By Adam Janos

The 92nd Street Y and the New York Observer hosted a forum for mayoral candidates last Thursday to discuss their visions for the city. Joseph Lhota, John Catsimatidis and George McDonald attended the forum on the Republican side; on the Democratic side, Christine Quinn, Bill de Blasio, Bill Thompson, John Liu, and Sal Albanese were in attendance. The two sets of candidates took the stage separately and took distinct sets of questions on a range of topics. One that came up for both sides was on the proposed Marine Waste Transfer Station (MTS) on the Upper East Side.

The station in question is part of a five-borough plan signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg in 2007, which aims to address an undue amount of waste being processed in the outer boroughs in low-income community of color and to shift waste transportation from truck-based stations to barge and rail. Opponents of the station, however, say that by placing the station in a high-density residential area (as well as so close to neighborhood community center Asphalt Green), the city is being tone-deaf in its approach and disproportionately affecting Upper East Side residents.

On the Republican side, the three candidates were fairly unanimous in their condemnation of the station. Lhota, who answered the question first, talked about closing the station along with Fresh Kill in 2007 and said that when elected Mayor it would stay closed. He also stated that the five-borough solution was based on a false premise, because Manhattan already ships its garbage to New Jersey, not to the outer boroughs. The other two candidates jumped on that idea, unanimously agreeing that the trash would keep going to New Jersey, with Catsimatides going so far as to say that under his administration there’d be no plant anywhere in Manhattan.

While it’s true that Manhattan sends all of its residential waste to New Jersey to be incinerated, that waste only accounts for a fraction of the total trash the city produces. 15,000 of the 26,000 tons of waste handled by New York City each day qualifies as commercial waste, and as such is handled by large-scale commercial contractors. These commercial contractors converge trucks in the outer boroughs, dump their trash, and have it re-hauled out on light rail and trucks to landfills in far-flung locales such as South Carolina and Virginia. These facilities do, in fact, exist almost exclusively in low-income communities of color such as the South Bronx, North Brooklyn, and southeast Queens. Since the MTS on East 91st Street would handle both residential waste and commercial waste, its re-opening would, presumably, be a boon to outer borough residents.

When questioned about that discrepancy, Catsimatidis said, “I was partially joking. Maybe we don’t send 100 percent of our waste to New Jersey. But it sounded good at the time, didn’t it?” He then reaffirmed his commitment to eliminating transfer stations in Manhattan, saying that real estate development would draw far better revenue streams to the city.

On the Democratic side, Christine Quinn drew boos for her commitment to the five-borough plan, asserting that she helped shepherd the plan through the city council. Thompson, meanwhile, was applauded when he said that, “The more I see this sight [Asphalt Green], the more questions I have.” De Blasio split the baby by reaffirming his commitment to the five-borough plan but remaining vague on whether he’d push to re-open the station on East 91st, stating that “city hall hasn’t listened to the community.” Sal Albanese suggested that – given the devastation Superstorm Sandy brought to the city – he wouldn’t support marine-based stations anywhere, given the flood risk. “I’m worried about storms,” Albanese later told Our Town. “I’d hate to be the guy who didn’t do anything about it.”

Comptroller John Liu told Our Town that he had plenty of reservations about the East 91st Street site. However as the comptroller, Liu registered the contracts this December which allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to begin bringing the East 91st street MTS back into operation. “It’s not my job [to deny a contract], just because I don’t believe in it,” said Liu. “I can’t reject it, when they’ve perfected it.”

When asked if it would be his job as mayor to do so, Liu said he’d have to re-assess the site, but that it was “smack in a residential neighborhood.”

Representative Carolyn Maloney, whose opposition to the MTS dates back to 2004, recently endorsed Christine Quinn in the Mayoral race despite their polarity on the issue. When asked about that contradiction, Maloney responded, “We don’t agree on everything. But put any two New Yorkers in a room together, and they’re going to disagree on some things. But a waste transfer station shouldn’t be a flood zone.”

Still, Maloney maintained her endorsement for Quinn, saying, “It’s the talent, the experience level, and the vision for all our citizens,” that caused her to give her support to the Speaker’s campaign.

Upper East Side residents have proved that they are willing to vote single issue in the upcoming mayoral race to stop the Marine Transfer Waste Station from being built in Yorkville, amidst low-income housing and the Asphalt Green Recreation Center.

Last week, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney held a mayoral forum on the Upper East Side to discuss important issues in the upcoming race. The space was crowded with community activists who expressed an outpouring of protests and anger against building the Marine Transfer Station.

Comptroller John Liu flipped on his previous position, telling the crowd that “it doesn’t make sense to proceed while turning a blind eye to simple fact.” Former Comptroller Bill Thompson and Public Advocate Bill De Blasio both admitted that they were on the fence about the issue. After the forum, Mayor Bloomberg expressed surprise at their statements, since all three mayoral candidates had previously voted for the Marine Transfer Station in 2006.

But many community leaders do not believe that the candidates necessarily flip-flopped.

“Is it flip-flopping? Well, they voted on this proposal many years ago and I would think the next mayor wouldn’t want to be locked into the former mayor’s plan particularly since the price has gone up astronomically,” said Assembly Member Michah Kellner. “Do they really want to be saddled into their big capitol project being a garbage dump?”

Besides the impact on the quality of life, said Kellner, the concern has become an economical one. The estimated price tag on the Marine Transfer Station ballooned from $45 million at the start of the proposal, to $300 million.

But despite new concerns of mayoral candidates, one candidate has not backed down. Council Speaker Christine Quinn was booed when she asserted her position that building the Marine Transfer Station at Asphalt Green would be the best solution.

“If you want an answer you have to listen,” she said over the jeers of the crowd in a video of the event taken by Capital New York reporter Azi Paybarah. “You can scream and yell, but you have got to let me answer if I listen to your question with attention.”

One woman in the crowd actually yelled that she would not be voting for Christine Quinn in the primary. “That’s fine!” responded Quinn.

“People are saying, ‘oh yeah she’s such a stalwart that she didn’t back down from her position,” said Jed Garfield, the president of Sane Trash Solutions, an organization that has been fighting the building of the Marine Transfer Station.  “But it’s hardly heroic that she wants to put a dump near low-income housing.”

And it looks like in the upcoming mayoral election, that this garbage dump will have a significant impact on voters, at least on the Upper East Side.

When asked if she would ever vote for a candidate like Christine Quinn, Lorraine Johnson, a resident at Stanley M. Isaacs low income housing, right next door to the possible location of the Marine Transfer Station, said she would absolutely not.

“I can’t believe this is happening,” she said. “I have respiratory problems, and my asthma went down and became manageable when the previous MTS was finally closed in 1999. My asthma has been stable since, but I am scared that my asthma could be much worse if the city builds the planned MTS.”

Jed Garfield is not surprised that the community is willing to vote single issue to get the garbage dump out of residents’ hair (and noses) once and for all.

“People always vote single issue whenever you’re dealing with issues of health that affect children and seniors,” he said. “Based on the meetings and people I’ve met, they’re absolutely not going to vote for anyone who is not socially and fiscally responsible, and this is an example of that.”

Still, residents are concerned.

“I feel it’ll create a lot of noise; it’ll create a lot of filth; it’ll create a lot of congestion; it will endanger the health of children,” said Alison Grillo, a nearby resident who attended the rally. She added that if the MTS opens, she might have to consider leaving the neighborhood.

The proposed garbage dump that will go next to Asphalt Green.

Opponents of the East 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) planned by the city are joining forces with a seemingly unlikely ally, the Friends of LaGuardia Airport. What residents against a trash facility in their neighborhood have in common with a group that advocates for safe conditions at an airport in Queens is that both groups want to halt the transfer station in its tracks.

Air safety experts have begun to speak against the Upper East Side transfer station, as well as another planned for College Point in Queens, pointing to both planned facilities as wildlife attractants that will increase the number of dangerous collisions between flocks of large migratory birds and airplanes taking off from and landing at LaGuardia Airport. Last week, a Delta flight leaving JFK made an emergency landing shortly after takeoff when it struck a flock of birds and one of its engines was damaged, an incident that has reignited attention to this particular avian problem.

“This is a known risk, one that the aviation community has been dealing with for decades,” said James Hall, a transportation safety consultant and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. “The New York airports sit in the middle of an area that is surrounded by water. They are already an area that provides wildlife attractants and challenges in order to provide for safe flight.”

Capt. Chesley Sullenberger, the now-famous pilot who safely landed his plane on the Hudson River after a bird strike crippled its engines in 2009, has spoken against both transfer stations. He told CBS This Morning last week, “It’s a bad idea to build near an airport anything that’s likely to attract birds, including trash facilities,” mentioning the East 91st Street and College Point stations by name.

While locals and politicians in Yorkville have been fighting the transfer station for a myriad of reasons, it seems like their best hope for actually stopping it lies with the lawsuits that the Friends of LaGuardia airport have filed against the FAA.

“Most people don’t associate our community in Yorkville with LaGuardia Airport in Queens,” said David Mack, one of the founders of the group Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, formed to oppose the Upper East Side MTS. “But as the crow flies, literally, the FAA has a mandated perimeter where they don’t want any wildlife attractants, and we are within that distance.”

Ken Paskar, president of Friends of LaGuardia Airport and a former lead representative for the FAA safety team, said his group is only asking the FAA to do what their own regulations require them to enforce.

“The FAA is very specific about what it means to be a fully enclosed transfer station, and the transfer station at East 91st Street does not meet that criteria,” Paskar said. The FAA recommends that any potential wildlife attractant be located at least five miles from any airports to protect their approach, departure and circling airspace, and has strict requirements that those located within that radius must meet that essentially prohibit any trash or odor escaping the enclosed station.

City officials have said that the transfer station will be built to ensure minimal exposure of the trash to the outdoors, and that its operations will be conducted under the covered facility. The state Department of Environmental Conservation, which has issued permits for the facility, did not respond to request for comment on this story.

Opponents contest that there is no way the city can guarantee that the transfer station will operate without attracting additional birds.

“This is not rocket science here, this is something that everyone understands—birds and airplanes don’t mix,” Paskar said. “When you build something on the water with a new food source, which is garbage and waste, for birds, you’re going to have a hazardous situation.”

State Sen. Liz Krueger and Assembly Member Micah Kellner, who have both been vocal opponents of the transfer station along with other East Side elected officials, released a joint statement pointing to the recent bird strike as another reason to halt the East 91st Street facility.

“While this bird strike occurred on a flight path out of JFK, it’s a reminder that we need to work on mitigating the risks for all our airports,” read the statement in part. “We agree with the Friends of LaGuardia Airport, former FAA officials who think that putting bird-attracting sanitation facilities in major flight paths is a bad idea.”

Bird strikes have been increasing over the past several decades, a phenomenon that experts attribute to changes in migratory patterns due to climate change. According to the FAA’s database, there have been 960 wildlife strikes near LaGuardia Airport in the past 10 years, 10 of which resulted in substantial damage and one—Sullenberger’s “Miracle on the Hudson”—that resulted in a destroyed aircraft. While it’s common for birds to collide with planes in the air, large fowl like Canadian geese can cause enough damage to ground a flight.

“To me, it’s just a horrible precedent to be set nationally,” said Hall. “For the city of New York, the Port Authority and the FAA to take an action like this, to add to an area that is already an attractant, to add to that with these waste disposal units is just irresponsible.”