Regarding the ten day period called for by SEQRA, the City is required to wait ten days after the filing of a completed GEIS before agreeing on a Findings Statement, the summary of findings from the GEIS. The City filed its notice of completion of the GEIS with the involved agencies on October 4. The ten day period will end at the close of business Friday, October 14. During that ten day period, concerned parties may file comments with the City. The City does not have an obligation to reply to the comments as was the case during the official public comment period in early 2010.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
GEIS and the Ten-Day Waiting Period
Common Council President Don Moore issued this statement to members of the Council and the press at 4:58 this afternoon:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The City has the same obligation to reply to comments as they have to actually read them: zero.
ReplyDeleteAt least Mr. Moore acknowledges that the City was supposed to respond to the public comments, though one wonders how he'd categorize so many of the respondent's misunderstandings?
One classic "misunderstood" comment (there are more) can be found at Response 3.1.24:
"Comment: While the transportation of gravel and salt is by their use, water dependent, they are not exclusively water dependent. There are feasible alternatives such as mainline rail, using rail track from source, which should be investigated in an in-depth transportation study. All the negative impacts of transporting gravel to the dock and the presence of O&G at the dock could thus be obviated.
"Response: See Response to Comments 3.1.1 and 3.1.25. The DGEIS examined the railroad alternative (Alternative 2B) and found that it was not feasible due to the number of intermodal transfers required. See DGEIS, pgs. 5-26 – 5-27."
Of course alternative 2B looked at rail coming to the port, and not rail that "obviated" the need for the port, which was the comment.
So, since we never had another opportunity to cry foul, and since Mr. Moore was in such a hurry to get this all done despite the public outcry, what would he say to this example?
What would he say to the other examples? (Shall I list them all?)
Here's a hint: no one has any obligation to you that means a damn thing. It was all a charade. The special interest wins. The story was over before it began.
The offensively obtuse responses to citizen comments contained in the GEIS are not responses at all. They are transparent attempts to deflect, dismiss, or ignore the substance of sincere, well-researched input from citizens. Ms. Roberts and, lately, Mr. Moore, have amply demonstrated their contempt for anyone not already on the inside of City Hall.
ReplyDelete--S.
"Hudson" is right on the money, but there are also instances where obtuseness can be attributed to slovenliness.
ReplyDeleteHere's a misunderstood comment that's just plain funny, though it ended up being expensive too.
A commenter (at 3.1.108) gives detailed directions to a nearly forgotten, historical train trestle bridge that's buried at the head of a very long slip that isn't depicted on any of the LWRP maps (they didn't even draw the Henry Hudson park's shoreline correctly, so little did they care!).
The commenter is concerned with the structure's historical value, and is forced to provide detailed directions rather than refer to the almost incredibly inaccurate waterfront map (please study them yourselves):
"as you go across Broad Street, where the St. Lawrence inlet is, where you go into the docks there, right as you make that left, there is a green sign [and] behind that sign is actually where the CSO outflow is and it also is where this bridge is."
The GEIS Responder who is not a Hudson resident assumes that the comment is about the Ferry Street Bridge, a hundred yards away and across from the Half Moon Saloon. She responds accordingly.
Amazingly (sadly, if you are a taxpayer), the whole exchange is re-presented in the latest September "edits," with the improvement being that the still misunderstood comment was used to alter the [still inaccurate] waterfront maps in order to include the Ferry Street Bridge as a "proposed recreation project and pedestrian network."
PEOPLE: WE PAID A BOATLOAD OF MONEY FOR THIS CRAP! And we also paid for the privilege to be silenced, thank you Mr. Don Moore.
(And thank goodness for Gossips for real.)
I am getting more annoyed than I was already over this document and the whole LWRP 'vision'. What a sham. I only hope that Hudson, as Warren Street has already done, rises from the ashes of poor, self-centered vision, and becomes as special as the Waterfront should be.
ReplyDeleteHope springs eternal.