Letters to the editor

E.P.A. on air quality

To The Editor:

With the publication of the World Trade Center Health Registry, the many concerns that have been voiced by the community and elected officials for the past three years have been confirmed: The dust and debris from Ground Zero was highly toxic and the Downtown workers and members of that community, as well as those who bravely helped in the rescue and clean-up of Ground Zero, have been subjected to a major, long-term health hazard.

With just under half of those surveyed who were closest to the site of the attacks reporting respiratory problems, the question that looms ever larger is why did the Environmental Protection Agency decide to not warn residents and workers of the toxicity of the smoke, fumes and dust pervading the area around Ground Zero? Why did the E.P.A. encourage workers and residents to return to their lives and simply clean up with a wet rag? In fact, the E.P.A. has shamelessly dragged its feet in testing the safety of the area around Ground Zero, failing to perform a full range of tests, using weak or outdated screening processes, and leaving many sites and communities unchecked. Even more alarmingly, some reports suggest that this laxness may have been encouraged by the White House. For example, a 165-page report issued on Aug. 21, 2003 by the E.P.A.’s inspector general has shown that the White House Committee on Environmental Quality blocked health risk information that the E.P.A. wanted to release to the public following the attack in 2001.

It is an outrage that for so long the voices of New Yorkers expressing their suspicion that the E.P.A. misled them about the post-9/11 air quality have gone unheeded. The results of the Health Registry is further evidence that their suspicions were well-founded. I cannot help but wonder whether the results reported by the registry would have been so stark if the E.P.A. had both made the public aware of the full risks and carried out the proper de-contamination procedures. While this question might never be answered, the sense that the E.P.A. did not do all that was in its power to protect the public in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks will always remain. As a result, many New Yorkers’ faith in the agency and in their government’s ability and commitment to protecting its citizens has been seriously damaged.

The federal government’s willingness to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to wage a war to protect the American people from dangers abroad whose imminence had yet to be proven, while skimping on the resources necessary to protect Americans against proven, albeit longer-term risks at home, smacks of the highest order of hypocrisy.

Deborah J. Glick

Assemblymember, 66th District

Board’s true position

To The Editor:

“C.B. 1 backs De Niro group’s taller hotel plan” (news article, Nov. 19 – 25) misrepresents Community Board 1’s position on the matter. The resolution, passed by the full board on Nov. 16, notes that the hotel design proposed for the corner of Greenwich and N. Moore Streets “is a great improvement on all previous proposals [for this site] with two important exceptions.”

One exception has to do with a skylight detail. The other exception, the resolution goes on to say, is “about the addition of one story…adding 12 feet to the overall height of [earlier plans] and adding 8,500 square feet of bulk, which will require a Board of Standards and Appeals variance.”

The resolution concludes by recommending that the Landmarks Preservation Commission approve the hotel design application only after addressing the noted concerns, chief among them, the height and bulk issues. To specifically headline your article as you did is a direct contradiction of the facts. Furthermore, the zoning variance request necessary to construct a structure of this size at Greenwich and N. Moore will require a further review by the Community Board’s Tribeca Committee.

Bruce L. Ehrmann

Chairperson, C.B. 1’s Landmarks Committee

Sculpture’s too big