You Can FOIL* It

When information is acknowledged, delayed, and withheld until it no longer matters, transparency becomes a process, not a right

On April 15, at the Steam Plant Demolition Town Hall, a simple exchange revealed something far more consequential than anything formally presented that evening.

NYC Department of Buildings Deputy Commissioner Yegal Shamash acknowledged that a full demolition report exists. He described its findings. He spoke about its conclusions. But when asked directly whether that report would be made public, his answer shifted.

He suggested it could be obtained through FOIL. Then, moments later, said he would need to “have a conversation in-house” about what could be published.

FOIL, or the Freedom of Information Law, is the process that allows the public to request access to government records.

The information exists. Its release does not.

A brief note:

This newsletter is written once a week and supported almost entirely by readers sharing it quietly with one another. If you were forwarded this, subscribing ensures it arrives without relying on someone else to remember you.

---

The System That Delays Itself

That answer might have carried more weight if FOIL were functioning in real time.

It is not.

Multiple requests for this very material were submitted in February and early March. The current estimated completion dates now extend into late May and mid-June.

That is not access. That is delay.

At the same time, a narrowly scoped request was submitted to RIOC. No documents. No content. Only email metadata. A defined date range. Two keywords: “Steam Plant” and “Emergency.”

The goal was simple: understand when RIOC became aware and how it was involved.

The response arrived on April 14, one day before the Town Hall:

additional time is required to review the records…

Even here, where the burden is minimal, the pattern holds.

Information is acknowledged. Requests are accepted. Time is extended.

---

What Was Said, and What Was Not

One detail did emerge clearly.

There were two separate actions:

• An emergency order to stabilize the site

• A separate order to demolish it

It defines both the urgency and the authority behind what is happening. But the most urgent issue raised by residents was not procedural. It was physical. People reported breathing issues.

The response was direct. Air monitoring will be conducted when legally required. Until then, it will not be expanded.

No timeline. No interim measures. No deviation from minimum obligation.

---

Why Air Monitoring Is Limited

What officials communicated at the Town Hall follows a familiar pattern. Air monitoring is tied to specific legal triggers, not general concern. In this case, that trigger is asbestos-related work.

When asbestos is actively being disturbed, regulations require monitoring because the risk is clearly defined. Outside of that phase, there is no automatic requirement to measure air quality, even if demolition, debris, or dust may still affect surrounding areas.

That does not necessarily mean the air is safe. It means the law does not currently require it to be measured.

Why Not Do It Anyway?

There are a few practical reasons agencies tend to avoid expanding monitoring beyond what is required:

• Liability exposure
  Once monitoring begins, results create a record. If elevated levels are detected, it can trigger obligations to act, delay work, or take on additional mitigation.

• Cost and operational friction
  Continuous monitoring adds expense and can complicate timelines, especially if results require changes to the plan.

• Regulatory posture
  Agencies often default to compliance with minimum standards rather than proactive measures, particularly when no violation has been formally identified.

What This Means for Residents

Air monitoring is not being withheld because it is impossible. It is not being implemented because it is not legally required. That leaves a gap between what is legally sufficient and what residents may reasonably expect, especially when concerns are already being raised.

That gap was not unnoticed. As reported by Eleanor Rivers in “I Can Ask,” RIOC board member Professor Lydia Tang explicitly directed that air monitoring be installed. The response she received, notably, was not a commitment to act, but a deferral.

Bridging that gap does not appear to be happening internally. And when even a direct request from within the board results in hesitation rather than action, it suggests that movement, if it comes, will need to come from outside pressure.

---

What Comes Next

Information exists. That much is no longer in question. Officials have acknowledged it, referenced it, and in some cases described it. But acknowledgment is not access, and access delayed is access denied in practice.

At the Town Hall, Deputy Commissioner Shamash pointed to FOIL as the path to obtain the report. Those requests have already been filed. No substantive response has been produced. When pressed further, he said he would need to speak with his commissioner about what could be released.

In that same exchange, he stated that a third-party review could be allowed. But no process was outlined. No indication of who would fund it. No explanation of how such a review would begin, or whether it would carry any authority to affect what comes next. At the same time, a critical distinction was introduced: the emergency order to secure the site, and a separate demolition order that did not appear to rely on that same emergency basis.

If the demolition is not tied to an active emergency, then its urgency, and its necessity, become questions that can be examined. Without a report, or an independent review, those questions remain unanswered while the project continues to move forward.

---

What Advocates Are Saying

Following the Town Hall, we shared our summary with members of the group actively working to halt the demolition, including Zora Boyadzhieva, Kalin Kresnitchki, and Tibor Krisco, to ensure accuracy and invite their perspective.

On the question of the report, advocates cautioned against overstating certainty. As Tibor Krisco noted, DOB “did not overtly confirm a report existed,” though officials did describe structural findings in detail. Kalin Kresnitchki offered a more precise framing:

“DOB described its structural findings orally at the Town Hall but did not provide or confirm the existence of a written report, and no report has been released publicly.”

What was presented at the Town Hall went beyond general statements. Officials described specific structural findings and referenced images associated with those findings. That level of detail strongly suggests that some form of report exists. What remains unclear is its scope, its rigor, and whether it reflects a complete analysis or a partial one. The public, however, has access to none of it.

While no formal commitment to a third-party review appears in the public record, DOB Deputy Commissioner Shamash did offer a more informal next step. As Kresnitchki described:

“He gave us his business card and promised to give us a personal demolition site tour… we have sent him an email… awaiting a response.”

At the same time, advocates raised concerns that extend beyond process and into current conditions on the ground. According to Kresnitchki:

“Demolition is going for weeks… cutting lead paint covered metal pipes… no containment, no negative pressure and HEPA filtration.”

On air monitoring, the understanding remains unchanged. Monitoring will begin when asbestos removal legally requires it. Not before. The result is a widening gap between what is happening on the ground, what is known, and what is formally acknowledged.

Emanuella Grinberg of ArchRI, the group working to halt the demolition, shared the following message for residents:

“Contact elected officials: demand air monitoring now and to stop the demolition. Watch, share and donate. ”

If one person came to mind while you were reading this, consider forwarding it to them.