Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133
More meeting coverage from a Brownstoner reader, this one about a hearing on the threatened future of PS 133. We wrote a post last month that summarizes the issue and there’s a petition here. You can also check out the State’s opinion that PS 133 is a building of historical significance in this PDF. Yesterday…
More meeting coverage from a Brownstoner reader, this one about a hearing on the threatened future of PS 133. We wrote a post last month that summarizes the issue and there’s a petition here. You can also check out the State’s opinion that PS 133 is a building of historical significance in this PDF.
Yesterday morning the City Council’s Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses heard testimony on the SCA’s proposed plan to demolish PS 133 and the community garden and replace it with a large building that will take up the top of the block between Butler and Baltic Streets. The SCA made a brief presentation that stressed the deterioration of the existing building (admitting that it had received little funding for upkeep) and stating that it would take approximately $15 million dollars to simply address the deterioration of critical building components. (This was the first time this figure, or any mention of existing building conditions had been raised by the SCA). The SCA called the Snyder school (the first one he built in Brooklyn) quaint and lovely but deteriorated.
SCA representatives continued their practice of misinformation saying that they didn’t know if local residents had received requested source documents that describe contamination in the soil and ground water on the school site (the truth is that two weeks ago the SCA told residents that they will have to file for the documents under the Freedom of Information Law despite the fact that they were cited in a public document); saying that the program for the school will be decided in the future (the truth is that the SCA has maintained in public presentations that the school serve two distinct school districts 13 and 15 and have even designed separate entrances for children from each district); saying that they had been in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office on options for preserving the school (the truth is that SHPO has told plan opponents that they have been waiting, since December, for the SCA to provide a cost benefit analysis of new construction versus renovation); and maintaining that they have been consulting with local community representatives about the school design (the truth is that they have conducted two hearings at which residents were limited to 3 minute comments.)
Members of the Subcommittee asked pointed questions about the program for the school, about plans for remediation of hazardous conditions, about environmental protections for area residents during demolition and construction, about the differences in cost between demolishing the building and building a large new building and renovating the existing building and building an annex (the SCA says the difference is about $10 million, but had no figures to back up that number) and it was clear that Council members had read the material provided by opponents of the plan. The standard SCA response was that they would be conducting monitoring.
During the public comment period (which was the only opportunity for public comment during Council proceedings) thirty people signed up to speak and all but one (the District 15 Superintendent) opposed the plan. Speakers represented a remarkable coalition of community and civic groups, preservationists, area residents, gardeners, a parent from PS 133, lawyers, and environmental scientists and activists all united in opposition to the SCA plan. The 660 people who have signed the online petition to save the school and community garden are also part of that coalition.
The ask of opponents was that the SCA withdraw their current proposal and work with a broad and representative group in the community to develop a plan that would: 1) preserve and renovate the existing historic PS 133 building while also developing another school building on the site that accommodates the need for increased school seats; 2) ensure the health and safety of students, teachers and the larger community by fully disclosing the environmental data and risks associated with the contamination on the school site and designing a remediation plan that complies with New York State environmental law and involves NYS oversight; and 3) balance the need for open space and a permanent community garden.
The Council members on the committee indicated that they saw no problem with a delay, but also told opponents that council courtesy dictates that they would not go against the wishes of the Council member in whose district the school would be built, and that would be Councilman Yassky. Unfortunately, while acknowledging a flawed process of community consultation, Yassky continues to indicate that he wants the SCA plan to move forward as is.
The Committee will vote on the plan this Thursday morning, so opponents of the plan are asking people who share their concerns to call Yassky’s office on Wednesday, and tell him to do the right thing withdraw his support of the SCA plan. Remind him of the significant community opposition to the SCA plan.
CM Yassky Email: yassky@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-875-5200
District office fax: 718-643-6620
Council members DeBlasio and James have indicated their opposition to the plan (students attending the proposed plan would come from both of their districts), but have not lobbied their colleagues to vote against the plan. Call their offices and urge that they send Dear Colleague letters to their fellow council members, outlining their opposition to the SCA plan.
CM DeBlasio Email: deblasio@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-854-9791
District office fax: 718-854-1146
CM James Email: ljames@council.nyc.gov
District office Phone: 718-260-9191
District office fax: 718-260-9099
Councilwoman Gonzalez, whose district also includes children who would be attending the school, has not yet spoken out on the plan. Urge her to oppose the current SCA plan, as so many of her constituents have.
CM Gonzalez Email: gonzalez@council.nyc.ny.us
District office phone: 718-439-9012
District office fax: 718-439-9042
There is a very small window left to prevent a plan that is so wrong, on so many levels, from becoming a reality. If you oppose the SCA plan, please ACT NOW.
PS 133’s Most Desperate Hour [Brownstoner]
New PS 133 Plans Revealed [Brownstoner]
SCA To Build New P.S. 133, Tear Down Old Building [Brownstoner] GMAP
Proposed School Replacement Facility for P.S. 133 [DOE]
Red, that was exactly my experience with the SCA. A hearing was conducted to get community-input into the plan. Any criticism of the plan was politely shot down in flames. Thank you for your input. This hearing is closed.
The budget information was verified by speaking to staffers on the Council’s Education Committee.
The biggest problem with dealing with “authorities” are that they were designed to streamline action – perhaps a great intention, but accountablily has suffered. Trying to interact with the SCA is like talking to the Red Queen – their words mean what they say they mean. So community consultation means that they make a presentation and joe or jane public gets to give a 3 minute comment. Not what I would call consultation.
On the issue of appropriate steps re environmental safety, the SCA says that they have a plan and they are capable of monitering the site (of course, they don’t say what the plan is since it is mostly the responsibility of contractors). They say that is enough. However, they were successfully sued in the Bronx for not having a good plan and not bringing in the state DEC in a timely manner.
Thanks Red. I made my comment on the budget based on statements made by SCA, so if the “it simply is not true,” then I guess it is not.
As for the rest of your post, I’m still separating issues of concern and desires for greater transparency from the allegation that “proper procedure” was not followed. Sorry. I don’t mean to get all bureaucratic but as a g-man, it’s genetic to a certain extent.
G man – one of the biggest issues is developing a plan for remediation of hazardous ground conditions at the site – To quote from one environmentalist who looked at the SCA’s description of the site – “the discovery of a volatile organic compound plume (such as TCE or PCE) under a school site should trigger full characterization, remedy evaluation, remedy implementation, and long-term site management. This should be done before construction, both to protect the building’s occupants (students, faculty, and staff) and because construction could interfere with investigation and cleanup. As at the other sites, it should be done under the oversight of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). It is state (DEC and DOH) policy that mitigation (depressurization) is not enough. Cleanup is required at such sites.†A good start would be releasing the source documents the SCA used in its site analysis.
The SCA also has not provided any analysis of costs comparing renovation and building an annex compared to their plan for total demolition and building a much larger school.
And the money is as safe as it can be – opponents to the plan have confirmed that the plan for the school is considered to be underway (since some funds have been spent on design and site review) – money budgeted for the plan will stay in place after June 30th. The SCA had uses the “we will lose the money†argument, but as with so many of their other statements, it simply is not true.
MM, what “proper procedure” was skirted? I’m not being argumentative, just looking for more specificity.
Also, I believe that some of the funding for this project evaporates unless some milestone is reached by the end of the fiscal year, this Tuesday. If true, that is probably what is driving the urgency.
“separate entrances….”
So….they’re planning on including two schools in one building. One will be filled with minority children, with a high proportion eligible for free lunch; the other will be whiter and more affluent, with a parent body much more likely to raise $$ for extras.
Why can’t they be combined into one school, with funding from both districts? The DOE would get points for creating a truly diverse school community….
You know, I wonder if the powers that be will ever learn that upfront and transparent dealings with people are always simpler and cheaper in the long run. Most people are not looking for causes or fights, they just want to have some quality of life, have their tax dollars go to educating their kids with a modicum of safety and competence, find good housing, be safe on the streets, and so on, and so on.
But the paternalistic, know-it-alls in power keep trying these end runs around proper procedure. The school was designated as a state approved candidate for historic preservation two years ago. It had been a local landmark and pegged as an important building by the NY preservation community long before that. That’s plenty of time for the SCA to have had their architects and planners and budget people come up with a plan that would save and update the school, and add the facilities needed for a growing community. But no – they snuck around, were vague on facts and dates of when they did things they needed to do, and now they are getting all urgent about the need to tear down – for the sake of our kids’ education. Please.
So this is going to get tied up in court, it’s going to get nasty, and it’s all very unnecessary. I signed the petition last time, I’m writing the Councilpeople to try to save the school. Demo is not the only option.
I lived around the corner from this school for several years. The blocks in question feature a middle-income housing project of identical, uninspired townhouses from the 80s and the back of Key Food. The (lovely) community garden is about the only thing that makes the area feel like a neighborhood where people live and care for each other and the block. That the SCA would destroy it makes me sick, sick, sick–sicker than the destruction of the school building.
In my limited experience with the SCA, I found them politely accepting of any ideas that did not conflict with their own.