News

Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.

“With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The report’s full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

“One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.

“Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.

Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5°C, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be. “The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate,” said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.

Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5°C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5°C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,” said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.

The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.

“This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history,” she said.

The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.

The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.

The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Global Warming of 1.5°C is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.

The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) is available at https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch.

Key statistics of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

91 authors from 44 citizenships and 40 countries of residence
– 14 Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs)
– 60 Lead authors (LAs)
– 17 Review Editors (REs)

133 Contributing authors (CAs)
Over 6,000 cited references
A total of 42,001 expert and government review comments
(First Order Draft 12,895; Second Order Draft 25,476; Final Government Draft: 3,630)

For more information, contact:
IPCC Press Office, Email: ipcc-media@wmo.int
Werani Zabula +41 79 108 3157 or Nina Peeva +41 79 516 7068

Notes for editors

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, known as SR15, is being prepared in response to an invitation from the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, when they reached the Paris Agreement, and will inform the Talanoa Dialogue at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24). The Talanoa Dialogue will take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement, and to inform the preparation of nationally determined contributions. Details of the report, including the approved outline, can be found on the report page. The report was prepared under the joint scientific leadership of all three IPCC Working Groups, with support from the Working Group I Technical Support Unit.

What is the IPCC?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. It has 195 member states.

IPCC assessments provide governments, at all levels, with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC assessments are a key input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change. IPCC reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency.

The IPCC assesses the thousands of scientific papers published each year to tell policymakers what we know and don’t know about the risks related to climate change. The IPCC identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community, where there are differences of opinion, and where further research is needed. It does not conduct its own research.

To produce its reports, the IPCC mobilizes hundreds of scientists. These scientists and officials are drawn from diverse backgrounds. Only a dozen permanent staff work in the IPCC’s Secretariat.

The IPCC has three working groups: Working Group I, dealing with the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II, dealing with impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III, dealing with the mitigation of climate change. It also has a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories that develops methodologies for measuring emissions and removals.

IPCC Assessment Reports consist of contributions from each of the three working groups and a Synthesis Report. Special Reports undertake an assessment of cross-disciplinary issues that span more than one working group and are shorter and more focused than the main assessments.

Sixth Assessment Cycle
At its 41st Session in February 2015, the IPCC decided to produce a Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). At its 42nd Session in October 2015 it elected a new Bureau that would oversee the work on this report and Special Reports to be produced in the assessment cycle. At its 43rd Session in April 2016, it decided to produce three Special Reports, a Methodology Report and AR6.

The Methodology Report to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories will be delivered in 2019. Besides Global Warming of 1.5°C, the IPCC will finalize two further special reports in 2019: the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. The AR6 Synthesis Report will be finalized in the first half of 2022, following the three working group contributions to AR6 in 2021.

For more information, including links to the IPCC reports, go to: www.ipcc.ch

From NPR:

In early July, Bangladesh became the first country to grant all of its rivers the same legal status as humans. From now on, its rivers will be treated as living entities in a court of law. The landmark ruling by the Bangladeshi Supreme Court is meant to protect the world’s largest delta from further degradation from pollution, illegal dredging and human intrusion.

“In Bangladesh, the river is considered as our mother,” says Mohammad Abdul Matin, general secretary of Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, a Dhaka-based environmental group. As Bangladesh sits where three major rivers converge and empty into the Bay of Bengal, nearly 100% of its land is delta land, he tells NPR.

Following the ruling, anyone accused of harming the rivers can be taken to court by the new, government-appointed National River Conservation Commission. They may be tried and delivered a verdict as if they had harmed their own mother, Matin says.

“The river is now considered by law, by code, a living entity, so you’ll have to face the consequence by law if you do anything that kills the river,” Matin says.

Bangladesh follows a handful of countries that have subscribed to an idea known as environmental personhood. It was first highlighted in essays by University of Southern California law professor Christopher D. Stone, collected into a 1974 book titled Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Stone argued that if an environmental entity is given “legal personality,” it cannot be owned and has the right to appear in court.

Traditionally, nature has been subject to a Western-conceived legal regime of property-based ownership, says Monti Aguirre with the environmental group International Rivers.

“That means … an owner has the right to modify their features, their natural features, or to destroy them all at will,” Aguirre says.

The idea of environmental personhood turns that paradigm on its head by recognizing that nature has rights and that those rights should be enforced by a court of law. It’s a philosophical idea, says Aguirre, with indigenous communities leading the charge.”

From Mother Jones:

The UN report says we just have to stop cutting them down

“Forests provide many benefits beyond storing carbon, they store and recycle our water, they prevent erosion, they harbor biodiversity. There’s a legion of reasons to protect forests, especially in the tropics. When we plant forests, we gain some of those benefits, but it takes years to decades to grow a healthy forest.” Rob Jackson, Stanford University

JACKIE FLYNN MOGENSEN

Every year, an estimated 15 billion trees are chopped down across the planet to make room for agricultural and urban lands and other uses. We’ve cut down so many, in fact, that what’s left is about half of the number of trees that the Earth supported before the rise of human civilization, and scientists warn that it’s not helping our climate. Planting more trees is one way to offset deforestation. But now, a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that to have a shot at combatting the climate crisis, among other efforts, we’ll need to cut down fewer trees to begin with.

Global deforestation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Of all the land-use-related carbon dioxide emissions between 2007 and 2016—between 2.6 and 7.8 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide yearly—most of it comes from deforestation, the IPCC report’s authors estimate.

Rebecca Leber explains:

“The way we eat, farm, and cut down forests contributes in a major way to the climate problem. Deforestation, agriculture, and other land use are already responsible for 23 percent of the rise in human-caused greenhouse gases, and agriculture is responsible for 44 percent of methane emissions. Those numbers will certainly grow without changes in land management—changes like growing forests and improving soil’s carbon capture with more native plants and crops.”

From The Atlantic:

“A war waged by deed of title has dispossessed 98 percent of black agricultural landowners in America“

“Back in the day, snow-white bolls of King Cotton reigned. Now much of the land is green with soybeans. The farms and plantations are much larger—industrial operations with bioengineered plants, laser-guided tractors, and crop-dusting drones. Fewer and fewer farms are still owned by actual farmers. Investors in boardrooms throughout the country have bought hundreds of thousands of acres of premium Delta land. If you’re one of the millions of people who have a retirement account with the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, for instance, you might even own a little bit yourself…

..Hancock Agricultural Investment Group manages more than 65,000 acres in what it calls the “Delta states.” The real-estate trust Farmland Partners has 30,000 acres in and around the Delta. AgriVest, a subsidiary of the Swiss bank UBS, owned 22,000 acres as of 2011. (AgriVest did not respond to a request for more recent information.)

This is not a story about TIAA—at least not primarily. The company’s newfound dominance in the region is merely the topsoil covering a history of loss and legally sanctioned theft in which TIAA played no part. But TIAA’s position is instrumental in understanding both how the crimes of Jim Crow have been laundered by time and how the legacy of ill-gotten gains has become a structural part of American life. The land was wrested first from Native Americans, by force. It was then cleared, watered, and made productive for intensive agriculture by the labor of enslaved Africans, who after Emancipation would come to own a portion of it. Later, through a variety of means—sometimes legal, often coercive, in many cases legal and coercive, occasionally violent—farmland owned by black people came into the hands of white people. It was aggregated into larger holdings, then aggregated again, eventually attracting the interest of Wall Street.

Owners of small farms everywhere, black and white alike, have long been buffeted by larger economic forces. But what happened to black landowners in the South, and particularly in the Delta, is distinct, and was propelled not only by economic change but also by white racism and local white power. A war waged by deed of title has dispossessed 98 percent of black agricultural landowners in America. They have lost 12 million acres over the past century. But even that statement falsely consigns the losses to long-ago history. In fact, the losses mostly occurred within living memory, from the 1950s onward. Today, except for a handful of farmers like the Scotts who have been able to keep or get back some land, black people in this most productive corner of the Deep South own almost nothing of the bounty under their feet…”

From Scientific American: “A new report from the National Academics calls for concerted research into “negative emissions technologies”

Pacala said that extracting CO₂ directly from the air was one of two technologies favored by the panels because, once developed, they appeared to have no inherent limitations. The second technology among many mentioned in the panels’ reports is called “carbon mineralization.” It takes advantage of the fact that CO₂ “reacts spontaneously” with carbon-containing rocks.

CO₂ can be stored in some rock formations, and it eventually becomes part of the rocks. CO₂ can also be used in making certain long-lasting construction materials such as concrete and cement, products that are needed by huge markets in the United States and other nations.

Pacala noted that last week, a “sister committee” to his panel, which contained scientists and company executives, produced a report called “Gaseous Carbon Waste Streams Utilization.” It lists a number of other marketable products that may, over time, evolve from more intense climate change-connected research…”

Read more here.

• Trees can reduce air temperature by blocking sunlight. Further cooling occurs when water evaporates from the leaf surface. The conversion of water to air vapor — a chemical process — removes heat energy from the air.
• A tree can be a natural air conditioner. The evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
• You can improve the efficiency of your heat pump by shading it with a tree.
• Deciduous trees block sunlight in the summer but allow sunlight to reach and warm your home in the winter —- place deciduous trees on the south and west sides of your home.
• Trees can shade hard surface areas such as driveways, patios, building and sidewalks thus minimizing landscape heat load — a build up of heat during the day that is radiated at night resulting in warmer temperatures. Ideally, 50 percent of the total paved surface should be shaded.
• Evergreen trees can be used to reduce wind speed and thus loss of heat from your home in the winter by as much as 10 to 50 percent.
• Trees absorb and block noise and reduce glare. A well placed tree can reduce noise by as much as 40 percent.
• Fallen tree leaves can reduce soil temperature and soil moisture loss. Decaying leaves promote soil microorganism and provide nutrients for tree growth.
• Trees help settle out and trap dust, pollen and smoke from the air. The dust level in the air can be as much as 75 percent lower on the sheltered side of the tree compared to the windward side.
• Trees create an ecosystem to provide habitat and food for birds and other animals.
• Trees absorb carbon dioxide and potentially harmful gasses, such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, from the air and release oxygen.
  • One large tree can supply a day’s supply of oxygen for four people.
  • A healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon each year —-for an acre of trees that equals to 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide.
  • Each gallon of gasoline burned produces almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide.
  • For every 10,000 miles you drive, it takes 7 trees to remove the amount of carbon dioxide produce if your car gets 40 miles per gallon (mpg); it will take 10 trees at 30 mpg; 15 trees at 20 mpg; 20 trees at 15 mpg; and 25 trees at 12 mpg)
• Trees help reduce surface water runoff from storms, thus decreasing soil erosion and the accumulation of sediments in streams. They increase ground water recharge and reduce the number of potentially harmful chemicals transported to our streams.
• An acre of trees absorb enough carbon dioxide in a year to equal the amount produced when you drive a car 26,000 miles.
• Trees cool the air, land and water with shade and moisture thus reduce the heat-island effect of our urban communities. The temperature in urban areas is often 9 degrees warmer than in areas with heavy tree cover.
• Trees can help offset the buildup of carbon dioxide in the air and reduce the ” greenhouse effect.”
• Trees create microclimates suitable for growing shade loving plants.
• The American Forestry Association estimates that 100 million new trees would absorb 18 million tons of carbon dioxide and cut US air conditioning costs by $4 billion annually.
• Dews and frosts are less under tree because less radiant heat is lost at night.

Personal and Social Benefits

• Trees are the least expensive plants you can add to your landscape when you consider the impact they create due to their size.
• A tree can add music to your life by attracting birds and other animals.
• A tree can provide pleasant smells. A cherry tree can perfume the air with 200,000 flowers.
• Hospital patients have been shown to recover from surgery more quickly when their hospital room offered a view of trees. They also had fewer complaints, less pain killers and left the hospital sooner.
• Most of us respond to the presence of trees beyond simply observing their beauty. We feel serene, peaceful, restful and tranquil in a grove of trees. We are “at home” there.
• Trees provide us with color, flowers, fruit, interesting shapes and forms to look at.
• Trees can screen unattractive views, soften the sometimes harsh outline of masonry, metal, asphalt, steel, and glass.
• Trees can seperate and define space thus providing a sense of privacy, solitude and security, and create a feeling of relaxation and well being.
• Trees can serve as a living legacy for the next generation – thus linking us to near and distant generations
• Lowered electricity bills are paid by customers when power companies build fewer new facilities to meet peak demands, use reduced amounts of fossil fuel in their furnaces and need fewer measures to control air pollution.
• Trees can help direct pedestrian traffic, provide background and thus enhance the appearance of other landscape plants and our homes.
• Trees help people reflect positively on life’ changes.
• Trees have been reported as having a relaxing effect on students studying for exams.
• Studies have documented that urban vegetation can result in slower heartbeats, lower blood pressure and more relaxed brain wave patterns.
• Sound waves are absorbed by tree leaves and branches. A belt of trees 100 feet wide and 45 feet high can reduce highway noise by 50 percent. Prolonged exposure to noise can cause hypertension, higher cholesterol levels, irritability and aggressive behavior.

Community Benefits

 

• Trees can create lasting impression on how a community is perceived by visitors and affect the mood and community pride of its residents.
• Trees can enhance community economic stability by attracting businesses and tourists —–people linger and shop longer when trees are present.
• Apartments and offices in wooded areas rent quicker and have a higher occupancy rate — workers in offices in wooded areas report more productivity and less absenteeism.
• Property values of landscaped homes are 5 to 15% higher than those of non-landscaped homes and homes are quicker to resell than homes without trees.
• Trees increase the humidity in the air, help increase ground water recharge, reduce soil erosion and storm water run-off thus reducing the amount of water we consume and the need for new water treatment plant and storm water structures. A study in Salt Lake City revealed the tree canopy reduced surface runoff by 11.3 million gallons following a 1 inch rain.
• The feeling of community pride created by trees can help reduce crime.
• By reducing heating and cooling cost, trees can reduce our dependance on oil and natural gas.
• By absorbing and deflecting falling rain, trees can reduce the severity of floods.
• By reducing carbon dioxide, dust and other potentially harm gasses in the air, our air quality is improved through lower levels of ozone, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide.
• Trees make communities livable for people and their activities. People walk and jog more on streets with trees; children and adults have a cool place to play or relax in the summer, thus increasing their interaction with neighbors.

Second MTA Meeting:

Thanks to Elected Officials representatives Council Member Chin’s Gigi Li, Borough President Brewer’s Brian Lewis, and Nydia Velázquez’ office and Susan Stetzer from CB3.

(Prior to this meeting there was a walk-through with DOH, MTA, the MTA contractor, Parks, residents, CB3 and Coalition)

Safety:

Dangerous corridor on SDR Park East Side btw Stanton/Rivington where tunnel was created – neighbors/Coalition is requesting Parks/Police/Elected reps to close off the tunnel as a preventative measure.

Dangerous tunnel on residential side of Forsyth Delancey/Rivington. Increased patrols by police. The contractor is working out access to electrical source for lighting. Their solar lights were stolen.

Cameras temporarily on buildings with signage?

Rats:

MTA is apparently “out of compliance” with NYC construction rules. Rat abatement required. Two weeks to complete the contract but the Park is already experiencing uptick in rat nesting sites in nearby garden areas. 3 more dead rats found in garden.

Susan Stetzer and Parks will look into bringing back in the Department of Health as emergency help in the Park while the MTA gets its rat abatement up to speed.

RATS:

The Department of Health (DOH) did a walk-through of the park on the uptick of rats and gave Parks and the Coalition their expert advice.

All SDR Plot areas:

• Check plots for rat burrows.
• Remove clumps of sticks.
• Check plots for rat burrows.
• Either email or call in or mark rat burrows you see with red flag for Parks exterminators (see contact below) and DOH inspector will be checking in.
• NO food left exposed.
• Rats love to hide and we’ll have to ensure they don’t have a place to do that.
• Find out why the rat abatement was blocked south of Grand Street.
• We will ALL need to be dedicated, willing rat inspectors

Parks Department is now taken on rat –abatement. DOH will serve as monitor.

The MTA site is two weeks away from activating their contract for their site rat abatement.

If you see rat burrows – contact:  Mark Vaccaro Mark.Vaccaro@parks.nyc.gov, Parks supervisor, with the location and, if possible, a marker.

Houston Street Area – Illegal garbage dumping on Stanton – law enforcement needed. Increase trash pick –up for the entire area. Remove luggage. Talk to food distributors again to require them to remove trash in the entire area when they are finished distributing.

Someone defecated in the new BirdLink Sculpture. Sorry to hear this.

M’Finda Garden:

• Construction on both sides of the MKGarden –rats are looking for new homes. The adjacent MTA digging site is going to make things worse.
• Rat burrows in many of the deep boxes around the bocce court – dismantle them.
• Buy shallower, free standing boxes (as on the patio). Parks said they will come in to deal with the rat nests in the boxes on Monday August 5th.
• Keep checking shed in children’s area.
• Chicken coop area: ANY food should be enclosed in sealed metal containers.
• No food left exposed in the Garden (Shared BRC patio too)!! Including CSA food.
• Watch the compost pile for rat burrows.
• If there is a dense plot – Gardeners need to check for rat burrows. If we don’t wish to do that? Remove ground cover or make a path through your plot that the rat abatement team can get inside it. Thin plots with tall dense plantings.
• In the areas along the sides of the garden it is particularly important to remove excess vegetation and wood chip the area. Even making clumps of foliage helps because apparently rats move in a linear way and it exposes them (which they don’t like) if they have to run from clump to clump.
• Schedule another clean up of the entire garden.

Delancey South: remove low wall where people sit and toss garbage into plots or garbage pick up 3 times a day. Remove baggage in plot areas.

Grand South: Allow rat abatement throughout the Park. Resolve any issues with refusing to allow workers in to do rat abatement.

*************************

Mosquitos: It is still flooding Rivington Streetway inside SDR Park. CALL 311 ask to complain to the Department of Environmental Protection and the Parks Department and the Department of Health.

Parks proposing to ask DEP to clear the drain which would help, though the constant leak of an underground pipe is wasteful and going on for years now.

The mobile food truck was moved because it wasn’t meeting its census – moved to Hester area of Park. Was it not meeting its census because no one could get to the truck through the flooding?

PLEASE Call 311, get the complaint number, if you don’t get a satisfactory response? Send the complaint # to the Community Board 3 District Office. They will follow up –

sstetzer@cb3manhattan.org
212-533-6015

jshelton@cb3manhattan.org
212-533-5300 x205

5^th Precinct Build a Block Meeting Good turn out for this important chance to let the local ‘beat cops’ know what is going on. You are the eyes and ears of this neighborhood. General response: pleased with our local cops attentiveness, proactive stances and speedy response time. Focusing on building awareness of unprotected personal items stolen in sports fields – grand larceny – as the most preventable crime.

Parks will put up signs and possibly mesh at bottom of fencing to prevent reach –ins:

Stats:

2 reported rapes in or around the park, 1 arrest 1 under investigation,

5 robberies reported -3 arrests, 2 under investigation,

10 felonious assaults – 6 arrests, 4 under investigation

5 burglary reports 1 arrest (the rest under investigation assume)

Grand larceny 32 reports – 13 arrests, 19 under investigation

Complaints: Hidden areas on Forsyth, drug sales, etc.

5^th Precinct has requested light tower. Parks Department/DOT promise of replacing dim bulbs with LED lighting throughout the park!

5^th Precinct floating the idea of a possible test closure of sections of the park where it is deemed too dark and hidden and crime too easy to happen.

Parks Department: Proposing needle containers throughout the park.

Coalition highly concurs. We’ve asked for them. This could/would cut down on needles discarded in garden beds. Park workers, community gardeners, volunteers and visitors find them. We just request drug providers inform their clients on needle box locations once they are established so they are able to responsibly dispose of needles. It helps everyone. Coalition will write letter in support.

From Curbed NY:

“..city data and real estate listings website Localize.city …used public data from 2014 to 2018 to identify which intersections have seen the most cycling injuries and fatalities during that period”

Chrystie Street and Delancey Street, Lower East Side: 17 injuries (tied)

“Experts and the city already know where the dangerous intersections are and what makes them so unsafe,” says Localize.city urban planner Sam Sklar. “If you’re thinking about taking up cycling you should know if the intersections and streets near your home are dangerous.”

Check Localize.city and Curbed article for other intersections.

Thank you Localize.city