The memo concludes: "As it stands, the LWRP is deeply flawed, perhaps fatally so in that its contradictions make it potentially unenforceable. At best it represents poorly articulated public policy; at worst it is a map to nowhere. Over 2 decades have been spent crafting this document. There should be no rush at this time to enact such a problematic policy statement when careful work will enable this City to properly articulate its goals and the means to achieve them."
As a future member of the Common Council representing the 3rd Ward, I hope that Mr. Friedman's remarks are taken seriously by our local government. The LWRP in its current state is not only unenforceable, but does not reflect the needs and wants of the community of Hudson. Public involvement, restoring and protecting natural resources, mapping out a clear organizational structure, redevelopment of historic and abandoned structures: all are missing.
ReplyDeleteIt is a momentous occasion when anyone comments knowledgeably on the often highly technical LWRP and GEIS, let alone a future alderman.
ReplyDeleteThe South Bay Task Force emphatically agrees with the passage quoted by Gossips from Mr. Friedman's salutary memo. We almost can't wait to study the rest, but must first make our congratulations and support known.
The wonder is that so many in this community, perhaps a majority, also agree with these sentiments (Common Council members among them!).
How is it that our voice has been so utterly ineffectual at influencing any part of this program, and for years?
The more legally binding of the two documents - the now final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) - has every appearance of having at last achieved a predetermined conclusion.
It is "SEQRA" which makes the GEIS legally binding, and SEQRA - the State Environmental Quality Review Act - requires that the public has demonstrably contributed to and at last approved their GEIS, first through the public commenting process and finally through our representation.
Not only was public participation kept to a minimum (the last of the five LWRP "workshops" took place in January 2007), we were robbed; we were defrauded figuratively and probably even literally (nine months legal work on alternatives know to be unfeasible all the while).
The responses to the public comments were dishonest, an utter sham designed for the outcome desired by O&G. (The Task Force is only too happy to share its copious research on the "responses" with anyone interested.)
According to more than one official with the NYS DEC, the authors of Hudson's GEIS - its SEQR review - have presented strategies never seen by them before.
But the local public already knows better than any outsider where it was outflanked by lawyerly tricks designed to circumvent SEQRA's high standards. In our case the trickery was often shabbily done; sometimes mere strong-arming; the ruse a botch.
So why are people throwing in the towel so easily? Is it possible that citizens know even less about SEQRA than the aldermen?
Thursday, October 6, is a deadline for making comments to the Department of State. That's the day after tomorrow!
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, the DOS must decide how to advise the Secretary of State on whether to attach his name to our GEIS in a "Findings Statement." Most of the officials involved will have no familiarity with Hudson's story, or with the history of our GEIS.
Why shouldn't the DOS Division of Coastal Resources hear straight from the citizens of Hudson what we think of the quality of their contribution to this miscarriage of the laws of New York state?
george.stafford@dos.state.ny.us
(NB, remember to distinguish between the the GEIS which is legally binding, and the more casual LWRP, or "waterfront program." Your comments on the GEIS will enjoy a legal status, whereas LWRP comments will be relegated to a drawer in a filing cabinet.)
Thanks John for an intelligent, well written letter, pointing out some of the flaws in the LWRP that the Common Council hasn't been able to see. Hopefully they will not continue to ignore people, such as yourself and the many others, who have been trying to correct these flaws. Thanks again John, Sam, Peter, the South Bay Task Force and all the citizens of Columbia County who have attended the meetings.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work Mr. Friedman.
ReplyDelete1.
A few clarifications will drill us deeper into the inadequacies of the two documents.
But first, the distinction between the documents should be emphasized at every opportunity.
Since it is the specifically-structured GEIS that is currently undergoing review, it behooves us to apply ourselves to it with all we've got. There's leverage there if the public would only wake up.
On the other hand, the LWRP grows out of a bunch of DOS "recommendations," and there is nothing too binding about its processes or whether it gets commandeered or not. The state recommends public participation, that is all. If a community is so gullible that it gets snookered, that is not the state's problem.
Not so with the GEIS, where a discounting of the public's voice and their exclusion from the process is a serious infringement, and a violation of state law (ECL Part 617).
There's only one tiny problem: the public must stand up for itself, because we are a Home Rule state. Albany cannot intervene.
With SEQRA, if citizens bring a challenge that the process has been circumvented then a court will have to consider. But if no one challenges then it's as if the violation never happened (thus the statute of limitations on the issuing of a Findings Statement).
The still too-vaguely appreciated SEQR law and process that required our GEIS is meant to offer a thorough analysis of lesser evils, the "alternatives" to any action which might avoid adverse environmental impacts if the alternatives were taken up instead.
2. (cont.)
ReplyDeleteYour Item #3 provides an entry into the realm of the analysis of alternatives, the realm of SEQRA and the GEIS.
Taking only what was written in Item #3 of your memo, you are looking at the tip of an iceberg of inadequacies associated with the alternatives in Hudson's GEIS.
Considering the fact that SEQR no longer calls for an analysis of alternatives in our circumstances (not since O&G re-surfaced its causeway), you're damned right that this language should be dropped.
But the gratuitous mention of eminent domain in relation to the Basilica and the L&B building is a remnant of an earlier and extremely malicious attack on a Task Force member.
At the Sept 26th meeting, Moore explained that the decision to excise much of "Response" 3.1.46 from the GEIS was to drop some old and unnecessary "history."
The real reason so much of the passage was dropped was that it bordered on libel. Moore was not about to tell you that!, although the malicious jabs continued throughout that meeting if one had the ear for them (e.g., citing the South Bay Task Force for holding up the GEIS was not meant as praise; singling out one member of the Task Force for special mention was not only inaccurate but unprofessional).
The ongoing references to the current Basilica are meant to enrage the public, and it seems to work. It is the City's hired planners extending their middle finger towards the suckers who lost.
Rather than the fanciful north route around L&B with its multiple impositions on both buildings, the South Bay Task Force championed a public access route through the L&B parking lot, and then straight on to Front Street. We have maintained that this could be achieved through leases of right-of-ways, rather than by outright takings.
The plan and map for this public access route was devised in 2004, and revisited in December 2008, when the GEIS was ordered. That route never got nearer to the Basilica property than Front Street.
Not only is this oldest and most feasible of alternatives still not in the document (despite the efforts of at least five aldermen since mid-2009), the City and its planners never exercised their due diligence in comparing the costs of alternatives. No assessor was ever sought to estimate the costs or leases of right-of-ways.
But the LWRP? The public has no leverage there. You are merely begging for something again, cap in hand. The fact that the public was tricked out of its share is meaningless. No one will hear, and nobody is ever going to care what did or didn't get into the LWRP aside from the losers.
For anyone else who is serious about this, we have until 5 PM on Thursday.
I have seen the same behavior at the school district level: the governing body spends lots of time and energy keeping the public out, then, at the seeming 11th hour, claims the need to act quickly. We know the results of this kind of governance dysfunction at the school level: our kids have been stuck at 83rd out of 86 among districts in the Capital Region for a long time.... Our community deserves a lot better than what it got with this LWRP.
ReplyDeleteThis document was written of, for and by O & G - who paid for it too -saving Hudson big money - as flaunted by "our" atty Cheryl Roberts.
ReplyDeleteNo surprises here.
There are not many hard and fast rules for creating LWRPs, but the rules for Generic Environmental Impact Statements must be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteFrom the DEC's "SEQR Handbook":
"9. Should generic EISs include elements not typically found in a site or project specific EIS?
"Yes. Consideration of three additional factors may be appropriate when preparing a generic EIS. These additional factors are:
"• Hypothetical scenarios as alternatives that could occur under the proposed generic action, including evaluation of all reasonable alternatives that could achieve the objectives of the project sponsor.
"• Thresholds and conditions that would trigger the need for supplemental determinations of significance or site-specific EISs.
"• A preliminary scope of the environmental issues which would need to be addressed in any supplemental EISs prepared after the original generic EIS. ..."
[The SEQR Hanbook, 3rd Ed., 2010, p. 146.]
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf
What is the best way citizens can have our voices heard? Should we contact george.stafford@dos.state.ny.us? Are there other means we should use as well?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
jmerola, the comment should be addressed to the Common Council (which is also the SEQR "Lead Agency"), and then copied to George Stafford at the DOS. Of course letting your representative know your position never hurts, and it teaches you about them too. Best, TO'C
ReplyDeleteGeorge Stafford
Director
Division of Coastal Resources
NYS Department of State
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1010
Albany, NY 12231-0001
Telephone Number: 518-474-6000
Fax Number: 518-473-2464
george.stafford@dos.state.ny.us