« The NYT on AY, 2007: fit to blog, fit to print? | Main | Ratlantic Yards 2007: The Year in Pics »
December 31, 2007
The tale of an ESDC non-correction
Atlantic Yards Report
Our Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) is hard at work making sure that Norman Oder's blog is correct. As for its own Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Atlantic Yards -- not so much.
On November 5, shortly after I posted a document I attributed to the ESDC that indicated that the reconstruction of the Carlton Avenue Bridge would take two years rather than nine months, I got a flurry of phone calls and e-mails from ESDC spokesmen indicating that I should correct my article, given that it was not an official ESDC document.
I did so, though the information--a summary apparently prepared by a Community Board after an ESDC meeting--was not inaccurate.
What was inaccurate was my interpretation that the duration of the bridge's reconstruction had just been announced. However, my error was based on an error in an ESDC document, which has not been corrected
It's swell that the ESDC is looking to be so helpful in keeping the Atlantic Yards Report accurate. If only it would be so careful with its own FEIS, where the error originated.
Though I had read many chapters of the FEIS to track any changes from the Draft EIS, I had not read the revised Chapter 17, which contains text regarding the schedule.
In fact, as an ESDC spokesman reminded me later that day in another flurry of messages, the revised chapter indicated that the time to reconstruct the bridge would be two years rather than nine months.
A correction was in order, I was told.
I agreed, but I was a bit ticked off--after all, I wouldn't have made my error had I not been misled by the ESDC's failure to update the construction schedule attached to Chapter 17.
We can only guess why the ESDC won't correct its own document, but one of Oder's guesses points to the pending lawsuit challenging the FEIS.
A correction might further confirm that the board members who approved the project were approving a flawed document, and might render the ESDC legally vulnerable.
Posted by steve at December 31, 2007 7:33 AM