The following comments are based on Moore's "My View." A simplified variation of the following was submitted for comment at the Register Star.We would love any opportunity to flesh out our following objections. Unfortunately, we have waited for such an opportunity for years, and still no one from the City government has drawn on our expertise (although several state agencies have done so).1. This is Moore's first straw man argument:"One of the biggest questions about the LWRP: Does passing it open up the waterfront to industrialization?"(This was never a 'question' for the South Bay Task Force, the tenets of which Moore was once intimately familiar until he could not longer use a moderate approach for his political hay. If it is a question for other people, good for them.)2. This is false:"Another question: what would rejecting or just not voting on the LWRP mean? The City would lose the LWRP’s new zoning ..."(The City proposed a different zoning alternative in the 2009 draft documents. If the City - or state - rejects the current proposal, we could return to the wildly popular alternative which was originally proposed, but which was later overturned for O&G based on their "public comment.")3. This is false:"The port or the causeway could be developed without any restraints." (Federal and State government both put constraints on alterations to the causeway structure, as Moore concedes below.)4. Moore's same points can be applied to the original zoning proposal, the one zoning alternative the public was allowed to comment on:"If the Council adopts the LWRP with the new Core-Riverfront zoning, the current use at that time, whatever that is, is “grandfathered,” it is allowed to continue. Under the new zoning it becomes what is called a 'non-conforming' use."5. This becomes an unsupportable, simplistic claim where no baselines have been established (the NYS-defined task of a GEIS):"...the Hudson Planning Commission would impose conditions spelled out in the zoning code. If the City grants a conditional use permit, the owner must abide by conditions that would include: site plan approval, restrictions on hours of operation, noise, dust, light, and screening and viewshed concerns."6. Straw man argument (for the same reason given above):"The City cannot simply take over the South Bay and port."7. This is a view which was never shared by the South Bay Task Force:"Must we find another way to own [the port]? Yes."8. A straw man conclusion based on Moore's objectionable premise:"Do we hold up the LWRP while we figure how to [own the port]? No."9. Blather:"It also offers a path to recovery of the South and North Bays that give us confidence we can preserve and enjoy the natural beauty right at our doorsteps. (Beware, Moore knows NOTHING about the subject of ecology, nor are the half-efforts towards "recovery" in the LWRP meaningful. Moore is not familiar enough with either waterfront document to know that restoration efforts in South Bay will still require O&G's permission:)10. Considering the lavish concessions made to O&G, this is wrong-headed, self-referential and mere political blather:"The LWRP protects against decisions that aren’t right for Hudson. ... It is a roadmap to smart choices for our future."11. The largest factor in all of the above:"Moore is seeking re-election to the office of Common Council president."
Don't these people know that transcripts have been made available? And thanks to WGXC, there aren't eighteen-and-a-half missing minutes.Below is a portion of the transcript from a July 12, 2010 Informal Meeting of the Common Council, a meeting which is cited throughout the FGEIS in order to justify the change of zoning for the South Bay. But if several Council members were actually against the change at the time, as we see here (including Moore), what has happened since then?C. Roberts [109:06]: "Then the next one is O&G has requested that the Core Riverfront Zoning designation be extended to the causeway - up the causeway - instead of having it as a Recreational-Conservation Zone. And at this point, we're recommending to extend that zoning up the causeway."D. Moore [1:09:29]: "And I'm opposed to that. Because I think that we need to maintain the ability to regulate that property as much as humanly possible until things are clearer in terms of what will and what won't happen down there." C. Roberts: "Okay."D. Moore [1:09:47]: "Anyone else have any comments on that one?S. Sterling: "I agree with you."C. Wagoner: "I do too."C. Roberts: "So this would make it basically an existing non-conforming use in a Recreational-Conservation Zone."D. Moore: "Yes."