Council Member, Here’s the Truth about the Creek

Craig Hammerman– Council Member Mark Treyger posted a Facebook statement on the Coney Island Ferry on December 13, 2021 which myself, and many others, felt gaslighted by after reading. I thought it would be helpful to deconstruct the statement with commentary and share it so that others can benefit from the facts as I, and many of the members of Coney Islanders for an Ocean Side Ferry and the 46th AD Coney Island Advisory Committee, understand them.

To allow our Council Member’s statement to stand unchallenged would be akin to acting as an accomplice to gaslighting. Remaining silent would be a form of complicity. We need more healthy, open and honest discourse if the civic soul of our community is to remain healthy, thriving and whole. We can do better. We must do better. And those in leadership positions should take heed.

(Note: These comments and reflections are not an official statement on behalf of anyone or any group, and are primarily intended to illustrate what a wildly different concept of the Coney Island Ferry issue our local Council Member and I have. He is, of course, invited to continue to share his views on this issue and every other issue affecting the community. The frustrating lack of constructive, respectful and thoughtful discourse is what landed us here in the first place. I will remain hopeful that all of our new elected representatives will stand for good, honest and open government which supports constructive, democratic community engagement.)

The sections in quotations are from the Council Member’s posting which is viewable on his Facebook page.

“My thoughts on the Coney Island ferry:
City, state, and federal agencies all concluded that a ferry on the oceanside of Coney Island was not feasible.”

No, they didn’t. There’s no evidence to support this statement. Zero. None. Nada. Bupkis. The Economic Development Corporation is the only agency that “declared” the ferry on the oceanside to be infeasible. They concluded in 2012 at public meetings, and to much local acclaim, that they would be pursuing the oceanside option which we understood would cost more than the creekside option. Then, after being lobbied by a local developer they returned to the community in 2018 having surreptitiously changed their mind. No other agency concluded the oceanside to be infeasible. Saying so doesn’t make it true. All other agencies took their lead from EDC on this project.

“How do I know? I attended every single publicized meeting about this issue over 2 years ago and paid attention to every word said. They should publicize the attendance sheets so folks can see who actually showed up and who didn’t.”

Yes, they should publicize the attendance sheets from these public meetings. They should also publicize the record of meetings, transcripts of phone calls, texts, emails and other forms of communication, and the positions advocated for by our local representative so that it can be on the record too. So that we can see who was pushing for what, when and how. So that we could have some insight into how our local representative’s views may have changed over time, and what factors influenced his position. Back-door deals between developers and the City, especially if propped up and protected by local representative, is a huge selling-out of the host community who’s left holding the bag. Without such disclosures the community will never know for certain what went on behind closed doors.

“No other ferry landing in NYC is on an ocean side. Not one. Why? Because we were told wave action on the ocean side would make ferry service not operationally safe.”

The “ocean” doesn’t start until you cross over the line between Breezy Point, Queens, NY and Sandy Hook, NJ. The “oceanside” of Coney Island is really technically a “bayside” as the body of water that we lovingly refer to as the Atlantic Ocean is actually the Lower New York Bay. Our beaches are not subject to ocean wave action. The only place in New York City that’s exposed to the ocean is the south shore of the Rockaway peninsula, which is why that’s the only place in New York City where you can surf. Instead, the community watched a ferry land when bigwigs wanted to travel from Staten Island to Maimonides Park to watch a Cyclones game. And, of course, there was that little detail about Coney Island supporting ferry service on the oceanside for about a century from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries. But, details.

“The only feasible site was a creek site near Kaiser Park, where the water is deep enough, calm enough, and the land is publicly accessible for all.”

Repeating unsubstantiated statements as fact still doesn’t make them true.

“This does not stop or interfere with bigger work to address historical environmental matters and resiliency issues, as was confirmed by these agencies.”

If that’s what you believe then we should have expected a statement of support to have the creek cleaned under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program. Where is the public statement supporting a holistic remediation of the creek “to address historical environmental matters and resiliency issues”? The City will have to return for future dredging for navigation purposes adding to the costs, complications and risks of this project. Why has there been no public statement on the future of the creek? It’s not too late.

“City, state, and federal agencies all signed off on the permit to build and operate a ferry at the creek site, which means the project went through multiple layers of review from different levels of government.”

All of these permits were issued based on a faulty Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the EDC, which Ida Sanoff, Charlie Denson, and others have pointed out over and over and over again. Now this New York Times news story of December 13, 2021 in part helps explain how the process was tainted by EDC as they fudged the Parks Department’s contribution to EDC’s EIS.

“If someone claims to support the Coney Island ferry, but they want it on the ocean side after being told by multiple agencies it can’t happen for safety reasons, then that is the equivalent of saying you want ice cream but you don’t want it cold. Either you support a ferry here or you don’t.”

EDC declared the ferry option on the oceanside to be infeasible, after having previously concluded they would pursue that option, only after the City was lobbied by deep-pocketed development interests. No other agency concluded or made an independent finding in this matter. EDC dealt with the community duplicitously. And they are quick to profusely thank our Council Member for his support for this project at every public opportunity to do so. Repeating the same statement as fact for a third time still does not make it true. Coney Island deserves a ferry. It deserves a clean creek too. It also deserves a representative who is willing to advocate for both, especially since they are not mutually exclusive. It deserves a representative who will deal with the community openly and honestly.

“We need to have environmental justice AND more viable transportation options in a growing neighborhood. I also just announced a $10 million investment for Kaiser Park to greatly improve the park.”

EDC should have paid for improvements to Kaiser Park as part of their land-taking. The community is still owed reparations. In other communities when EDC does a project, they get amenities for them. In Sunset Park, for example, EDC built a lovely waterfront park for the community as part of a waterfront project on an adjacent parcel of land. But, here, EDC wouldn’t even spring for cutting boards for the fishermen, new pathways running through the park, additional landscaping, or other additional elements, all of which would have been cheap and easy. Instead, EDC said that because they didn’t have water service at the fishing pier they wouldn’t add cutting boards (they could have run a water line, and probably should have in order to provide adequate fire protection coverage for the fishing pier), and they didn’t even address suggestions to re-do the walking paths, planted areas and other modest improvements.

“Coney Island/Sea Gate residents that work, go to school, have appointments, or go for recreational trips to Manhattan face on average a 1 1/2 hr commute (sometimes more with signal delays). Your time is precious.”

A ferry landing on the oceanside would have still shaved a half hour off the commuting time to lower Manhattan. The ferry route would actually be shorter if it were on the oceanside since it would not have to detour into and out of the creek. It already passes by our shore multiple times a day. We stand on our shore watching opportunities pass us by like hungry children with their noses pressed up against a bakery window only to be tossed the occasional crumb with an expectation that we should be grateful for whatever we get. We deserve more. We demand better.

“Thousands of units of additional housing are coming to Coney Island as a result of 2009 rezoning.”

And what are the people of Coney Island, what is the neighborhood gaining from all of this development? Why was this rezoning given the community’s unconditional approval? Why does the leadership of this community continually give the City blank checks to do what they will instead of a list of conditions in the form of unmet and perceived wants and needs? What will it take for our community to use all the tools at our disposal to stand up and be counted?

“The New York State MTA continues to fail to improve service in our neighborhood while the neighborhood is rapidly growing. Deafening silence about the MTA’s failures here from state leadership.”

Coney Island did just gain a new accessible subway station at Neptune Ave and a new State law requiring the MTA to report annually on their efforts to address noise generated by the public transit system, in addition to the system upgrades we’re continually receiving as evidenced by the regular disruptions and changes to service we experience. Yes, the MTA can be doing a heck of a lot more for us. But this community has been far from silent about these issues. Perhaps it’s a case of selective hearing where only some voices are heard and heeded.

“I will call out the hypocrisy of some who oppose a Coney Island ferry based on what they view as “environmental concerns” while they vehemently oppose bike lanes to and from Coney Island because they prefer “more parking.” That’s not going to fly.”

The community needs a Regional Traffic Study if we hope to meaningfully address the congestion issues in Coney Island. The people who benefit and encourage more traffic (e.g., the Alliance for Coney Island, Central Amusement International, EDC, etc.) are the ones who should pay for a regional traffic study. No large-scale traffic changes can be made without a ecomprehensive study. Sick as some might be at the notion of another study, if the community had an opportunity to help define the traffic problems, then the solutions would reflect the community’s needs once and for all. The key is to look at how all of the streets and traffic signals and curbside regulations function as a system, and figure out more efficient and effective ways to move traffic into, around, and out of the neighborhood. P.S. I haven’t heard our Council Member advocating for more bike lanes either, even if bike lanes aren’t the best tool to mitigate “environmental concerns”. Calling out hypocrisy is easy, but how constructive is that? We need to stay focused. To keep our eyes on the prize. Want to address environmental concerns? Address environmental concerns. Support efforts to get the creek cleaned.

“The creek has history which must be addressed. I was one of the leading voices that demanded accountability when Beach Haven apartment owners illegally connected sewers to the creek dumping raw sewage. We got them fined and they stopped it.”

It’s not okay for a private land owner to dump untreated sewage into the creek, but it’s okay for the City to sanction repeated dredging activities in an area with some of the highest concentrations of toxic material over and over and over again. Beach Haven is yesterday’s news. Given the City/EDC’s intention to revisit the creek for future dredging, tomorrow’s headlines are what concern me more. Calling on the EPA to clean the creek under Superfund would at least demonstrate that the creek’s history is something we can lobby to address.

“Ferry contractors must follow rules and if they don’t they should be fired and held accountable.”

They were supposed to be following the rules when they prepared a faulty EIS. Instead, all of the other agencies that issued permits had the City/EDC’s EIS to use as a foil. They were supposed to be following the rules when their contractor didn’t use protective protocols put in place during the dredging and placed the community at risk. Instead, they fired the subcontractor. But when we had a chance to talk to the responsible agencies our Council Member ran the clock at a public meeting taking precious time away from the public to focus on the fact that the Coast Guard was not present instead of helping the public get as much information and support as we could from the agencies who did bother to show up at the meeting.

‘In the end, we need to find solutions to our growing challenges while also ensuring accountability.
I strongly support a Coney Island ferry because our residents deserve to be better connected to their city and not spend hours commuting. Transportation challenges also limit small business growth in a neighborhood that is a retail desert.
I strongly support delivering our community environmental justice. And I support solving problems and actually delivering results.”

Words unsupported by actions are empty and devoid of meaning. What we do (and don’t do) says more about who we are than what we say.

Best,  Craig