|
NEWS / ALERTS from 9/11 Environmental
Action: (www.911ea.org)
NEWSLETTER
(06/01/2005)
The six articles below follow-up
on stories from last week. There have been numerous articles on the
Asbestos Comp. Fund bill that did get approved by the Judiciary
Committee, two of which are included here, one because it includes voting
tallies [New Yorkers, note that Senator Schummer has still not taken a stand]
and the other because of its coverage of an amendment concerning a town that
processed Libby tremolite at a W.R. Grace plant: "The Senate Judiciary
Committee approved an amendment that calls for a study that would ultimately
cover Easthampton and the other locations if tests show the level of ambient
asbestos contamination is the same level found in Libby."
CONTENTS
1. Toxins 'Razing' Alarm, by Sam Smith, New
York Post, May 29, 2005
2. City Issues Then Revokes Demolition Permits,
by Claire F. Hamilton, Downtown Express, Volume 18, Number 1 | May 27 -
June 2, 2005, 2005
3. Easthampton out of Asbestos Bill, by Jo-Ann
Moriarty, Springfield, Mass. Republican, May 27, 2005
4. Senate Judiciary Votes To Create Asbestos
Victims Fund, by Lori Sharn, CongressDaily, National Journal Group
Inc., May 26, 2005
5. $800 Million to Be Spent Downtown, by
Jennifer Steinhauer and Charles V. Bagli, New York Times, May 26, 2005
6. Officials allocate $800M for downtown, by
Pradnya Joshi, NY Daily News, May 25, 2005
***
******
***
1.
Toxins 'Razing'
Alarm, by Sam Smith, New York Post, May 29, 2005
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/44685.htm
Two adjacent downtown buildings, vacant and contaminated
since 9/11, slipped through city and federal oversight and were almost razed
despite having no plans for protecting the area from toxins locked inside.
The project was brought to a halt only when residents saw scaffolding rising
and started making phone calls.
The two two-story buildings at the corner of Greenwich and Thames streets and
next to two high schools had been granted a demolition permit by the city
Department of Buildings, which had listed them as having been
"breached" on 9/11 and contaminated.
The buildings used to house a catering company, a shoe-repair store, a
doctor's office and other businesses. New owners who purchased the property
earlier this year plan to build a 33-story apartment building on the site.
Buildings similarly contaminated have been forced to develop intricate safety
plans before being demolished.
"In a way, we're the canaries," said resident Kathleen Moore, who
saw the construction preparation on May 17. "We've kind of become the
eyes and ears and noses for the agencies."
That morning, Moore and neighbor Mary Dierickx called Rep. Jerrold Nadler's
office, which reached out to the federal EPA and the city Department of
Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent inspectors to the site. Extensive debris was found.
"We called the Department of Buildings and told them they should pull
the permit," said DEP spokesman Charles Sturcken.
The demolition was stopped the same day Nadler's office received the call.
The DEP has told the building owners to conduct inspections and to develop a
plan to contain toxins during the razing before the project can go forward.
A spokeswoman said the Department of Buildings followed its protocol for
demolition permits.
"Since this particular incident, there is a recognition that we could
all do a better job of monitoring things downtown," said spokeswoman
Ilyse Fink.
Nadler said: "The fact that these contaminated buildings were allowed to
languish, untested and untouched for 31/2 years, illustrates the obvious need
for EPA to finally assume its legally mandated role in protecting the people
of lower Manhattan."
Copyright 2005 NYP Holdings, Inc.
******
2. City
Issues Then Revokes Demolition Permits, by Claire F. Hamilton,
Downtown Express, Volume 18, Number 1 | May 27 - June 2, 2005, 2005
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_107/cityissuesthenrevokes.html
Eight days after the Department of Buildings issued permits to
demolish two buildings just south of the World Trade Center site, the
city’s Department of Environmental Protection raised a red flag and the
permit was revoked.
The apparent oversight of possible toxic hazards inside 133-135 Greenwich St. and 21-29 Thames St.
can partly be explained by faulty paperwork filed by the developer, Greenwich
Street Project, L.L.C. and partly by a lack of communication between the two
agencies.
D.O.B. evaluates structural concerns only, while D.E.P. monitors environmental
issues like W.T.C. dust, a hazard that might effectively overrule a
demolition permit. Typically, Buildings takes environmental hazards into
consideration only by way of instruction from Environmental Protection.
"If they don’t hear from us, the process continues," says
Charles Sturcken of D.E.P. And in the case of the two small buildings, the
developer submitted an asbestos intake form that suggested that no
significant threat existed inside, Sturcken said. This was despite the
locations proximity to Deutsche Bank, where documented toxic levels were up
to thousands of times greater than acceptable standards. The offices of
Greenwich Street Project, owned by Thames Greenwich, L.L.C., declined to
comment.
Buildings surrounding the W.T.C. site are under the watch of the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, which stays connected with city agencies.
E.P.A. spokesperson Bonnie Bellow said that the two buildings in question
were known risks weeks before the demolition permit was issued on May 12. In
reaction to rumors, Bellow said the E.P.A. checked to see whether a
demolition permit had been issued for 133 Greenwich St. weeks before the
permit existed. "We have been working closely with the city through an
agreement that they would track and flag buildings in Lower
Manhattan. There was an understanding that those two would be
treated differently," she said.
But Ilyse Fink, a Buildings spokesperson, said: "According to our staff,
the building at 133 Greenwich St. had not been a subject of discussion prior
to last week," even though "there have been numerous meetings and
discussion regarding the Deutsche Bank building."
Fink said that D.E.P. forwarded a list of buildings to be flagged at the end
of last week.
Residents at 125 Cedar St.
noticed more scaffolding days after the permit was issued, and contacted
Congressmember Jerrold Nadler’s office. "You can look inside those
buildings and see that they’re filthy," said Kathleen Moore, one
of the residents.
Linda Rosenthal, Nadler’s director of special projects, took up the
investigation that led to the permits revocation on May 20. She said that the
two environmental agencies, E.P.A. and D.E.P., both reacted with surprise.
"Obviously, D.E.P. did not do a good job tracking it. It is only because
we alerted D.E.P. and D.O.B. that the permits were revoked." Rosenthal
said her understanding is the developer is planning a 30-story residential
building at the sites.
D.E.P.’s Sturcken said, "There is no regimen to issue anything
before the demolition permit. Were talking about special cases." About
the developers submitted paperwork, "We did not like their asbestos
intake form. We said we see some debris and we think you should file another
form," he said. There are about 53 potentially hazardous, W.T.C.-area
buildings that the agency is tracking according to Sturcken, and the Greenwich and Thames St.
buildings required heightened scrutiny. The responsible agencies have now met
with Greenwich Street Project, L.L.C. to ensure safe cleaning and air
monitoring before it can proceed with a planned, luxury high-rise.
Still, neighbors and environmentalists are worried about the potential for
disconnect in special cases. Kimberly Flynn of 9/11 Environmental Action
said, "We agree with Congressman Nadler that the E.P.A. should be the
lead agency and should take charge of the growing list of 9/11-contaminated
buildings slated for demolition. The multi-agency chaos has to stop or we are
running the risk of something really dangerous happening."
All rights reserved.
Downtown Express and downtownexpress.com
******
3. Easthampton
out of Asbestos Bill, by Jo-Ann Moriarty, Springfield, Mass.
Republican, May 27, 2005
http://www.masslive.com/springfield/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1117179938213180.xml&coll=1
WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday
rejected an amendment to the $140 billion asbestos liability bill to
compensate Easthampton residents if they get sick from "the deadly
dust" and 27 other communities where contaminated ore from the W.R.
Grace mine in Libby, Mont., was shipped, processed and dumped.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., offered an amendment to cover Easthampton where
258,000 tons of vermiculite ore laced with tremolite asbestos was processed
at the W.R. Grace plant on Wemelco
Way, which made Zonolite attic insulation from
1964 to 1983. W.R. Grace is in bankruptcy, and seven of its top executives
were indicted by the federal government on charge of fraud.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., soon arrived at the Senate Judiciary Committee's
final drafting of the asbestos bill and joined Kennedy's amendment by
expanding its language to give the same protections to the residents of those
towns as the bill gives to the people of Libby, Mont.
The amendment was rejected by a vote of 11-6.
Instead, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment that calls for
a study that would ultimately cover Easthampton and the other locations if
tests show the level of ambient asbestos contamination is the same level
found in Libby, which Kennedy and Graham said would be impossible to show at
this time and would be meaningless because exposure at far less levels than
seen at Libby could still be harmful if not fatal.
Except for one former worker at the W.R. Grace plant in Easthampton, Frank Freeman who died six
years ago from an asbestos-related illnesses, there are no known cases of
people in the area getting sick.
The federal government has ordered an in-depth study into the 28 locations
where W.R. Grace had processing plants. One reason for the studies is to
serve as a public health tool to inform residents about the dangerous synergy
between cigarette smoking and exposure to asbestos.
"Fiber counts at the expanding plants were similar to, and in some cases
higher than, those at Libby," Kennedy argued in pushing his and Graham's
amendment. "It seems to me the wisest way to proceed is that those who
are going to be able to meet medical indicators ought to be able to be
considered in a similar way as those in Libby, Montana," Kennedy said.
He said there was no scientific or logical reason to differentiate Libby
residents from residents of the areas where the contaminated ore was shipped
and processed.
Graham agreed.
"All I want to do is treat everybody the same," Graham said.
At issue, they argued, is a question of fairness.
"It seems to me that fairness and equity given the information that we
now have available would justify the favorable inclusion of other
sites," Kennedy said.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was sympathetic, telling Kennedy that the
committee has recently learned that other communities have similar problems
as seen in Libby.
"We are trying to delineate exactly how extensive they are,"
Specter said. "We will take a look of what happened in Massachusetts and see exactly what we can
do about it."
But Kennedy and Graham wanted the 28 communities where Grace owned and
operated processing plants earmarked in the bill now.
They argued that if the $140 billion trust fund can compensate the people of
Libby, it should also give compensation to the people who lived in the towns
where the contaminated ore was shipped and processed.
"The deadly dust from Libby, Montana, was spread across America," Kennedy argued.
"Grace shipped about 10 billion pounds of Libby ore to its processing
facilities between 1960 and the mid-1990s. Because this ore had a 3 percent
tremolite asbestos content, over 300 million pounds of asbestos were
shipped," Kennedy said. "This asbestos was a waste byproduct of the
Grace material and was released into the air around these plants, dumped on
the properties, and given away to communities to use on playfields and
gardens."
The operation at the Easthampton
plant was typical of W.R. Grace processing plants, he said.
"Massachusetts
received the seventh largest volume of this deadly dust," Kennedy said.
Asbestos is a natural mineral, and exposure to asbestos dust has been linked
diseases when inhaled. It has a latency period of between 20 and 50 years.
"Raw ore, which resembles chips of mica, were unloaded from boxcars into
silos at the plant," Kennedy described. "The ore was fed onto
conveyor belts, which move the ore into and through a furnace, where moisture
in the ore expands, popping the ore like popcorn. Dirt, stones and dust are
removed during this process and dumped outside or released into the
air."
jo-ann.moriarty@newhouse.com
2005 The Republican
******
4. Senate Judiciary Votes To
Create Asbestos Victims Fund, by Lori Sharn, CongressDaily, National
Journal Group Inc., May 26, 2005
[For an archive of articles and documents
concerning asbestos-related occupational and environmental health and
asbestos-injury-related compensation, visit http://www.nycosh.org/workplace_hazards/asbestos.html]
WASHINGTON (May 26, 2005) - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted
13-5 Thursday to create a $140 billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos
contamination, a month after it began marking up the massive and contentious
bill.
After a long and sometimes heated session, ten Republicans and three
Democrats voted for the bill (S. 852), while five Democrats opposed it [Vote
9]. The legislation is expected to undergo more changes before moving to the
floor.
Republicans who had been undecided agreed to vote for the bill Thursday with
the understanding that work will continue in several areas.
The fund would compensate people with cancer and other diseases attributed to
asbestos, a material used for decades in many products as a fire retardant
and an insulator. Companies that used asbestos and insurers would pay into the
fund. In exchange, victims could no longer sue the companies in court.
Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and ranking member Sen. Patrick
Leahy, D-Vt., finally garnered enough votes to move the bill forward by
offering a manager's package of 21 amendments. The package, which passed by a
voice vote, included a compromise over the fund's start-up provisions reached
by Specter, Leahy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Jon Kyle, R-Ariz.
The compromise specifies what will happen to claims from people who are dying
from an asbestos-related disease and have less than one year to live. If the
claim is not paid within nine months, or the fund has not been certified as
operational, the individual may pursue their claim in court.
Much of the morning was taken up by sparring between Specter and Sen. Joseph
Biden, D-Del. At other times, Specter struggled to find enough members for a
quorum as the markup dragged into the afternoon.
"I'm fighting the clock more than I'm fighting these amendments," Specter
said at one point.
Biden proposed four amendments and all were defeated. He sought to prevent
court claims from being halted until information about how much money
individual companies and insurers will pay is available and made public. The
amendment was defeated 5-12 [Vote 1].
The committee also voted 5-12 against his amendment to allow asbestos claims
to continue in the court if the act is stayed by a judicial order [Vote 2].
He also lost an attempt 5-12 [Vote 3] to change language specifying that
settlement agreements reached before the law is enacted must be signed by
individual defendant companies and claimants to remain valid. Biden said such
agreements are routinely signed by counsel rather than the parties
themselves.
"That's not fair and you know it," Biden said. "This is
nothing but trying to knock out settlements."
"I would appreciate it if you don't represent what I know," Specter
shot back.
Later in the markup, Biden's amendment to revise sunset provisions also
failed 4-12 [Vote 8].
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., sought to get compensation for communities
around the country where vermiculite ore from Libby, Mont.,
was processed. A provision in the bill gives residents in Libby - site of
what was once the largest vermiculite mine in the world - the right to make
claims on the fund because of the exposure to the asbestos from the mining
operation. The asbestos was also released when the vermiculite was processed
elsewhere.
"All I want to do is treat everybody the same," Graham said.
"I am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch these communities get
a deal that other communities didn't who are equally or greater exposed and
go back home to South Carolina
and tell people I'm sorry."
Graham's amendment was defeated 6-11 [Vote 4]. The committee then approved,
11-6, an amendment offered by Specter and Leahy to study communities where
the ore was processed, and determine whether the exposure to asbestos and
risk of disease in these communities was the same as in Libby [Vote 5].
This was offered as a substitute for an amendment as well by Massachusetts
Democrat Edward Kennedy, which would have extended the fund to people in Easthampton, Mass.,
where ore was processed. No vote was then held on Kennedy's amendment.
Two more amendments offered by Kennedy were defeated. One would have struck
the word "substantial" from a requirement that asbestos be a
substantial contributing factor to an illness to be compensated by the fund.
Kennedy said that sets the standard too high. It failed 5-12 [Vote 6].
His other amendment would have removed the stay on court claims for people
who have a year or less to live. Kennedy said preventing a dying person from
seeking redress in court for nine months is grossly unfair. His amendment
failed 6-11 [Vote 7].
Recorded Votes
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 1
Biden amendment to prevent court claims from being halted until information
about how much money individual companies and insurers will pay is available
and made public.
Tally: 5 Yes, 12 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
N Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
NV Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 2
Biden amendment to allow asbestos claims to continue in the court if the act
is stayed by a judicial order.
Tally: 12 Yes, 5 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
NV Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
NV Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
NV Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
NV Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 3
Biden amendment to change language specifying that settlement agreements
reached before the law is enacted must be signed by individual defendant
companies and claimants to remain valid.
Tally: 5 Yes, 12 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
N Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
N Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Y Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
NV Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 4
Graham amendment to obtain compensation for communities where vermiculite ore
from Libby, Mont., was processed.
Tally: 6 Yes, 11 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
Y Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
N Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
NV Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 5
Specter and Leahy amendment to study communities where the ore was processed,
and determine if the exposure to asbestos and risk of disease in these
communities was the same as in Libby.
Tally: 11 Yes, 6 No, 1 Not Voting
Republicans (10)
Y Specter (R-Pa.)
Y Hatch (R-Utah)
Y Grassley (R-Iowa)
Y Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Y DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
Y Cornyn (R-Texas)
Y Brownback (R-Kan.)
Y Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
Y Leahy (D-Vt.)
N Kennedy (D-Mass.)
N Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Y Feinstein (D-Calif.)
N Feingold (D-Wisc.)
NV Schumer (D-N.Y.)
N Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 6
Kennedy amendment to strike the word "substantial" from a
requirement that asbestos be a substantial contributing factor to an illness
to be compensated by the fund.
Tally: 5 Yes, 12 No, 1 Present
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
N Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
P Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 7
Kennedy amendment to remove the stay on court claims for people who have a
year or less to live.
Tally: 6 Yes, 11 No, 1 Present
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
Y Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
P Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 8
Biden amendment to revise sunset provisions.
Tally: 4 Yes, 12 No, 2 Present
Republicans (10)
N Specter (R-Pa.)
N Hatch (R-Utah)
N Grassley (R-Iowa)
N Kyl (R-Ariz.)
N DeWine (R-Ohio)
N Sessions (R-Ala.)
N Graham (R-S.C.)
N Cornyn (R-Texas)
N Brownback (R-Kan.)
N Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
N Leahy (D-Vt.)
Y Kennedy (D-Mass.)
Y Biden (D-Del.)
P Kohl (D-Wisc.)
N Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Y Feingold (D-Wisc.)
P Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Y Durbin (D-Ill.)
Bill: S. 852 Vote: 9
Approval of S. 852.
Tally: 13 Yes, 5 No, 0 Present
Republicans (10)
Y Specter (R-Pa.)
Y Hatch (R-Utah)
Y Grassley (R-Iowa)
Y Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Y DeWine (R-Ohio)
Y Sessions (R-Ala.)
Y Graham (R-S.C.)
Y Cornyn (R-Texas)
Y Brownback (R-Kan.)
Y Coburn (R-Okla.)
Democrats (8)
Y Leahy (D-Vt.)
N Kennedy (D-Mass.)
N Biden (D-Del.)
Y Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Y Feinstein (D-Calif.)
N Feingold (D-Wisc.)
N Schumer (D-N.Y.)
N Durbin (D-Ill.)
******
5.
$800 Million to Be Spent Downtown, by Jennifer Steinhauer and
Charles V. Bagli, New York Times, May 26, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/nyregion/26downtown.html?
Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced $800 million
worth of projects for Lower Manhattan yesterday, including cobblestone
streets around the New York Stock Exchange, a new elementary school on Beekman Street
and improvements in Chinatown.
Many of the projects are intended to bring further life to a neighborhood
still recovering from the Sept. 11 attack, after a protracted period of
wrangling over how the money should be spent. But they are also dear to the
heart of Sheldon Silver, the State Assembly speaker, who represents the area
and has been pushing for more government money and attention downtown. Next
week, he will be a crucial voice in the debate over the proposed West Side stadium.
Spending the $800 million, the last of the federal dollars given to the Lower
Manhattan Development Corporation after the attack, represents a crucial
turning point in the stymied rebuilding process as it moves from planning to
construction.
Specifically, it crystallizes the vision of the city and the state that Lower Manhattan will be as much a residential neighborhood
as a commercial center. There is $20 million earmarked for parks and
playgrounds, $70 million to rejuvenate the TriBeCa section of the Hudson River Park
and $7 million for a local development corporation in Chinatown
to improve sanitation, among other things.
"The proposal the governor and our administration will present to
L.M.D.C.'s board next month will help ensure that communities in Lower Manhattan remain great places to work, visit and
live for people in all income levels," Mr. Bloomberg said.
But the spending list was also the bluntest example yet of the link between
the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan and the
fate of the stadium. The state Public Authorities Control Board, on which Mr.
Silver controls the Assembly's vote, could take up the stadium question as
early as next week, and in the days leading up to the vote, stadium
supporters have made an all-out effort to win over Mr. Silver.
In one demonstration, a majority of the City Council yesterday signed a
letter encouraging him and the leader of the State Senate, Joseph L. Bruno,
to give the stadium their blessing. The 28 council members specifically
backed the mayor's plan to spend $300 million in city money on the project,
which will make it difficult for Council Speaker Gifford Miller, a stadium
opponent, to block the spending.
The letter was a blow to Mr. Miller, who has used his opposition to the
stadium as the cornerstone of his mayoral campaign. But he said he was
unfazed.
"When they actually have to vote to take $300 million out of schools,
senior centers and subways in their district and put it toward a football
team," he said, "I know they'll vote in favor of their constituents
and against the stadium."
Two stadium supporters and one member of Mr. Bruno's staff said Mr. Bruno
received a call last week from Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of
staff, urging him to support the stadium. But Mr. Bruno did not seem to have
budged from his ambivalence, saying yesterday that he still had many
questions about the project.
Mr. Silver also declined to change his public position of serious doubt about
the wisdom of the stadium, even after yesterday's announcement about the
downtown projects. He said he did not regard the announcement as having
anything to do with proposals he unveiled last week for revitalizing
commercial life downtown using tax credits and incentives for moving jobs to Lower Manhattan.
In many ways, yesterday's announcement about the downtown projects mirrored a
speech Mr. Bloomberg gave in 2002, in which he outlined a vision that gave
minimal attention to the 16-acre site where the attack occurred and focused
instead on the revitalization of the waterfront and the building of schools,
libraries and movie theaters.
But much of the spending in the plan was alluded to earlier this month by Mr.
Pataki, who has been battered with criticism all spring about the lack of
progress downtown and the indecision that had surrounded spending the $800
million.
|