Gowanus sludge could be made into concrete, added to Red Hook coast

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

The federal government may turn sludge dredged from the toxic Gowanus Canal into a concrete landmass extending off the shore of Red Hook — and gift that treated terra firma to a neighborhood concrete tycoon.

Some of the muck pulled up in the Environmental Protection Agency’s half-billion dollar Superfund cleanup of the fetid waterway could be decontaminated and transformed into a “confined disposal facility,” which would become a permanent part of John Quadrozzi Jr.’s Gowanus Bay Terminal and Gowanus Industrial Park after the job is done.

The sludge used in the build-out would be dredged from the least polluted section of the canal, which is south of Hamilton Avenue, moved by barge, and cleaned to remove hazardous toxins that may include coal tar and heavy metals, eliminating any health risks, feds claim.

Workers would then mix the crud with cement-like materials and store it as stabilized concrete inside a bathtub-like structure made of reinforced steel that would be buried in the Gowanus Bay at the foot of Columbia Street and connected at shore level to Quadrozzi’s industrial complex.

The new expanse of land would likely stretch 300 feet into the water and run 900 feet along the shoreline, giving Quadrozzi what he calls a “golden opportunity” to grow his shipping terminal and expand maritime economic development in Red Hook by luring bigger boats that require deeper waters to dock.

“(The Environmental Protection Agency) is getting a free disposal facility and we are getting this upland without having to do it ourselves,” said Quadrozzi, who claims his Gowanus Bay Terminal owns 33 acres of land underwater at the site of the proposed sludge-fill.

Quadrozzi would get the concrete expanse for free — the Superfund program charges proven canal polluters for the cleanup — and he could do what he wants with it, so long as he follows certain federal guidelines, according to Environmental Protection Agency officials.

“There will be a lot of restrictions as to what you can build there, as to whether you can drill in there and what types of plants you can put there,” said Superfund project manager Christos Tsiamis, whose agency will regularly inspect the site even after the cleanup ends.

Quadrozzi isn’t the only one who will like the deal: the polluters who must foot the bill can save $37 million if the feds choose to de-water the sludge in a temporary facility on the concrete-seller’s land and use some of it to build the new landmass, instead of shipping all of the gunk off-site to a licensed treatment facility.

But the feds say they aren’t hot on the plan just because it’s cheaper for polluters.

“This is not why we (proposed) it,” said Tsiamis, who claims on-site disposal will create between 30 and 60 jobs over six years. “We thought there would be a benefit.”

Quadrozzi said if the sludge-made landscape becomes a reality, he will push for a new public park near Columbia Street.

But that didn’t win over Red Hookers worried about their health, the risk of flooding, and more business coming to their community — especially so close to the neighborhood’s bustling ball fields and pool.

“When everything is said and done, it’s the wrong location,” said John McGettrick, the co-chairman of the Red Hook Civic Association. “We do not need heavy industrial expansion next to a park. That will undermine one of the few bright spots in the community.”

The feds still have “the option of sending everything off-site,” said Tsiamis. If there is large community opposition to the construction of the concrete landfill by the end of the public-commentary period, which was extended to April 27, then it will not be apart of the finalized plan, which will be released by the summer, he said. The state also has a say in the matter, agency officials said.

Before the much-anticipated cleanup of the Gowanus Canal begins, there will be a two-year design phase. The actual cleanup will last until about 2022, officials said.

The agency will accept written and public comments on the proposal until April 27. E-mail or write to:

Christos Tsiamis, project manager

Central New York Remediation Section

US Environmental Protection Agency

290 Broadway, 20th floor

New York, NY 10007-1866

Reach reporter Natalie Musumeci at or by calling (718) 260-4505. Follow her at
Updated 5:40 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

kelly from park slope says:
just don't walk on it barefoot!!
Feb. 18, 2013, 10:12 am
down-by-the-bay from Brooklyn says:
Thanks to reporter Musumeci for giving some clear details on what is going on here. If helps us understand if the "Sky-is-falling" because of this cleanup plan.

It would be helpful if those speaking for the Red Hook community would focus their concerns on why removing the current free flowing contamination from the Red Hook portion of the canal and repacking the the decontaminated material within 100 yards of its origin is a problem. And while that may increase the physical footprint of Red Hook landmass, if may substantially decrease the carbon footprint that would come with barging/trucking that material to some other location; which might also benefit Red Hook.

It seems that Land Use issues are the real concern of the Red Hook Civic Association but they haven't said if they want their present day contamination, which can wash ashore onto their park, to be addressed?
Feb. 18, 2013, 12:56 pm
CAG member from Red Hook says:

can you please define "tycoon"?

no need to sensationalize an otherwise ok article.
Feb. 18, 2013, 2:41 pm
Good 4 Crooks from Red Hook says:
Wasn't Quadrozzi fined several million dollars for polluting the canal? I think his company would stand to get the job of making the concrete, at federal expense, and benefitting from the whole process.

A tycoon is a very wealthy person. i don't see how pointing out that Quadrozzi is a 1 percent is unfair to the story.

Leaving out that he is a convicted polluter of the same canal he is poised to make a boatload of money from - is the real omission.

I think the reporter treated that crook more than fairly. What gives? Why let the guilty off so easily!?

Doesn't the Superfund have rules about not rewarding polluters?

Seems this Slycoon is getting help from all sides. But who has he ever helped but himself?

Feb. 18, 2013, 4:57 pm
resident from Red Hook says:
In regards to the previous comment.The residents of Red Hook are not against the cleanup, but we are against the sludge being processed next to our ball fields and homes. Also the EPA is not giving any real specifics . The Project manager Christos Tsiamis has been quite evasive . We've asked the questions but are being told it's all in the planning stages.If you attended the meeting at PS15 you might have a different opinion. Also filling in waterfront property and letting a concrete plant owner( with environmental violations for toxic dumping) use it to expand his operations would certainly not be a benefit to our community. Increased truck traffic , Concrete dust etc. All right next to ball fields and one of NYC's largest housing projects. Even the promise of jobs seems a bit shady. No specifics. Supposed jobs in exchange for your children's health. The EPA also a has an alternative for the waste that doesn't involve Red Hook. If you attended the PS15 meeting you would have noticed that most residents are against putting the toxic sludge in Red Hook. It's a bad idea .. After hurricane Sandy I would have thought this option would be off the table. .
Feb. 18, 2013, 5:20 pm
ty from pps says:
Why the hell does the Gowanus clean-up conversation always and immediately turn into... "The EPA wants to smear toxic waste on my baby's face."

"We're not against cleanup, but it's clear that the current plan is to kill us in the process!"

Feb. 18, 2013, 7:03 pm
old time brooklyn from slope says:
nothing like kids with flippers
Feb. 18, 2013, 7:16 pm
JAY from NYC says:
ok so assuming all of this is ok and not some crazy mafia thing, where is the environmental study that is required by law to evaulate the proposed impact of putting a 300 of concrete into the water made of sludge, and assuming there is one of those, where is the enviro study study to allow the concrete guy to expand his operations? Anybody know anything about that?
Feb. 18, 2013, 11:19 pm
Fishy from Brooklyn says:
Seems like this could be an inside deal . Local politicians , developers , concrete tycoons. Think the residents are being railroaded by all parties. Something's fishy!!!!!
Feb. 19, 2013, 12:06 am
ty from pps says:
Why is everyone so conspiracy-prone... jesus. Did you read? Or do you just read until you run into something that gets you jacked up?

Could, may, would, might... Do you know what they words suggest?

"public commentary period" "through April 27th" "the state also has a say" "there will be a two-year design phase"

Uggh. Read! Where does it say this plan is a final?! Seems to be everything but final. It's an option, an idea, a proposal.
Feb. 19, 2013, 1:16 am
jon from south brookyn says:
there is not a neighborhood in the city that would welcome a sludge plant with open arms. however, there is little doubt that the Gowanus Industrial Park site is contaminated and it will remain so unless its clean-up is tied to some future development plan. for example, the former Todd Shipyard which is now Ikea was a highly contaminated brownfield. Ikea was required to pay for the site remediation before they could build the store. Imagine the ecological damage Sandy's storm surge would have dumped on the community if the asbestos and heavy metals hadn't been removed.
Feb. 19, 2013, 11:40 am
bay from Brooklyn says:
didn't see any EPA plan, none what so ever, for putting toxic sludge in Red Hook. Nor does the EPA plan call for more truck traffic, it calls for barging all materials--the sky must still be falling!

Remember, the toxic sludge is sitting, at this very moment, next to the ball field where children play. Sounds like the above Red Hook resident want to keep it that way by proclaiming that the cleaned solidified sludge will some how be more harmful to the children playing in the ball field. (Is this all to spite a tycoon?)

And after hurricane Sandy, wouldn't most Red Hook residents be better off if the toxic sludge in the canal couldn't be pushed up onto the land in any future storm surge? Why is this cleanup up "a bad idea"?
Feb. 19, 2013, 3:31 pm
a nother CAG member from Red Hook says:
the following copied and pasted from an email (shortened to remove all direct names):

You can spend you life surrounding yourself with negative information, blaming ... for all the mistakes of the world, however, pls recognize as without the pioneers of both yesterday and today, you would not have that ... trailer which is pulled by a diesel burning carbon monoxide and particulate matter spewing tractor trailer, that was designed by engineers, built in a factory, rolls on rubber tires which disintegrate and breakdown, is painted with toxic paint which when applied becomes airborne, had a place to Park in an economic development zone where business make profit, pay taxes and people from all walks of like work and feed their family.

And what about safety? Do you live in a house with gas or an oil burning boiler as the rest of us do? It can explode or burn. Do you ever drive in a car as others do? It's exhaust can make you sick and it can crash. Do you ride a bike, walk down the street or take a bath? You can be killed.

While everything of man has risks, we must put them into perspective, weigh the pro's and con's, make an informed decision, and move forward.

On the scale of things, from breathing dust at 911 to taking a bath, the risk factor of the EPA proposal is negative -1.

We are talking about taking contaminated material that is already here, treating it in such a way as to change its physical properties so that it is no longer harmful, using a PROVEN method to do so, and then storing it under the ground so that it is out of harms way. Riding your bike to see the waterfront will put you at risk while this CDF never will.

Now to the positive. GBX pays taxes that build and maintain our URBAN city, it's environment provides employment to over 150 people, it provides our city with an infrastructure for goods and services used here, some by waterborne commerce, in an enclosed industrial park - the ideal environment for such which doesn't impact the community and promotes green practices and is a watchdog over its tenants for clean and safe practices .

Further, GBX envisions adding a community amenity and Waterfront Park component making it a win-win for everyone.

GBX is where and how industrial business should and must be endorsed and encouraged to grow.

Beneficial reuse of a remediated waste IS they way an URBAN city should and must progress.

Lastly, make no mistake that no one is GIVING GBX anything. This is already the land under water OWNED by GBX. The EPA proposal is merely a business proposal to use GBX's land in creating a beneficial reuse CDF for no fee in exchange for doing all the work in doing so. The EPA wins by turning a negative into a positive, the city and tax payers win by reducing their cost, the community wins by having an ideal/enclosed eco-industrial economic incubator and community amenities and Waterfront Park.

The negative expression by the Red Hook Community was pre-planed and orchestrated by those who are bitter with business. Let's not let a few aggressive anti-business advocates mislead us and stifle something that can benefit all. Let's take an intelligent look at the whole picture and make an informed decision.

FOLKS, THIS IS NOT A DUMPING PLAN, IT'S A CLEANUP PLAN! Lets not use the remediated dredge to benefit some Jersey landfill opportunist, let a Red Hook business benefit and in turn benefit Red Hook.
Feb. 20, 2013, 12:51 am
ugh from red Hook says:
Yeah lets fill in Red Hook waterfront and give GBX (Quadrazzi) more industrial land to expand his concrete plant. His company has numerous environmental violations. Toxic waterfront dumping being one of them Waterfront Park ? Conmmunity amenities? Thats a myth. We were at the meetings . GBX can do whatever they want with the land. We asked that very specific question. Look at the companies track record . Fact is The EPA refuses to give any clear information. It's a clean up plan for Gowanus . It's toxic landfill and a concrete plants expansion for Red Hook. As The EPA made clear there are other options for the toxic material.
Feb. 20, 2013, 9:32 am
yea from Red Hook says:
"another CAG member" puts things it into perspective.

As the EPA is offering us an opportunity to make something more of this cleanup, it's up to us to figure out how to take advantage of this opportunity and turn it into something Red Hook can benefit from. We have an owner with a history of supporting the community, that now wants to make his asset become a community asset - this is a Red Hook HERO, not a naysaying ZERO. Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth, let's come together and grab this opportunity before it's gone.

and "ugh"; information has it that union concrete careers pay between $50 to $100k - not to shabby. EPA made it clear, nothing that a high school graduate couldn't understand - ugh like some just didn't want to believe the answers so they called them lies - the real lie is when you call remediated material toxic. True that Q can do as he wants and some of what he wants is community amenities which were published prior to EPA's meeting. The myth is the violations - DNAinfo got it wrong, I checked it out, they owe nada!

We can sit on our a.. and watch this pass, or get involved and turn sludge into grass! i'd choose the later
Feb. 20, 2013, 10:38 am
jackie from red hook says:
The same folks fighting this plan also opposed Fairway, Ikea, the City’s plans to remove trucks from Van Brunt Street, the MTA’s 2005 plan to split the B61 route which formerly traveled from RH to LIC(thank god that happened anyway!), DOT’s Safe Route to School proposal which called for removing 10 parking spaces on Conover and Van Brunt Street so kids could cross the damn street, the Fifth Avenue Committee’s mixed income housing developments on Coffey and Wolcott Streets, the proposed Red Hook Historic District, the Reggio Emilia inspired Red Hook Charter School and the new playground in the PS 15 schoolyard. They are NIMBYs to the hilt and engage in a form of demagoguery reminiscent of the angry, torch-wielding villagers from Frankenstein. I am not wild about having a sludge processing facility nearby, but I trust the EPA a lot more than dude with the crazy ‘tache
Feb. 20, 2013, 10:51 am
all are one from Brooklyn says:
to ugh,
Clarification, the Red Hook land mass is defined by it's western coast, which is THE GOWANUS CANAL. Red Hook is one-and the same with the Gowanus environment. The Superfund is a Red Hook cleanup plan to address long standing environmental violations existing on Red Hook's coasts. The plans for solidified sludge are plans specifically to clean Red Hook's portion of the Gowanus. This is about eliminating toxic material not adding more.

Missing the forest for the trees?
Feb. 20, 2013, 10:58 am
ugh from Red Hook says:
Well lets just fill in the entire Gowanus then and give it all to a concrete tycoon with numerous environmental violations. Fairway did not fill in waterfront ,and a supermarket is bit different then a toxic sludge processing facility (in a flood zone)and concrete plant. An expanded concrete plant is not beneficial to any of the residents of Red Hook. A toxic sludge processing plant in a major flood zone is not beneficial to the residents of Red Hook. The EPA presentations were very short on answers basically "trust us". . It's not a Red Hook clean up . It's a Red Hook con job.
Feb. 20, 2013, 11:12 am
all are one from Brooklyn says:
Any toxic sludge that would be processed in Red Hook is toxic sludge already present right here in Red Hook. It is the toxic sludge that was washed around freely during the recent hurricane storm surge, right here in this major flood zone.

Go ahead and vent your pet-peeves about Quadrazzi. But let the EPA address the toxic sludge once and for all so we don't find ourselves living with it in our basements following the next flood event. A Gowanus cleanup is a cleanup for Red Hook.
Feb. 20, 2013, 11:55 am
ugh from red hook says:
You're mistaken, The EPA has an alternative plan for the treatment of the sludge. This plan is just an option being presented. Lets clean the entire Canal the same way . Doesn't make sense to fill in waterfront. Also addressing the future use of the potential landfill is important. With Asthma rates off the charts in our community an expanded concrete plant is not a good fit. Toxic sludge remediation in a flood zone is a bad idea as well. There other options for the treatment of the sludge. Did you attend the meeting at PS15 ? The EPA project manager Tsimasis was very evasive. He gave little or no specifics. We all want the Gowanus canal cleaned ,but in a sensible and safe way. When you have paid Quadrazzi GBX consultants pushing this plan (Phaedra Thomas) at community meetings people should worry.
Feb. 20, 2013, 12:33 pm
Hmm from Brooklyn says:

By Alan Neuhauser, DNAinfo Reporter/Producer

RED HOOK — The Brooklyn developer and concrete tycoon who hopes to expand his Red Hook shipping terminal with toxic landfill owes the state tens of thousands of dollars in fines for illegally dumping into Gowanus Bay.

Records show the amount John Quadrozzi is on the hook for could be as much as $20 million.

Quadrozzi, the owner of Gowanus Bay Terminal and the 46-acre Gowanus Industrial Park in Red Hook, left a large pile of potentially contaminated fill on a broken pier near the bay in May 2006, according to court documents provided by the state's Department of Environmental Conservation.

The fill, comprised of dirt and other unknown materials, washed into the water during high tide shortly afterward. The pollution "compromised the ecology of the shoreline," the DEC said in an email to New York.

"Since the origin and composition of the material is unknown, it is…possible (not certain) that the material contained chemical constituents that would…not be acceptable in tidal waters," a DEC attorney wrote.

"The environmental consequences may have included... the clouding of waterways and interfering with the habitat of living things that depend on those waters."

The DEC ordered Gowanus Industrial Park to pay the state $60,000 in civil penalties in May 2007, an amount that was to be submitted in 10 monthly installments through 2008. The company has yet to pay $45,000 of that original fine.

The DEC also directed GIP to remove an 18-foot-tall, 200-foot-long corrugated metal fence it had installed without permission between Henry Street Basin and the Red Hook Recreation Area, which effectively walled-off the area's waterfront views.

Quadrozzi and his company ultimately fought both orders and submitted only the first three payments totalling $15,000, the DEC said.

They also left the fence in place for more than a year, contending that it kept trespassers out of the terminal and "promote[d] the health of the people of the State of New York by preventing a spreading of dust" — a claim the DEC labelled "a stretch at best," according to court documents.

Quadrozzi and GIP eventually removed the fence in 2009, but only after an appeals court found their contentions against removing the fence "without merit."

The fines could multiply hundreds of times over. In 2008, the DEC filed suit seeking $10,500 for each day the remainder of the outstanding $60,000 fine has not been paid since May 23, 2007, plus an additional $10,000. To date, that amounts to nearly $20 million.

The fines, however, have not stopped Quadrozzi from seeking to expand the Gowanus Bay Terminal, located in Gowanus Industrial Park.

Earlier this year, he proposed that the Environmental Protection Agency take toxic sludge it plans to dredge from the Gowanus Canal Superfund site, ship it by barge to his terminal, convert it to landfill with a "concrete-like stabilizing substance," then allow him to dump it into the Gowanus Bay, the EPA and Quadrozzi's consultant, Phaedra Thomas, said in an interview last month.

Quadrozzi would use the fill to expand the terminal's pier, allowing it to berth larger, oceangoing ships, Thomas explained. He would also create more land above the water, which he could then rent to industrial tenants. Both developments would provide as many as 200 jobs to local residents, Thomas said.

The EPA confirmed last month that it is seriously considering the plan — one of many it said it is examining. The agency has not said whether or how Quadrozzi's prior environmental violations would affect its view of his proposal.

But, if approved, the plan could allow Quadrozzi to overcome local and state statutes that largely prohibit private landowners from reshaping New York City's shoreline, and make him the first person to do so since the 1700s.

The environmental concerns, however, are substantial, experts said — not only because of potential water pollution, but also because of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy. The superstorm severely flooded low-lying areas of New York City, notably Red Hook which is largely comprised of landfill.

"I don't think that they could just willy-nilly push out into the harbor like that, because then you're making less room for the water, and it has to go somewhere else," said Robert Chant, an assistant professor of physical oceanography at Rutgers University.

"These kinds of things, one thing could affect another in ways that aren't completely obvious initially."

Thomas Angotti, a professor of urban planning and policy development at Hunter College, said he agreed.

"So much of the problem we are facing now is due to excessive landfilling and contamination of the waterways. One of the key tasks we face is restoration of the ecosystem and redesign of the waterfront to protect both human and natural habitats," he wrote in an email.

"Our port facilities need to be protected and expanded, but not at the expense of environmental justice."
Feb. 20, 2013, 1:16 pm
yea from Red Hook says:
ugh; in case you missed it, there were no actual findings to support DNAinfo multi-million fines - don't believe everything you read. And a concrete plant can be built with or without the EPA option - concrete plants provide super paying jobs - one's across the street hurting no one. Further, you can't give something to someone that they already own - EPA is using GBX for free, owner wanted nada $. The alternative plan was to dump it for $37m mas! - you and I will pay for that with our tax dollars!! And glad you brought the "flood zone" stuff up again - where did this come from? Let's not pull negatives out of thin air - the remediated dredge will be burried and floods won't affect it below or above the ground - IT'S REMEDIATED.
Feb. 20, 2013, 1:27 pm
to and from Red Hook says:
i'm with jackie, dude with the crazy ‘tache has got to go. it's that old nutty thinking that he's using to try and trick us here. he want's it all to be housing but doesn't own the land he wants to change. he should invest in red hook with his dollars instead of his tricks - like postering the neighborhood without putting his name on the bottom. though i saw that Gowanus Bay Terminal put there name on their proposal and see their dollars invested here. o'connel had environmental fines too, but he's done a lot with that land he got for a steal, all in a flood zone. let's support those that want to invest here, for housing, for mixed use, and yes for industrial as we all need to work and the diversity is why i love red hook. just hate that old fake hiding behind the ‘tache. red hook needs need new proactive blood, not the old coagulating stuff.
Feb. 20, 2013, 2:01 pm
my 2 cents from Red Hook says:
I'm with 'Jackie' and 'to and from Red Hook', the more I hear, the more I see that 'tache is up to his old tricks, tooting his whistle and we all follow like jerks. We have to not only listen, but believe in those that come to help us. In this this case it is the EPA helping us.

The EPA was clear, The Dredge material was only of the lowest level and from Red Hook only, they told us that the remediation process not only cleans the harmful contaminants but changes it physical state to a solid making it immobile, they told us that it will be contained in what they call a CDF burring it, they told us the new land could be used for anything other that which would effect the remediated materials state as they left it, they also told us they would be monitoring it forever thus being responsible for their work product forever. The De-watering would go through a contained cleaning system and return cleaned water back to the Gowanus Bay. The Barging would eliminate all trucks, utilizing our waterways instead of our streets. The Work would be utlizing all their own tried and true techniqes and supervised by the EPA and Red Hookers hired from the neighborhood. The Project would be limited to Gowanus Canal work only, thus no other material could come here (not Newtown Creek, not Coney Island, etc). The Completion would require they remove everything thus alleviating concern for unrelated Red Hook work continuing.

No one cried foul when they wanted to fill 4th Street basin or other basins along the canal, including all those community board folk, because that community was well informed and forward thinking - in fact, many from Carrol Gdns wanted it and still do. I even heard one politician trying to get it from Red Hook to bring it to Sunset Park.

I don't want to follow the old rhetoric that everything government and business tries to do is bad or has hidden~deals, I want to look at this intelligently and acknowledge the info as it is presented, not as the ‘tache sees it. Let's save Red Hook from continuing to be a stale anti-everything community and sit down and talk instead of screaming out like thugs and blind followers. Let's come together and figure out how to make this work to everyone's interest. With a savings to the city of $37 million, we'd be idiots if we couldn't make something good come out of this.
Feb. 20, 2013, 3:15 pm
Concerned from Red Hook says:
I'm from Red Hook as well. I attended the meeting and looked over the proposal. It is a completely vague proposal. I came to the meeting looking for answers and just listened to condescending empty talk. The EPA made it clear that other remediation options are on the table . Think with the reputation of GPX it would be a huge mistake to let them fill in waterfront.
Feb. 20, 2013, 3:35 pm
another CAG member from Red Hook says:
Let's ask the EPA to use new bulkhead construction methods, in the Gowanus Bay Terminal CDF and Gowanus Canal itself, that create marine habitat restoration of the ecosystem - MWA reported on a new concrete where small pockets or pores allow marine life to grow and be protected from big fish and scraping ice sheets.

So where's the environmental justice in burning fossil fuel and adding carbons to our air in the transport of this stuff and then dumping it in a Jersey landfill. Where?
Feb. 20, 2013, 3:37 pm
my 2 cents from Red Hook says:
back at Concerned, GBX isn't doing the fill, EPA is. It would be hugh mistake if we don't make the most of it for Red Hook.
Feb. 20, 2013, 3:47 pm
? from Red Hook says:
Where's the environmental justice of 30 years of concrete trucks zooming through our neighborhood. Quodrazzi going to expand his concrete plant. That's good for the environment ? Red hook gets landfill while the rest of the Gowanus canal gets cleaned . Nice.
Feb. 20, 2013, 4:23 pm
Clean up from Red Hook says:
"?" you need to open your eyes and see that there are no Quodrazzi trucks in this neighborhood. If you looked you would see Greco concrete trucks parked idling along Red Hook Park and Eastern concrete trucks driving down Clinton and Columbia St in OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. With or without CDF, we can get the concrete plant, with each truck represents a driver, their family, and the foundation of your house (unless yours was built in the early 1900's in which case its probably crumbling and will need a replacement in concrete). So whats wrong with that??
Feb. 20, 2013, 5:05 pm
RH from Brooklyn says:
In reality, Red Hook will hardly be getting "land-fill", a wading beach maybe, but land?
This "fill" along with parts of Red Hook will be completely under water in 50 years. In the mean time, dredging the toxic sludge from the canal portion of Red Hook will help with ground water drainage in Red Hook.
Feb. 20, 2013, 5:54 pm
from Red Hook says:
Nice to see Red Hook's alive and well, lots of comments with different view points. It's much different than the misgided attack lead by the mis-leaders. Several comments honing in on the culpit himself, the self appointed Grand Poobah "woo-woo" and what he say's we do? I concur, it's time for new representation, open process, voice of a thinking people. While it was hard to hear, with strong acents and basket balls so near, info was there for those that wished to hear, the only problem being fear. I'm for the sitting down approach. Anyone know how we get in touch with GBX to clear the air to see what's here?
Feb. 20, 2013, 7:31 pm
from Red Hook says:
Does anyone remember the civic assoc fighting to clean the canal in Red Hook? Seems like it only became a priority when business and jobs stood to benefit. The intent of this org is clear, no business anywhere. Well at that the end of Red Hook, seems business is wining (woo woo...).
Feb. 20, 2013, 7:53 pm
from Red Hook says:
That is the east end of Red Hook, ...
Feb. 20, 2013, 7:59 pm
alpha 17 from Red Hook says:
Thank you Natalie Musumeci for good journalism. You keep it real and didn't play to the vocal audience. Glad we got you to cover this one. Stay with it.
Feb. 20, 2013, 9:40 pm
Pete from Red Hook says:
Stop the 'Stache!!! I love it.
Feb. 21, 2013, 12:48 pm
stache power from Red Hook says:
Stop Quadrazzi and his paid consultant. Lets clean all of the Canal. Filling in waterfront instead of cleaning Red Hook Waterfront for a concrete Tycoon smells of corruption. The EPA Project manager Christos Tsiamis claims that if Red Hook doesn't want a sludge plant they have other options . Some thing tells me this deals allready bought and paid for.
Feb. 21, 2013, 4:37 pm
my 2 cents from Red Hook says:
Fear smells of stupidity. It will be bought and paid for with yours and my tax dollars. Who do you think is footing the bill for the $37m difference, it's us, the tax payers. Stop fearing what you don't understand and open your mind, get involved in productive discussion, not stache deception.
Feb. 21, 2013, 4:52 pm
stache power from Red Hook says:
Open my mind to filling in Red Hook Waterfront that will then then be used as a concrete plant, Treating toxic sludge in a flood zone next to the Red Hook Ball fields. Other options are on the table for the sludge treatment. Stop trying to ram this proposal down our throats. A productive discussion would be including the neighborhood. It seems most people have been left out of the process intentionally. Open your mind to an honest dialogue with the community. Not this we'll create jobs ,You don't understand crap.
Feb. 21, 2013, 5:07 pm
Pleae Do Your Homework from Red Hook says:
The EPA has presented a lot of information over several years.

Several people here referred to one PS15 meeting, but there is so much more info out there.

Here is the full EPA proposal

The CAG (Community Advisory Group) also has a lot of information.

There are a lot of questions to be asked, but most of the questioned yelled in public meetings and on-line here have been answered. Please take the time to do some homework.

It would be great if Red Hook could learn to approach land-use disagreements with more respect to differing opinions and with more opinions based on research. That is not an endorsement of the CDF proposal, that is an endorsement for behavior that keeps our community fabric intact. Sneering at your neighbor (or meeting presenters) is corrosive.
Feb. 21, 2013, 5:15 pm
my 2 cents from Red Hook says:
stache, if your in Red Hook, your standing on landfill, it's actually what took this place from a marsh to it's glory (not that I don't like marshes, it's that the marsh is gone, like all things of nature in a city, get over it and go to the Rockaway's if you want marsh). And get off the concrete plant sh.., see the forest instead of the trees (or in this case, the concrete jungle instead of the concrete plant). Why don't you stop raming the nimby stuff down our throats, it's so passé. Tell the "we don't need jobs crap" to someone that's unemployed ~ see what they say or do to you. Don't be selfish, think about others, open your mind, your heart.
Feb. 21, 2013, 8:17 pm
Hmm from Red Hook says:
The elusive job bribe . Wow that's very sad. How many jobs . How long . Who ? It's actually shocking that the EPA has resorted to promising jobs . Horrifying.
Feb. 21, 2013, 8:51 pm
my 2 cents from Red Hook says:
Humm, elusive?, bribe?, sad?, what do you think happens at a business? the place has over 150 jobs now, double the size, double the jobs, for as long as they keep it industrial, you can help by promoting it
Feb. 21, 2013, 9:45 pm
Hmmm from Red Hook says:
Jobs for sludge. At least you're showing your true colors. Many people live close by this proposed sludge treatment plant . Many people use the park next to it . We prefer not to be an EPA experiment . Best to clean this part of the Gowanus just like the rest . Toxic landfill for a concrete tycoon with environmental violations is not an acceptable trade off. Treating sludge in a flood zone is reckless.
Feb. 21, 2013, 10:06 pm
Companera de WIT 135 from Red Hook says:
Get over the old vendettas and let the Good things that are supposed to happen for Red hook happen. Stop turnng people in Red Hook against each other and let that canal get cleaned. It would be about time some of us Redhookers already are glowing n the dark from years of that polluton. I go for Palante! Stop being so quit to point out past mistakes and misfortunes and unite for the better of the Communit. I support any plan or envovlment with John Quadrozzi. I have had the opprtunity to work on projects with him and he has included, informed, has emplyed community residents. John has donated money and servces to the residents and children of the red hook community. And I speack for alot of the latinas/latinos in el Barrio de Red Hook who so very often are not informed in a simple but strong language in for them to understand the importance of this matter. Don't Hate! Congratulate! Palante Palante como un Elephante!
su Companera
Feb. 21, 2013, 10:31 pm
Companera de WIT 135 from Red Hook says:
Oh and another thing! I don't believe John will do wrong by us and our chldre. He has Two lovely little precious girls and wouldn't want any bad for them or our children and our, there future depends on what we will teach them with all aspects of making sure the Red Hook community involves our children, we may get some enviormental scientist, and other professins. not only cashier jobs or slop cleaners, not that theres anythn wth thoses professions." God Bless the man that works"
Feb. 21, 2013, 10:39 pm
a voice from Red Hook says:
Hummm, another m means your thinking, good sign. Now lets take it to the next level, think about this, read back at the prior comments, like listening to the meeting presenters, mostly all of the issues you raise have been addressed, except the one that it's not by the Park anymore, they moved it to the other side of the property, not even close, no houses for almost a mile either. Like someone else said, it's not sluge after it's REMEDIATED!!! Are you smarter or have more knowledge than the EPA? We learn from smart people, that is IF we listen and start thinking.
Feb. 21, 2013, 10:52 pm
Hmmm from Red Hook says:
Feb. 21, 2013, 10:53 pm
a voice from Red Hook says:
Unbelievable or believeable isn't the point. Listening and thinking and science is the point.
Feb. 21, 2013, 11:04 pm
Hmmmm from Red Hook says:
Starting to feel like I'm in the movie "Deliverance ".
Feb. 21, 2013, 11:23 pm
a voice from Red Hook says:
Deliverance, cute. However there, they filled the land with water ; ) But at least now your thinking.
Feb. 22, 2013, 12:03 am
against from Red Hook says:
I don't expect many in Red Hook will have faith in the EPA. Part of the problem is that the EPA person in charge of this plan can't speak about it with a straight face. He is evasive, can't make eye contact, repeats himself constantly and has the demeanor of a man very much uncomfortable with what he being asked (forced) to do. Also he insists there "zero" risk. How can a scientist speak about zero risk when discussing transporting toxic waste, mixing it with cement, and then dumping it into the ocean all in an area that just had a devastating flood? Let's also remember that the EPA has stood silent in the face of Fracking, strip mining, pig excrement dumping, wtc dust, and many other toxic practices which it has deemed to be safe. So, yes, clean the Gowanus - but do the job the normal way, not with weird deals involving profiteering polluters!
Feb. 22, 2013, 11:08 am
yea from Red Hook says:
we're missing the forest for the trees again. Christos, (forced) to do?, forced to do what? He admitted it was his own idea and that he was giving us the option. The transporting happens anyway, but for this short distance the risks are minimized. When you take it out of the bay and into the Hudson, high seas, strong winds, dense fog, and then your taking risks - we can't even get people across the Hudson safely. The mixing with cement transforms it to a safe solid. And why are people concerned about flood zones if it will be both safe and below the ground. The normal way is the way being proposed, remediate it, benifically reuse it - didn't you see the presentation where they even make Parks from it. You might even want to cut the guy a break for not charging us to take it!

Stop reading more into this than is there, your making us sound nutty and midieval.
Feb. 22, 2013, 11:30 pm
She's a Witch! from la la land says:
Feb. 22, 2013, 11:58 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: