Alderman David Marston (First Ward) asked, "What's going on in the background that put this resolution on our desks?" He was told by Council president Don Moore that the resolution was the mayor's initiative.
Alderman Nick Haddad (First Ward) commented, "At some point, we are going to have to have some structures there, and it might not be a bad idea to preserve some of the better shacks."
Friedman lamented, "We have so many more pressing issues, but I don't think [the shacks] should be bulldozed without giving some thought to it." Moore reminded him that the Council had been asked by the mayor to come up with a plan for the shacks, and they hadn't. Friedman countered, "We were asked to pick up the baton," arguing that a plan for the North Dock was the mayor's responsibility.
First Ward resident Tony Stone urged that the Council "come up with a plan and not just flatten the shacks for no good reason," losing in the process "a piece of Hudson history."
It was noted that the Concept Master Plan for the North Bay Recreation and Natural Area created by the Columbia Land Conservancy did not include a plan for the North Dock area, and it was suggested that a group of citizens might work with CLC on a plan that would involve the preservation of some of the shacks. Moore said he would be "happy to see a group do that."
The resolution will be discussed again at the regular meeting of the Common Council on Tuesday, October 21, when the mayor is expected to present his rationale for wanting to "cause the removal of the shanties and structures from the premises in the most efficient manner he deems appropriate."
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
Preserve the shacks for whom? The Gov't nor the Citizens of Hudson could care less about history.
ReplyDeleteJust where does one go in Hudson to find its History? Possibly three sources; The DAR, The Hudson Area Library's History Room, and last but not least is the Gossips of Rivertown. Bring on the dozers, as in BULL.
S.O.S. Save Our Shacks!
ReplyDeletePeople interested in preserving the shacks should Google "fishtown michigan" Leland is a very pretty town on the west coast of Miichigan and they have turned a run down small fishing area into a revenue producer.
Deletewhen do we get one of these ?
ReplyDeleteMayor
Someone who seems to know everyone wherever they go and is always shaking hands. A person of great popularity, but in a genuine way. Enjoys the company of, and well received by others. Floats among many cliques.
People with interest of preserving them should Google "Fishtown Michigan. Leland is a very pretty town on the west coast of Michigan which has preserved it's fishing past taking advantage of the structures that are very similar to the shacks. Food, crafts etc. are sold so there could be a nice revenue stream for Hudson by renting them out which would also stimulate activity in the immediate neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteCan't understand why people can't grasp the notion that those fishing shacks are just a by-product of the (protected) historical use of the Hudson's shore.
ReplyDeleteA wharf isn't a place for blue haired lesbians to walk their cats, it's for launching and landing boats.
For as long as the RR tracks have been there, county fisher folk have put their docks out in March and county (duck/deer/turkey) hunters removed them in December.
Historical note: Ancient Navigational law changed in favor of citizen stewardship 300 years ago for this very reason.
DeleteNo sane person would maintain a wharf, if the king could take it back on a whim. Therefore, in the US, citizens can maintain what the state does not. Just look at the western shore of the Hudson for examples...
The question is why can't our city officials be the ones "with interest of preserving" these buildings? By now the value of Hudson's history to our economic future should be more than evident, certainly obvious enough for our elected representatives to establish a task force to study the situation and make some suggestions. How hard would that be?
ReplyDeleteThe Furgary boat club is a gem AS IS and, at the very least, should be exploited by Hudson as a tourist village; shops, pub, cafe, tours. To level it would be a huge mistake. It is incredibly special. Just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteTwenty-five key holders, each with a spouse and each has two kids, that's 50 children in their 30's and they have two kids also...
ReplyDeleteSo the grandparents of one hundred county children, are replaced by Sloops and Kite's Nest?
NDTBA Inc's tin boat Navigators traveled more river miles, moved more passengers and commerce than Spirit, the River Taxi and HPBA combined. It has also taught more kids than Sloops and Kite's Nest because they are part time teachers and fair weather Navigators.
Lastly, keep in mind that maintenance was done without taxpayer cost for over 100 years, until stopped by politicians trying to sell "the peoples" property.
If you want the property to shine as it did in the 60's, remove the fence blocking the people's ancient (and constitutional) rite of passage, to Navigate "freely and easily" from land to sea...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe removal and cleanup of structures from City premises located along the shoreline of North Bay... Two sentences that sum up twenty years of reading river law: 1) No man owns the water. 2) The land beneath Navigable water remains vested in the state. The city received a grant of land formerly under water to upgrade the sewage plant. Given the two sentences above, the city can only "own" and regulate the land above the high water line and the shacks are below the shoreline...
ReplyDelete