This morning, a reader phoned to say that he didn't think the red line marked an alternative route for the power lines. Rather the map had been created by someone who was part of Farmers and Families for Livingston, who was working on a inventory of National Register listed and eligible properties within three miles of the proposed route. The suggestion was that the red line on the map marked three miles west of the route, which presumably is the solid black line at the right.
This afternoon, another reader provided the link to a map published by New York Transco, a collaboration of New York transmission owners, among them National Grid. The map, which runs for several pages and purports to show the proposed route of the power lines through Columbia and Dutchess counties, can be accessed here.
I've had no reply to my three questions to the NYS Public Service Commission (my 3rd question is below).ReplyDelete
This and my other questions on SEQRA would have been answered already if our Common Council had appointed a Conservation Advisory Council by now. A CAC is entirely up to residents though, if we'd just tell our aldermen what we'd like them to do.
"[Sir,] There are rumors that a proposed route change has occurred since I first studied the proposal in early October. If the proposal now contemplates the rerouting of transmission lines across City of Hudson boundaries, where specifically will Hudsonians find the most current documentation and maps for the alleged modification?"
The examples will keep coming in for why our Common Council has failed in not yet appointing a Conservation Advisory Council.ReplyDelete
The linked map in this post is not the correct map for the two transmission line proposals which impinge on the City of Hudson. That is not the fault of Gossips, but the fault of our representatives.
Nor is the project number provided by another reader the project which most applies to our location, at least according to our State Assemblyman's office. Are they guessing too? Maybe. But according to Barrett's staffer who in turn claimed to be speaking with a Public Service Commission official named James Denn, Hudsonians first concern should be 13-M-0455 and not 13-M-0457.
I'll repeat it with each new example: an official Conservation Advisory Council for Hudson would have the correct information for us already. That is what a CAC does; that's what it's for.
So please call your aldermen who surely know as little about this project as the rest of us, and ask why they are dragging their feet in appointing such a useful council - a CAC - whose reason for existing is to deliver correct information to them and by extension to us.
This situation is really reprehensible. In our system, WE are meant to be the government. Instead we behave as infants.
If my neighbors prefer their blind guesses over the creation a CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL - an official information-gathering body for the city - then why suddenly refrain from your inane guesswork after hearing the well-informed Pamela Kline on WGXC last week? Pamela is with 'Farmers and Families for Livingston.'ReplyDelete
"The 'Boundless Energy [NE]' proposal, which is interesting - and I don't know how much you all in Hudson know about it - but it is proposed to go through the City of Hudson, underground. I think it's Columbia Street they're going under" [@12:29].
...instances like this are exactly why the city must not give any North Bay lands to the "conservancy", they could be a very important bargaining chip someday. a few short years ago people were fighting a cement plant, now a power line, there is no crystal ball...where is the money for the sale of the "snake house"? don moore said there was an anxious buyer. when will the saga of 405 Warren be over? city hall can not be trusted in any real estate transaction, period....ReplyDelete
This is a link to a Google map of the Transco route derived from files provided by Transco: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/u/0/edit?mid=zR4tXiAOftOM.k5hMzUeMwtqEReplyDelete