Even though the Department of Transportation has not yet received the Common Council's March 20 resolution about the truck routes, DOT has offered its response: "the agency's hands are tied until Hudson, Claverack, and Greenport can come to an agreement." Tom Casey has the story in today's Register-Star: "On truck routes, DOT tells county municipalities ball's in their court."
If President Moore and the Common Council are so concerned about Hudson's truck issues, they might consider doing something that's free, easy and actually doable.
Somebody should pick up the phone and ask the DOT why O&G is permitted to turn onto the South Bay causeway without a paved apron in place? (Recall that it was a stipulation agreed to by Scenic Hudson.)
O&G has been breaking the law since last June, but all last summer and fall the cynics of City Hall used the apron-less (and thus "unfinished") causeway road to best advantage.
The idea was that there couldn't be legislation preventing trucks below 3rd Street unless O&G had a usable alternative route for moving their product. Without it, chasing them off of Front Street would have amounted to an uncompensated "taking" of their business.
Never mind the reality, the rhetoric of last year's election season depended on there being no alternative route in place. So even while the causeway route was in daily use, it was explained by some aldermen, and by people like LM and her protege Q via the Register Star, that it was the "environmentalists" who were preventing the legislation by preventing O&G from using their own road.
I trust that people will remember how absurd the situation was, but the voting potential of the 2nd Ward won out over plain fact. Nobody then serving on the council would dare state the obvious - that the alternative was already in use - none of the aldermen and certainly not Mr. Moore.
Today, a full 9 months after O&G began using their road in earnest, anyone in City Hall can make that call to the DOT anytime they want. Why is O&G entitled to operate their private road illegally? Where is the state-required apron?
O&G would likely face a fine. At least it might bring in some much-needed revenue, unless there are other foreseeable fake arguments to be made concerning the truck route issues that keep on giving
Since no one's biting, what was the purpose of the council's resolution if the DOT had alerted the city in August that it was willing to facilitate a conversation between municipalities? (The offer was self-explanatory: the issue is inter-municipal.)
From the sound of it less than two weeks ago, ex-Mayor Scalera hadn't kept the Common Council President in the dark on this, so why was a pointless resolution required over simply returning a phone call?
Since we are invited to "talk among ourselves," will someone please explain why this is an example of sensible governance and not just moore government waste.
Yes, Tim, it's basically symbolic. But waste? Maybe -- the cost of roughly 15 sheets of paper and toner to cover 10% of it. But it restarts the conversation w/ the other municipalities who are counting on us to take their homeless. I was only half joking when I suggested, at that Council meeting, that we trade their homeless for our trucks.
Hi John - leaving the council's paid duties aside, when can we expect a city attorney to enter the equation? Who pens resolutions anyway? And what was the DOT representative's time worth, including the DOT's apparently pointless past efforts to bring the parties together?
The quotation in the Register Star practically spells it out: DOT efforts (read: money) wasted. And all for somebody's symbolic gesture?
Are my state taxes less real than my city taxes?
If it's really about a negotiation, as you suggest, I'd like a little more transparency as to why this ludicrously roundabout manner is the best way to achieve it.
Some of us are highly suspicion of the handling of things by "experts" in Hudson's recent past. Too often these types are more autocratic than expert. And - surprise of surprises! - their solutions, whether symbolic or real, often prove out as patently self-serving when all is said and done.
I see no reason why the terms of the kind of negotiation that you suggest need to be a secret, or need to be pursued through this ridiculous Kabuki act.
Now how about someone in city government calling the DOT on that unfinished apron off of Route 9G? Whaddya say we get some money flowing back towards the state for a change in the form of a well-deserved penalty?
The City's attorney generally authors resolutions is my understanding. Don't believe those duties are billed by the hour. Sometimes a particular member of the Council might pen their own but I'm sure they're always vetted by counsel. I'm also pretty sure that DOT staffers are salaried, too, Tim.
As far as transparency is concerned, what would you like? So far it's been done in public -- a resolution and a response (both reported in the paper and the former undertaken in public session of the Council). Now I imagine that the City's executive officer (i.e the mayor) will try to have a meaningful dialogue with his counterparts to see if we -- 3 municipalities -- can meet to discuss a change. Do you wish a seat at the table, that the meeting take place in public, what? That the terms of the agreement, if any, be subject to a plebiscite? What's more important -- that it be done right, fast or cheap? As in all things in life, you can have 2 but not all 3 in any undertaking.
As for the apron on 9G, I know nothing about that. But if you believe there's a problem I'd suggest that you contact the aldermen who represent the 1st Ward (where the eastern end of the causeway is located) and the mayor. You may also write a letter or call the Commissioner of Transportation in Albany -- they have a staff to handle things like this.
It is so easy for people decry "secret deals" without coming to meetings...and that includes committee meetings, not just monthly meetings. If people truly want input, they must be present when things are being discussed.
Thanks John, as ever, for taking the time to consider this.
State workers do keep tabs on their hours in the event of overtime. But in my bizarre world it still strikes me that answering the DOT's offer to facilitate a meeting by replying with a formal resolution for them to do the same is ridiculous and wasteful.
To say that the resolution states "the same" may be too generous, if the Register Star is correct that the resolution actually asks the state to "relocate" the truck route for us.
But everyone knew what the outcome would be ahead of time, since former Mayor Scalera informed the council prior to drafting the resolution that “[New York state says] the city of Hudson chose the truck route through the city, and because of that, it’s up to us to find the resources to build a new route.”
So submitting this resolution to the DOT seems merely cunning in retrospect. It is government self-consciously spinning its wheels, and to me that is a wasteful governing.
At any rate, the thing could have been solved in a few minutes with a phone call. Obviously someone had another point to make. (My cynical guess is a fresh opportunity to air the usual mantra: “The city of Hudson desires environmental justice for all of its citizens.")
In fact I had already contacted the DOT last year about O&G's apron off of 9G, and it appears that the city needs to take an interest. I don't believe that it is a 1st Ward issue any more than the Ferry Street Bridge is, but it's true I haven't tried my luck with the current council. (Nor did I suppose John that you personally should already be familiar with the issue, not at all.)
But I had raised the issue with previous aldermen and got nowhere, and finally decided to pursue it on my own. Last year's council proved itself not up to the task (or many tasks at all, come to think of it).
I have attended meetings enough to know that previous regular and committee meetings were generally a crock. Perhaps the atmosphere in there has changed, but the memory of having my time wasted by deadbeats and dishonesty is still too fresh.
And no "secret deals" were implied Victor, only good old misdirected energy, guile and game-playing by hired experts. Somebody on the council knew that the DOT had reached out in August, but didn't say so prior to last month's idiotic resolution. So what do you call that?
And if I had attended the meeting when the Council President delivered the following obfuscation, when would anyone have had an opportunity to tell him that he was flat wrong or faking, as has since been verified by the DOT:
“The citizens of Hudson have increasingly opposed the continued presence of the truck route in the city,” he said. “At this point, it’s reopening a conversation, not continuing (the last) one.”
None of the above is conducive to productive public participation.
“In August of 2011, we offered to facilitate a meeting between the towns and the city, but we have not yet been invited to such a meeting,” she said.
Officials in Greenport and Claverack had opposed moving the route from 9 and 9G/23B that runs through Hudson into their towns because the potential congestion and danger the truck traffic can cause." To set the record straight for 2010 and 2011 Greenport was not approached to discuss the truck route issue. I have always advocated for cooperation between Greenport and Hudson. Certain members of the town board do not support any cooperation between the municipalities, thus the situation remains a back-burner issue, to the detriment of Greenport, Hudson, and possibly Claverack. This is an issue that should be discussed, in an open forum, by the the three municipalities' officials. It's part of the bigger picture in the county and they need to take control of the issue. As far as route 9 in Greenport, Mr. Porreca needs to do some thorough research.Three lanes? That is a US and state highway and is also part of the "bigger picture"
If President Moore and the Common Council are so concerned about Hudson's truck issues, they might consider doing something that's free, easy and actually doable.
ReplyDeleteSomebody should pick up the phone and ask the DOT why O&G is permitted to turn onto the South Bay causeway without a paved apron in place? (Recall that it was a stipulation agreed to by Scenic Hudson.)
O&G has been breaking the law since last June, but all last summer and fall the cynics of City Hall used the apron-less (and thus "unfinished") causeway road to best advantage.
The idea was that there couldn't be legislation preventing trucks below 3rd Street unless O&G had a usable alternative route for moving their product. Without it, chasing them off of Front Street would have amounted to an uncompensated "taking" of their business.
Never mind the reality, the rhetoric of last year's election season depended on there being no alternative route in place. So even while the causeway route was in daily use, it was explained by some aldermen, and by people like LM and her protege Q via the Register Star, that it was the "environmentalists" who were preventing the legislation by preventing O&G from using their own road.
I trust that people will remember how absurd the situation was, but the voting potential of the 2nd Ward won out over plain fact. Nobody then serving on the council would dare state the obvious - that the alternative was already in use - none of the aldermen and certainly not Mr. Moore.
Today, a full 9 months after O&G began using their road in earnest, anyone in City Hall can make that call to the DOT anytime they want. Why is O&G entitled to operate their private road illegally? Where is the state-required apron?
O&G would likely face a fine. At least it might bring in some much-needed revenue, unless there are other foreseeable fake arguments to be made concerning the truck route issues that keep on giving
Since no one's biting, what was the purpose of the council's resolution if the DOT had alerted the city in August that it was willing to facilitate a conversation between municipalities? (The offer was self-explanatory: the issue is inter-municipal.)
ReplyDeleteFrom the sound of it less than two weeks ago, ex-Mayor Scalera hadn't kept the Common Council President in the dark on this, so why was a pointless resolution required over simply returning a phone call?
Since we are invited to "talk among ourselves," will someone please explain why this is an example of sensible governance and not just moore government waste.
Yes, Tim, it's basically symbolic. But waste? Maybe -- the cost of roughly 15 sheets of paper and toner to cover 10% of it. But it restarts the conversation w/ the other municipalities who are counting on us to take their homeless. I was only half joking when I suggested, at that Council meeting, that we trade their homeless for our trucks.
ReplyDeleteHi John - leaving the council's paid duties aside, when can we expect a city attorney to enter the equation? Who pens resolutions anyway? And what was the DOT representative's time worth, including the DOT's apparently pointless past efforts to bring the parties together?
ReplyDeleteThe quotation in the Register Star practically spells it out: DOT efforts (read: money) wasted. And all for somebody's symbolic gesture?
Are my state taxes less real than my city taxes?
If it's really about a negotiation, as you suggest, I'd like a little more transparency as to why this ludicrously roundabout manner is the best way to achieve it.
Some of us are highly suspicion of the handling of things by "experts" in Hudson's recent past. Too often these types are more autocratic than expert. And - surprise of surprises! - their solutions, whether symbolic or real, often prove out as patently self-serving when all is said and done.
I see no reason why the terms of the kind of negotiation that you suggest need to be a secret, or need to be pursued through this ridiculous Kabuki act.
Now how about someone in city government calling the DOT on that unfinished apron off of Route 9G? Whaddya say we get some money flowing back towards the state for a change in the form of a well-deserved penalty?
The City's attorney generally authors resolutions is my understanding. Don't believe those duties are billed by the hour. Sometimes a particular member of the Council might pen their own but I'm sure they're always vetted by counsel. I'm also pretty sure that DOT staffers are salaried, too, Tim.
ReplyDeleteAs far as transparency is concerned, what would you like? So far it's been done in public -- a resolution and a response (both reported in the paper and the former undertaken in public session of the Council). Now I imagine that the City's executive officer (i.e the mayor) will try to have a meaningful dialogue with his counterparts to see if we -- 3 municipalities -- can meet to discuss a change. Do you wish a seat at the table, that the meeting take place in public, what? That the terms of the agreement, if any, be subject to a plebiscite? What's more important -- that it be done right, fast or cheap? As in all things in life, you can have 2 but not all 3 in any undertaking.
As for the apron on 9G, I know nothing about that. But if you believe there's a problem I'd suggest that you contact the aldermen who represent the 1st Ward (where the eastern end of the causeway is located) and the mayor. You may also write a letter or call the Commissioner of Transportation in Albany -- they have a staff to handle things like this.
It is so easy for people decry "secret deals" without coming to meetings...and that includes committee meetings, not just monthly meetings. If people truly want input, they must be present when things are being discussed.
ReplyDeleteThanks John, as ever, for taking the time to consider this.
ReplyDeleteState workers do keep tabs on their hours in the event of overtime. But in my bizarre world it still strikes me that answering the DOT's offer to facilitate a meeting by replying with a formal resolution for them to do the same is ridiculous and wasteful.
To say that the resolution states "the same" may be too generous, if the Register Star is correct that the resolution actually asks the state to "relocate" the truck route for us.
But everyone knew what the outcome would be ahead of time, since former Mayor Scalera informed the council prior to drafting the resolution that “[New York state says] the city of Hudson chose the truck route through the city, and because of that, it’s up to us to find the resources to build a new route.”
So submitting this resolution to the DOT seems merely cunning in retrospect. It is government self-consciously spinning its wheels, and to me that is a wasteful governing.
At any rate, the thing could have been solved in a few minutes with a phone call. Obviously someone had another point to make. (My cynical guess is a fresh opportunity to air the usual mantra: “The city of Hudson desires environmental justice for all of its citizens.")
In fact I had already contacted the DOT last year about O&G's apron off of 9G, and it appears that the city needs to take an interest. I don't believe that it is a 1st Ward issue any more than the Ferry Street Bridge is, but it's true I haven't tried my luck with the current council. (Nor did I suppose John that you personally should already be familiar with the issue, not at all.)
But I had raised the issue with previous aldermen and got nowhere, and finally decided to pursue it on my own. Last year's council proved itself not up to the task (or many tasks at all, come to think of it).
I have attended meetings enough to know that previous regular and committee meetings were generally a crock. Perhaps the atmosphere in there has changed, but the memory of having my time wasted by deadbeats and dishonesty is still too fresh.
And no "secret deals" were implied Victor, only good old misdirected energy, guile and game-playing by hired experts. Somebody on the council knew that the DOT had reached out in August, but didn't say so prior to last month's idiotic resolution. So what do you call that?
And if I had attended the meeting when the Council President delivered the following obfuscation, when would anyone have had an opportunity to tell him that he was flat wrong or faking, as has since been verified by the DOT:
“The citizens of Hudson have increasingly opposed the continued presence of the truck route in the city,” he said. “At this point, it’s reopening a conversation, not continuing (the last) one.”
None of the above is conducive to productive public participation.
“In August of 2011, we offered to facilitate a meeting between the towns and the city, but we have not yet been invited to such a meeting,” she said.
ReplyDeleteOfficials in Greenport and Claverack had opposed moving the route from 9 and 9G/23B that runs through Hudson into their towns because the potential congestion and danger the truck traffic can cause."
To set the record straight for 2010 and 2011 Greenport was not approached to discuss the truck route issue. I have always advocated for cooperation between Greenport and Hudson. Certain members of the town board do not support any cooperation between the municipalities, thus the situation remains a back-burner issue, to the detriment of Greenport, Hudson, and possibly Claverack. This is an issue that should be discussed, in an open forum, by the the three municipalities' officials. It's part of the bigger picture in the county and they need to take control of the issue. As far as route 9 in Greenport, Mr. Porreca needs to do some thorough research.Three lanes? That is a US and state highway and is also part of the "bigger picture"
I love when anonymous commenters "set the record straight." It restores my total and unquestioning faith in people.
ReplyDelete