Geneva Foundry: Correction to January 2nd Article, Emotions Run High at City Council Meeting

Thanks to a helpful reader, I have realized that I misinterpreted some of the details regarding the Geneva Foundry onsite and offsite cleanup project in the article “DEC Documents Reveal: City Puts Residents Second in Foundry Cleanup.”



In the aforementioned article, and during public comment at the 1/4/17 Geneva City Council meeting, I’ve stated that due to requests by a consultant on behalf of the City of Geneva, the DEC (against their earlier recommendations) agreed to separate the Foundry cleanup into three separate projects in order to ensure that the Foundry site was cleaned up before the surrounding contaminated residential properties.

I have misinterpreted the use of the word “project,” and mistakenly concluded that the offsite and onsite cleanups were eventually separated by the DEC due to the City’s requests.

The DEC issued only one Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for three operable units (OUs). Approaching the offsite and onsite cleanup as one “project” with only one PRAP was the DEC’s original recommendation to the City. OU 1 is the former site of the actual Foundry building, and OU 2 is the parcel targeted for development, OU 3 is the offsite residential properties.

This is the link to the Former Geneva Foundry Site PRAP:

After reviewing the DEC emails in this context, it is unclear whether the city’s consultant was requesting that the DEC separate the onsite and offsite remediation efforts, or that the DEC separate the Foundry site into two remediation efforts.

Still, in both cases, the result is that the taxpayer-funded cleanup of the parcel targeted for development will be remediated years before the residential properties.

The fact remains that the City asked the DEC to separate the projects so that the City could “use their own money to finish the cleanup of the Foundry site and to get the site ready for commercial use development” before the residential cleanup was completed.

I regret the error, and will strive in the future to avoid mistakes and to maintain Geneva Believer as a fact-based source of alternative news and viewpoints.

(The above correction has been added to the original article.)

This Sunday Morning: A Report on the Geneva City Council Meeting from January 4th

Be sure to check out Geneva Believer this Sunday morning, January 8th, for a follow-up on the Foundry story, including commentary on last Wednesday’s City Council meeting, which you may have heard about if you saw the headline of Friday’s Finger Lakes Times which screamed “SPEAKERS BASH CITY ON FOUNDRY ISSUE” (as if concerned citizens requesting that the City put families first equates to “bashing” the City).


During the ‘Mayor and Council Reports’ segment of the City Council meeting, I was addressed, by name, by Councilor-At-Large Gordon Eddington, who stated that while he doesn’t personally read my “social media,” he would like me to provide readers with additional information about his role as a consultant to the City of Geneva. I will fulfill Councilor Eddington’s request, as well as respond to other statements made by Councilors D’Amico and Valentino and City Manager Matt Horn, in Sunday’s installment.


0 Comments on “Geneva Foundry: Correction to January 2nd Article, Emotions Run High at City Council Meeting”

  1. Hi Jim,

    I applaud your efforts. Thank you for your diligence.

    I saw that headline and was taken aback. In all my time working for, and reading the Finger Lakes Times I have never seen such an emotionally charged presentation of an article. I think it really speaks to the management’s current leanings. And it is distressing to know that unless absolutely forced to report on something that may portray the city in a negative light, they will ignore issues of importance in our city. And when faced with them directly they will choose to attempt to sway public opinion.

Leave a Reply