[Updated, Nov. 24]
In his two terms so far, Michael Bloomberg has gone to great lengths to make himself out to be the Green Mayor of New York, laying down mile of bike lanes, planting trees and staking much of his legacy on an ambitious sustainability plan for 2030.
But he has also become known as the development mayor, aggressively pushing major construction projects through the City Council and rezoning vast swaths of the city to accommodate more office towers, hotels and housing.
And now, after his close re-election to a third term, those two carefully crafted images are at odds in the debate over how to clean up the fetid, poisonous waterway in South Brooklyn known as the Gowanus Canal.
The Environmental Protection Agency appears poised to designate the canal as a Superfund site, perhaps as early as December. But Bloomberg is trying to scuttle the plan, arguing that Superfund status could spell disaster for much of the development that is planned near the canal. Instead, he has offered his own plan to improve the canal’s water quality.
But the city’s timing in releasing its plan has cast some suspicions over the mayor’s motives. In April, the EPA proposed to add the canal to its Superfund program, which raises money to pay for the clean-up effort through lawsuits against past polluters. With $500 million in development and more than 1,200 units of housing at stake, Bloomberg signaled his opposition to the Superfund plan, but did not release details of an alternative plan until months later.
Some developers, like Toll Brothers, have said that the Superfund label would lead to the drying up of their financing.
“It was an impending Superfund listing that spurred them to think, ‘Oh, well, all our efforts to rezone and all our efforts to bring in developers may fall apart if we don’t jump and do something quickly,’” said Josh Verleun, an attorney for Riverkeeper, an environmental watchdog group.
Verleun added that Bloomberg’s opposition to the EPA’s plan has cast doubt over the rest of the mayor’s environmental credentials.
“Yes, he has been pro-environmental. He’s definitely done a lot of good,” he said. “But a lot of the [environmental] things that are in the works are still in the works. And when it’s on the ground and you see actually what is being done, a lot of it is focused on supporting developers.”
The mayor's office argued that there was nothing suspicious about the timing of the release of the alternative plan.
"Obviously it came after the [S]uperfund proposal was announced – you can’t have an 'alternative' without an original first," Mark LaVorgna, a Bloomberg spokesperson, wrote via email.
Some question whether the city has the resources to undergo the toxic cleanup effort without the guaranteed source of cash that a Superfund listing would provide.
For Superfund supporters, Bloomberg’s acquiescence to developers flies in the face of his carefully crafted image as a committed environmentalist.
“It’s a slap to the face,” said Linda Mariano, a member of the Friends and Residents of the Gowanus Canal, which advocates a Superfund designation. “Can Toll Brothers clean the water? Would they even want to? Are they even going to clean their land?” Bloomberg has said he would welcome a cleaner canal, but not the stigma attached to Superfund designation, which he believes could take decades to complete. But the EPA says the city’s plan is likely to take just as long.
“The Superfund process is a streamlined, vetted process,” said Elizabeth Totman, a spokesperson for the EPA. “We know what we’re doing and we have the authority. If the city were to do the clean-up, it would still need to do all the things the EPA has to do. It’s the same process.”
Others note that Bloomberg has stated no opposition to the EPA’s announcement that it is also considering Newtown Creek in Greenpoint for Superfund designation, mainly because of the lack of development opportunities around the creek.
Critics point to other examples to bolster their point that the Gowanus is not an isolated event. Bloomberg’s advocacy for big projects like stadiums has irked many environmentalists, who feel the mayor’s priorities have less to do with the environment and more to do with spurring economic development. Opponents of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn say the traffic impact of the planned development would increase pollution in the neighborhood. And critics of the new Yankee Stadium cite delays in park restoration and the city’s use of artificial turf as supposed evidence of the mayor’s phony environmental commitment.
But around the Gowanus Canal, supporters say that Bloomberg maintains the right balance in his plan. Besides, they say, labeling the canal a Superfund site would be an environmental disaster for the community.
“It’s like putting a sign of smallpox on someone’s front door,” said Bill Appel, executive director of the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation.
Other supporters acknowledge the mayor’s plan was designed to placate developers, but say that the plan burnishes, rather than tarnishes, his environmental credentials, because designating the Gowanus Canal a Superfund site could actually prove to be worse for the long-gestating clean-up effort.
“I would disagree that it’s a choice of development over environment because I strongly believe that waiting for Superfund would not be good for the environment,” said Hope Cohen, an associate director at the Regional Plan Association. “It would become this unending litigation process and residents will never see clean-up.”
--ABOVE: Mayor Bloomberg, shown here with a group of Brooklyn legislators, has resisted efforts by the EPA to declare the Gowanus Canal a Superfund site, saying it would take too long and discourage development.
