Sections

Merry Christmas! Work begins on southern Brooklyn trash station

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

Gravesend residents got an unwanted early Christmas present Monday when the city started construction on a controversial waste transfer station.

Elected officials held an emergency meeting with residents shortly after work began on Dec. 22, denouncing the city’s decision to break ground on the facility during the holiday season when locals would be distracted.

“That is absolutely irresponsible and it is reckless the city has engaged in irresponsible conduct and pushing to do this quick, right in the middle of the holiday season when they think people wouldn’t be able to organize against it,” said Assemblyman William Colton (D–Bensonhurs­t).

He also faulted the city for beginning construction before the lawsuit, which is being appealed, settles whether the project can go ahead at all. The assemblyman sued to block the station in 2012 and lost, but he filed an appeal in November.

“Right during the appeal, which, if the appeal is won by us, means that whatever money they spent will be wasted,” Colton said.

The city insists that its actions are all perfectly legal.

“All permits required by law are in place. The city has never been ordered to stay construction activities, and we are confident that the city will prevail on appeal,” said Craig Chin, a spokesman for the Department of Design and Construction.

The facility now being built at 400 Bay 41st St. will collect trash from the surrounding neighborhood, then transfer it to barges to be shipped out of the city, and is required by the city’s 2006 Solid Waste Management Plan. The trash transfer station was planned under the Bloomberg administration, but Colton said it is the DeBlasio City Hall that will reek of injustice if it is completed.

The site, which hosted a garbage incinerator from the 1950s to the 1990s, is contaminated with pesticides such as Chlordane and Mirex, and has high concentrations of lead and mercury, and Colton worries that construction could pose a local health hazard. But the assemblyman said the city is continuing construction despite the negative impacts because it says there are already too many trash transfer stations in Bushwick, Williamsburg, and Greenpoint handling the borough’s garbage, and southern Brooklyn needs to host its share. Colton blasts that logic.

“They say they want to spread out the injustice more broadly, but hey, if something is wrong, you don’t try to spread it out equitably, you try to eliminate the wrong,” said Colton. “If someone has cancer, you don’t say, ‘We want the cancer to spread out more evenly.’ You cut the cancer out because otherwise, you don’t survive.”

Colton said the city should emphasize expanding the recycling program, since the city still only recycles a small percentage of its trash. One local agreed that building waste-transfer facilities is backward-looking.

“They’re putting the health of citizens at risk for a transfer station that is going to be outdated before it is even built,” Brian Gotlieb said.

Reach reporter Vanessa Ogle at vogle@cnglocal.com or by calling (718) 260–4507. Follow her attwitter.com/oglevanessa.
Updated 10:17 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:


Reasonable discourse

well... from Brooklyn says:
...if you made the trash before the court ruling, the city should be able to make a transfer station before the court ruling too (seems only fair).

And how did it become dangerous to take a way trash?

While leaving it sit around like making an imby landfill would be dangerous, or trucking it out which multiplies the carbon footprint, multiplies the fossil fuel consumption and increases traffic all decreasing our quality of life, taking it away at a marine transfer seems pretty okay!

AND thanks for stating that any form of 'transfer station' is antiquated. As while being far better than local land filling or trucking it around to far away transfer stations a local marine transfer station may be, and while reduction of waste via reduction and recycling of waste needs to become an essential core practice/responsibility within our society, the remaining waste needs to be turned into a positive;

...hence 'Waste-to-Energy' is is the future! Local small waste fed power stations sized to accommodate each areas needs. NO more transferring or long hauls of waste, just local packer trucks going to local Waste-to-Energy stations. NO more use of fossil fuel to make energy, just our own waste. NO more land fills anywhere destroying our mother earth, just local Waste-to-Energy.

...and Waste-to-Energy plants have cleaner emission standards than natural gas!
...and Waste-to-Energy makes no smell as they are fully enclosed and have negative air systems pulling air into the system rather than out consuming the smelly air in the process.

Let the marine transfer stations go through for now and convert them going forward in a forward movement to Waste-to-Energy!!!

...and Happy Holidays to all you fellow waste makers in transition!
Dec. 24, 2014, 10:27 am

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: