You can click on the images to enlarge them, but I've got to believe that the spies of the Cold War Era were working with more sophisticated equipment.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
WikiLeaks, Hudson Style
Gossips doesn't believe that the LWRP, a document meant to articulate the community's vision for itself, should be treated like a classified document or that satisfying the public's desire to know what changes have been made to the LWRP since it disappeared from public view in 2009 will impede or distract the Common Council in their study and due deliberation. Common Council President Don Moore, in response to "expressions of concern and even outrage" over his decision to keep the document from the public, has issued a statement agreeing to release the LWRP electronically on May 27, but Gossips thinks, because it is our waterfront and it should be our document, that the community has a right to see it as soon as possible. So, when Gossips and the trusty Gossips digital camera got the opportunity to spend a little time with a red-lined copy of the LWRP, we decided to give our readers a preview of some of the more significant changes.
You can click on the images to enlarge them, but I've got to believe that the spies of the Cold War Era were working with more sophisticated equipment.
You can click on the images to enlarge them, but I've got to believe that the spies of the Cold War Era were working with more sophisticated equipment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
May 27th gives the public all of three working days to review and absorb what Moore repeatedly (and officiously) refers to as a "600 page document." He clearly does not "get" it.
ReplyDeleteThe excerpts above appear to contain some good news (no giant cement plant shipping) and also some bad. They seem to be expecting to run trucks through the Basilica property. Welcome to Hudson—buy a building, invest a ton of energy and money, start having fabulous events... and have the City run trucks over your property...
A big issue raised by the Valley Alliance was standards—if heavy trucking/shipping is permitted, how often, how much, at what times? The excerpts can't answer these key questions—precisely why Moore made such a blunder with all this secrecy. What's being hidden? This is a *public* plan.
--Sam P.
Moving the release date of the draft LWRP from June 1 to May 27 isn't going to defuse the anger that has already been generated over this situation. It's just another insult to the citizens of this community.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the City does not have a standing deal with either L & B or Basilica to use their property for an alternate truck route, and I can't imagine that either of those enterprises are going to grant an easement or sell a portion of their property to accommodate a dump truck route. So apparently an eminent domain proceeding is being threatened in this document. Worse, if the City does not succeed in gaining access to those lands for the purpose of siting a haul road, then we are stuck with an industrial corridor right through the middle of South Bay on a permanent basis.
This newest version of the LWRP illustrates perfectly the desperate need for a Waterfront Advisory Committee, occupied by local residents. The future of our waterfront is being negotiated behind the scenes by one attorney and an incompetent planning firm. This process is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of DOS guidance, which mandates that the LWRP should be the result of community consensus.
This is heresy I fear in this crowd, but the plan looks reasonable and balanced to me, from what little is shown here. Thank you Carole for sleuthing and scooping as you have here. I like that while truck traffic would be routed over the causeway, but it would be required to be prepared in a manner that would ameliorate the current negative impacts on water flow the causeway has, and also requires it to be done in a way that is environmentally sound. That it will also be publicly accessible, and ultimately be intended for use by the public is great. We could get the culvert fixed to avoid more drowning deaths of dogs and other animals.
ReplyDeleteAgain thank you Carole for providing the public a valuable look at an important document.
Don Moore stated that the DGEIS and the LWRP may be the two most important documents ever to be placed in front of the Hudson Common Counsel. I agree. This is why these documents in their entirety should be released to the public immediately. The NYS DOS Division of Coastal Resources clearly calls for public input on their website: "A Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is both a plan and a program. The term refers to both a planning document prepared by a community, as well as the program established to implement the plan. ...... As a planning document ...(it) is locally prepared. ...In partnership with the Division of Coastal Resources, a municipality develops community consensus regarding the future of its waterfront and refines States waterfront policies to reflect local conditions and circumstances." How can there be community consensus when the community is for all intents and purposes shut out of a vital part of the process? The Counsel should not act until a Waterfront Advisory Committee is once again reinstated and the entire community of interested individuals have an opportunity to work with the Counsel to negotiate a meaningful plan that will safeguard the Waterfront for all the citizens of Hudson. This is vital to protect South Bay and to avoid unnecessary litigation.
ReplyDeleteThank you Gossips for exposing these documents when others would not.
ReplyDeleteI'm very concerned that this so-called "temporary measure" of building out the causeway through the South Bay for the convenience of Holcim will become the de facto permanent access road that is discussed in the LWRP.
ReplyDeleteOne practical question is what would happen when Basilica and L&B say "no thank you?" They have no duty under the law to hand over property to the city so they can enjoy the pollution, noise, and bad health effects of heavy industrial truck traffic going through their property. In fact they have every incentive to say "no, thank you." Truck traffic through our waterfront is probably also not so great for waterfront development.
Let's also not lose sight that such an eminent domain proceeding, if there were one, would essentially require the government of the city of Hudson to sue private property owners for a "taking" of property for the benefit and convenience of another private property owner. Think about it, the LWRP is asking Basilica and L&B to hand over property to the city for the convenience of Holcim because Holcim prefers to transport its gravel via boat and truck but not by rail. These are BUSINESS DECISIONS being written into law, disguised as a policy and plan.
I'm predicting this so-called "temporary measure" of a causeway will become the permanent transportation solution for Holcim because it will be the path of least resistance. The large outlays of municipal resources (time, money, and legal talent, ahem) for an eminent domain proceeding all for the benefit of Holcim. This sounds like a bad deal and even worse policy.
It will also be yet another problem for the taxpayers of Hudson, i.e. the middle class homeowners whose taxes are increasing by 100-400 percent a year, to resolve. No thank you
There's nothing more permanent that a 'temporary fix."
ReplyDeleteThis town is lost and unconscious of a worthy vision.
How utterly exhausting to be a part of this community.
Dan: thank you for clarifying the fact that the LWRP as it is now written puts Holcim's private property interests above those of of Basilica's and L&B's. And that this decision is a business decision masquerading as public policy. Again: the need for a Waterfront Advisory Counsel is vital to make sure that Hudson's future is decided by community consensus, not by Holcim's best interests.
ReplyDeleteWhat is an "environmentally sound" method of running some 200 trucks per day through a Federally-protected wetland, as Holcim has proposed to the Greenport planners (while remaining silent with the Hudson ones.
ReplyDeleteSounds about as realistic as abstinence "education" in high schools. It defies common sense and the laws of nature.
--Sam P.
A quick read to me says that the Hudson LWRP and Holcim/O&G does not a partnership make. This should be something that the Common Council acts quickly on and says for that us to pass the LWRP we must ask Holcim and O&G to find another way to transport aggregate because using the South Bay is not in Hudson's best interest.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteHolcim and O & G would get exactly what they want if this lousy document becomes law. They would have an industrial corridor through South Bay, and a rock depot next to our waterfront park. They would also see their property tax assessment reduced if they give away the unusable portion of South Bay, and they would likely be absolved of the liability for whatever toxic deposits are in the Bay. We would get few or no new jobs, and no enhanced revenue for the City. Further, both Holcim and O & G have well-documented records of abusive behavior here and elsewhere. In what bizarre universe is this a good deal? The problem is that our collective self-esteem in this town is so low that we'll settle for anything.