buses they blocked grand ave. and 57th ave., the traffic goes past 69th st.
other than the parking that the teachers and staff take up, also blocking driveways.
other than the m.t.a. buses that are over crowded as it is.
THAN YEAH THIS CONTAMINATION AND THE CELL TOWERS ARE JUST MORE REASONS THAT SCHOOL SHOULD NOT BE BUILT. SO GET OFF YOUR FAT ASS, GET A JOB AND PAY FOR YOUR KID TO GO TO PRIVATE OR CATHOLIC SCHOOL. YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE SCHOOL. YOU AND YOU ALONE. MABYE ONE OR TWO OF YOU BUT THE REAL RESIDENTS ARE SICK OF THIS SHIT SO GO F**K YOURSELF YOU SELFISH B****H! Hypocrites, MY ASS....
my son went to a public h.s., took 2 buses to get there. i would'nt have wanted him to go to a school that is contaminated and cell towers across the st. i cut the apron strings............
Anonymous said:
"So Linda doesn't like teachers parking their cars, so let's not build a school. How selfish.
You are a rabble rouser. The land will be cleaned and made safe before a school is built.
I assume you will never let your children take a step in the new park off Grand Avenue, formerly known as GAS TANK park? Since there had been gas tanks on the site previously and they had to clean the land first? All you hypocrites here were ecstatic about having this park where children will be playing, even though it was built on a contaminated site."
How many days per year - how many hours per day? That's the exposure question. In the park, only a very few hours per day, and only relatively few hours per year.
In the school, about 6 or more hours per day, for about 200 days per year. Plus the powerful microwaving during those same hours.
Those who actually survive the Commissar's assault will live shorter lives, with pudding brains.
But, hey! The Commissar must get whatever he commands. Parents MUST surrender their children's lives for the Commissar's political purposes.
This is what the DOE, SCA, the UFT and the City Council have voted for, and there isn't a goddamn thing the taxpaying, citizen voters can do about it.
The Commissar commands, we must obey! Achtung! Heil!
TOXIC IS TOXIC!
YOU SEND YOUR KIDS TO SCHOOL ON CONTAMINATED LAND IF YOU'RE SO DAMN SURE IT'S SAFE....YOU HYPOCRITES!
BETTER YET...PUT A TOMATO PLANT IN THAT SOIL THEN EAT ONE OFF OF IT AFTER IT RIPENS!
The vast majority of taxpaying citizens want more schools. The majority of taxpaying citizens in Middle Village and Maspeth want a school. You sir do not represent the views of the many.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
"The vast majority of taxpaying citizens want more schools."
The vast majority of taxpaying citizens get a few bucks back on their taxes because they do not have children.
"The majority of taxpaying citizens in Middle Village and Maspeth want a school."
Actually, the CEC, PTA, community board and most area residents don't want a school in this location. This is public record. I suggest you do more research before making ridiculous comments.
"The vast majority of taxpaying citizens want more schools."
"The majority of taxpaying citizens in Middle Village and Maspeth want a school."
+ + +
You're evading the point. Naturally, a great many taxpaying citizens want all kids to be educated, and to get an education that is superior to the parents. That's normal human nature.
The real point of the opposition to this particular school proposed for 74th Street in Maspeth is its location. Too many school buildings (and therefore youngsters) crowded into a very small area. That's not education. That's construction of buildings.
Further, the land is contaminated, and across the street from an array of cell towers aimed right into the proposed classroom. So, while the youngsters' bodies are bombarded with microwaves, their lungs are filling with all sorts of toxic matter.
That's not education. That's child abuse. Criminal child abuse by elected officials using our confiscated tax dollars to force us to be complicit in the crime.
But, we're vigorously objecting to any school at this location.
Abuse our will and we will dump you all on November 3.
Most area residents don't want a school in this location? You have no source for that statement. Most everyone I know in the area want it.
Cell phone towers? That's another red herring try by Taxpayer. No one is buying that one either. There is a thing called technology Taxpayer, learn to live with it.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
"Most area residents don't want a school in this location? You have no source for that statement. Most everyone I know in the area want it."
There was unanimous opposition to the school siting at the public hearing for it at the city council. The only person who was for it did not live in the neighborhood.
Let's go by what "most everyone Bigger Taxpayer knows" wants. That's sound policy!
In an effort to alleviate the traffic and transit concerns raised by community I asked the Department of Education to compromise on a plan to allow this school to better address the needs and concerns of my community. They did not and as I result I do not support this plan.
As the plan stands now it does not have the approval of the community education council, it does not have the approval of the community board, it does not have the approval of the local civic association. It does not have the full support of local parents. It does not have the support of the local elected officials.Looks like A Bigger Taxpayer is wrong, as usual.
The city council hearing? What a joke. The only people who went were the out-of-work loudmouths, some of whom I'm sure comment on this blog, who hate any development. The people in the neighborhoods who are too busy working to go to these meetings either want or have no problem with a school at this location.
Now you are aligning with what Crowley says when all the time you insult her? The hypocrisy never ends.
How about the hearing where a certain Juniper Park Civic member insulted her neighbors by calling their children "monsters"? Lots of people there supported the school.
"The only people who went were the out-of-work loudmouths, some of whom I'm sure comment on this blog, who hate any development. The people in the neighborhoods who are too busy working to go to these meetings either want or have no problem with a school at this location."
Wrong again. Several people took off from work to testify against the school. This included several Grand Ave merchants.
Written testimony also ran vastly against the school. I guess those who want it were also too busy to write a simple support letter.
"How about the hearing where a certain Juniper Park Civic member insulted her neighbors by calling their children "monsters"? Lots of people there supported the school."
How about it wasn't the JPCA but someone from CB4 that was the first to mention "monsters"? How about those same people who testified in favor of the school were mainly from the UFT or from the CEC who thought the school was going to be locally zoned? How come these gainfully employed people could show up for that hearing but not the one in Manhattan? It's because they realized the school was a bad idea and as Crowley mentioned in her statement they were all against the school by the time the vote happened.
"Now you are aligning with what Crowley says when all the time you insult her? The hypocrisy never ends."
No, you are the hypocrite for claiming everyone is for the school when it's a fact that they aren't. How do you explain Crowley's statement if these people are really for the school? Can't wait for this one...
"I know we need more schools, but to have a high school, a junior high school and an elementary school within three blocks would bombard the neighborhood," said Gayle Lupo, a Maspeth resident and PTA president for PS 58.
Whoops.
Crowley voted no!
After making a deal with Christine Quinn for the resolution to pass. Yes, we know.
Phony Tony Como commissioner of Housing? what a joke! His house could hold a small country.
Because Liz's supporters can't come up with answers for her stupidity, they resort to the Phony Tony Como B.S. Pathetic.
Crowley voted no!
Actually, not just crowley supporters. Guess who is coming out of mothballs in november.
This article is irrelevant. SCA notified the community. SCA distributed the report to the community board. No one on the community board made an issue of it. This article is a non-issue.
The report was never distributed to the members of the community board. So how could they make an issue out of it?
crappy you state in your article:
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).
If it is a matter of he said she said, I dont beleive you.
"Distributed to CB5" means they were mailed to the office, not copied for the members.
None of the members of CB5 will tell you they saw this report before the vote.
Why wasn't this posted on SCA's website? Wouldn't that have fostered the principle of open government? That's because they didn't want anyone to know.
your statement is inconsistent. You say that the Cb5 received the report yet CB5 didnt.
Come on Crappy. Your double talking.
From a news report coming out Thursday:
"City Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley (D-Middle Village) said the city has given her the entire study and she is reviewing it."
SHE'S JUST REVIEWING IT NOW!!!! Un-fucking-believable!
The report was mailed to the office of CB5. The office did not distribute it to the members of the board who were to vote on the project. These are facts. Ask the members yourself if you don't believe me and stop wasting both of our time.
"Why wasn't this posted on SCA's website? Wouldn't that have fostered the principle of open government? That's because they didn't want anyone to know."
BINGO! Give the gent/lady a prize.
Look, Crowley is a different issue. My concern is that CB5 had notice of the report and did nothing.
And that's my concern, too. the District Manager should be held responsible for not informing the members.
This news report gets even better...DOE denying that the ventilation systems have ever failed at other schools. Hellloooo LIC HS of Technology!
We can agree to disagree. However, CB had notice. It may not be the notice you like but the entire board had notice and did not raise it.
As a new member of this community, the Cb takes precedence over any elected office because it is made up of members from the community. The members of the board should did their due diligence. The members did not. I am disappointed.
should have done
I will not agree to disagree. The entire board did not have notice. There is no disputing this.
"The members of the board should have done their due diligence. The members did not. I am disappointed."
Well express your disappointment to Gary Giordano for not giving them access to the report so they could do their due diligence.
If you don't have the information you need to do a job, then how are you supposed to do it?
Hey now, let's just all parrot the party line and say the community was well informed throughout the entire process, even though we know they weren't. It makes tweeding all the more easier.
Gary Giordano was asleep at the wheel. He's been in the job for far too long. Time for a change.
hey "A Bigger Taxpayer" there are alot of cell towers on the stop-store right across the street from it. Maybe you should do a drive by and see for yourself. Hey maube you should go over there at dismissal time so you can see what we, the residents opposed to the school being built, have to geal with on a daily basis.
Crowley voted no, but didn't speak in opposition to the other members. If the "home" councilmember doesn't oppose, what are the other members to think (I use the term loosely.)
Crapper just loves to blame anyone he doesn't like for anything. The CB received the report at its office, but it is the SCA's fault that the CB was to incompetent or dysfunctional to distribute it? Please.
The Juniper Civic exec called the children monsters. If someone else also did the same, that does not excuse the Juniper Civic exec's insult.
You have no factual support or source other than your anecdotal observation that the area residents don't want a school at this location. My observations tell me that they do want a school. Given that most people in the area hate the Juniper Civic, I think the people I know are more reflective of the majority than the people you know.
"The CB received the report at its office, but it is the SCA's fault that the CB was to incompetent or dysfunctional to distribute it?"
No, I think I clearly out the called the CB5 DM for his incompetence. You are reading what you want to read. There is enough blame to go around.
You are the one basing your entire love/hate the school, love/hate the civic group rhetoric on anecdotal evidence. The people who showed up to oppose the school went on the record at the hearing and vastly outnumbered the one person who was for it. Members of the groups that at one time thought this would be a good idea are also now on the record as against it as is your heroic councilwoman. You can't change those facts.
The Maspeth Chamber of Commerce is firmly against it, as is COMET. But I notice you aren't attacking them. Why not?
Only in Queens do volunteers get blamed for the incompetence of elected officials.
If someone is going to maintain that release of a report to the community board is official notification to the community, then that person should also believe that testimony at the official hearing represents the will of the community. Lack of consistency here among the school supporters.
There is a team of investigators
working on the simple measures that could be taken to ensure the safety of our children, however, it will mean that the SCA will have to pay to remove the contaminated materials from the site location instead of leaving the RCRA chemicals behind that are above DEC Sub-Part 375 and DEC TAGM#4046 SOIL CRITERIA. We are looking forward to revealing the chemical standards data that we would like to have the city conform to. What is weird is that the SCA is enforcing this rule when it is not being paid for by themselves.
Man, that Crowley chick is hawt.
"Man, that Crowley chick is hawt."
Not in person my friend.
Post a Comment