The resolution to raze the fishing shacks that were the Furgary Boat Club had been introduced at the informal meeting, and it was expected the Council would vote on it at the regular meeting. Before calling for a vote, Council president Don Moore announced a plan for a "small working group," made up of himself, the mayor, and aldermen Nick Haddad (First Ward) and Bart Delaney (Fifth Ward), to "take the next 60 days to investigate what might be done down there." From the audience, Quintin Cross objected to the makeup of the working group. He pointed out that the site in question was in the Second Ward but no Second Ward aldermen were included in the working group. So Second Ward aldermen Abdus Miah and Tiffany Garriga were added to group.
Alderman David Marston (First Ward) pointed out that the site of the Furgary was part of a state-designated fresh water wetland. He told his colleagues that a representative from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation was scheduled to pay a visit to the site on Friday--tomorrow. He moved that the resolution be tabled until a historic resources study could be done.
Although the mayor wanted the resolution to go forward with the possibility of recommendations from the working group and the state noted, the motion to table the resolution passed with only Alderman Robert Donahue (Fifth Ward), clearly eager to do the mayor's bidding, voting no.
Promenade Hill also got a pass on Tuesday. The plan, being pushed for by Garriga and Miah, to install a temporary ramp at Promenade Hill has been postponed while a plan to apply for a grant to do a major restoration of Promenade Hill, including a redesign of the entrance to introduce handicapped access, is pursued. The grant application is due in the spring of 2015, and the grant awards are expected to be announced the following fall. To make sure the ramp happens if the grant application is not successful, $20,000 will be written into the 2015 budget for the ramp.
Promenade Hill, painted by Henry Ary in 1854 |
Promenade Hill, c. 1860 |
Promenade Hill, c. 1910 |
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
"Alderman David Marston (First Ward) pointed out that the site of the Furgary was part of a state-designated fresh water wetland. He told his colleagues that a representative from the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation was scheduled to pay a visit"
ReplyDeleteThe historical (civilian) use continues on the western shore of the Hudson. On this side, politicans and lawyers put up fences restricting the free and easy, "unfettered" access, called for in ancient colonial law.
Our elected officials might consider using the ancient law as a shield to protect shore uses rather than a sword to restrict it. This is the third duck/deer season missed while politicians study "our" shore for novel uses.
Do we have to "redesign" everything in Hudson? I am referring to the 7th St Park and Promenade Hill...No problem with handicap access, but do we have to redesign the rest? Are there safety issues that warrant this?
ReplyDeleteFor clarity, jlezette, what's being considered for Promenade Hill is a historic restoration of the actual park and a redesign of the approach to the park which would include handicapped access and be more compatible with the historic design of the 1795 park. A creation of urban renewal, the present poorly patched asphalt "mall" that stretches from Front Street to the eastern boundary of the park itself doesn't inspire enthusiasm for preservation.
DeleteIt seems to me the city went through a great deal of trouble and expense to evict squatters and aquire the north bay for a public park. Now it seems these shacks, most of which are rotting conglomerates of trash, are being used as some sort of pawn to block the project. Where is the backbone of our city officials? Finish the job, get rid of the shacks and open the land so the people can use it.
ReplyDelete"Can't see the forest for the trees?"
DeleteThe "shacks" are just a byproduct of the historical use of the wharf at north dock.
Maybe everyone already knows ( but i just found out) those 'shacks' were from the days when Ice Houses and cutting ice on the Hudson was a big industry. The 'shacks' were transported onto the ice (like fishing shacks) for the workers to have a shelter. Later when electricity killed the ice business these same shacks were installed more permanently by those who enjoyed the benefits of hunting and fishing along the river. When Urban Renewal ripped down huge section of Hudson pieces were salvaged and are now incorporated into the history of the 'shacks.'
ReplyDeletedriving to the river and sitting in a car or on a bench is not use, many do it and they have ample room to do so. use would include boating, fishing, hunting, trapping for which a trashy shack is necessary. do we promote viewing or participating....
ReplyDeleteThe waterfront is the property of all the people of Hudson, not a small group of individuals. It's to be an open recreational wetland, not a hunting club. Anyone who was a member of the fug club will be able to use the waterfront park once it is open like everyone else. The shacks should not be used as an excuse to obstruct the development of the park. As far as I can see most of them are made of old plywood, cardboard and sheet metal covered with vinyl plastic siding, not much historical merit in that.
ReplyDeleteAnd if these moldy, mildew and rodent infested shacks were preserved as some sort of bizarre, wacky museum to a historical, defunct squatters camp, who is going to pay to police and maintain it? What is going to prevent another group of squatters from setting up camp in them? I've been down there at night, just out of curiosity, and you can see lights in there and hear voices. Who will be liable on city property if there is a drowning, an overdose or something worse in there? Are the tax payers all going to foot the bill to pay the damages? Hudson has a beautiful waterfront that if developed properly would improve the quality of life and economy of the city for everyone. Instead, the most valuable piece of real estate in the city is an industrial gravel dump on one side, a bunch of rotting shacks on the other, a private boat club and low income housing in the middle. The genius of it!
Two types cross over the high water line at dock street, ones that serve the wharf and others, who are looking to "be served" the wharf.
DeleteThe issue here should be how to "serve more" citizens access.
The function of is far more important than its form, if it doesn't function, its form does not matter.
Once again, the "shacks" are but a byproduct of the (pre) historical use. A once (very) productive wharf, has been rendered useless by replacing its stewards with so called "public" servants.
Rick's Point is a great example of form over function, looks good but functions poorly. In fact, to be considered a wharf, the Point would require a place to Navigate from land to water, and there is none.
ReplyDeleteThe fisherfolk's co-operative at north dock has four fenced off slips. Highly functional, but rendered near useless, by those who (evidently) don't know how to promote river access.