Gossips learned yesterday that, at the same time the "No Dogs Allowed" signs went up around the Public Square (a.k.a. Seventh Street Park), one was also posted at the entrance to Promenade Hill. That sign has since been replaced, as have the signs at the Public Square, with one that warns of the health hazards of dog waste.
If I'm not mistaken there is no law in place prohibiting or allowing dogs. The only laws specify how to handle your dog in public places. In America ( The United States of) it is the people who decide what the laws will be from the smallest issue all the way up to do we even want this kind of local government. Are you both informed and a voter?
ReplyDeleteUnlike city-owned parks which are under the administration of the Office of the Mayor, the Promenade was specifically granted to "the Common Council forever ... for the purpose of a Public Walk or Mall and for no other purpose whatever."
ReplyDeleteOn March 9, 1785 - four years before George Washington took office - the city's proprietors gifted this park not to "the city," a term they used elsewhere, but to our legislature.
The Common Council is sole owner of the Promenade park and is wholly responsible for any modifications to it.
Even if you don't agree that the grant and the manner in which it was granted are unique artifacts of the 18th century mind, warranting our respect on those grounds alone, the city is still bound "upon such terms as may be prescribed by the grantor or donor" (§C1-2).
It's nothing new for politicians to cede old responsibilities or to usurp new ones as convenience dictates, but if the people aren't willing to defend their own history and privileges then they're as much to blame as anyone else.
There should be no additions, subtractions, or modifications at Promenade Hill - and that includes new signs - that are not authorized by our representatives on the council.
There is no law in place prohibiting dogs or fishing from the banks of public watercourse, yet HPD has removed (at gunpoint) members of the City's oldest/only Rod & Gun.
ReplyDeleteEight years right then eight years left, just another way to keep us divided...Could the pilot of flight 370 have been right, is democracy dead?
But Joe, one of your specific examples does show that the law works.
DeleteYou know the case better than most. Last year a group of fishermen walking the bank beneath the Furgary camps (now city property) were arrested for trespassing.
Faced with what was surely false arrest, all but one of the fisherman relented to the charge.
The individual who stood up for himself argued that his ancient right to fish the river bank was being violated. Then, when it came time to explain an authority that it doesn't have, the spineless city backed down and charges against the one individual were simply dropped.
The city offered no explanation for inconveniencing residents, and as far as I know no apology. Predictably, this story of someone standing up for himself against the mayor's make-believe authority conveniently evaporated.
RE" The demolition and destruction of homes on the Promenade Hill are during 1970's Urban Renewal. Was that not a violation of the "gifting" in the 1780's. I will never reconcile myself to the destruction of those older homes. So much history bulldozed...so many citizens bulldozed.
ReplyDeleteActually, those neighborhoods were outside of the perimeter of the park which was granted by the proprietors.
DeleteBut following the demolition, the entire neighborhood's listing as a district of the National Register of Historic Places - a listing which had benefited from the park - had to be reconfigured.
Re: Urban renewal of the 1970's then was in complete violation of the gifting offer. So many wonderful homes with history of the growth of Hudson were destroyed, many with contents of generations who were unable to bring their "history and memorabilia" to their new residences. Homes bulldozed...history bulldozed. Many Hudson natives continue to mourn the loss and devastation, as evidenced on a logal Facebook page in remembering Hudson.
ReplyDeleteJudge Porten dismissed those charges "in the interest of justice”, while leaving intact the orders of protection against the other four.
ReplyDeleteHPD doesn't draw down on fisher folk on at Rick's Point, guess justice excludes "just us"...
Words that should be inscribed in the public memory bear repeating:
Delete"Judge Porten dismissed those charges 'in the interest of justice', while leaving intact the orders of protection against the other four."
Thanks to all who stand up.
Joe & unheimlich-please enlighten me, and gor readers too, on the laws relative to fishing, access, etc. to tidal waters in NYS.
DeleteAm I correct that all people have a right to access the banks of oceans, tidal waters & ?
Oh boy, now you've asked for it!
DeleteThe matter discussed above refers to fishing along a publicly-owned shore.
But in some circumstances, our navigable rights do permit limited trespass along private shores: to access certain water bodies, to portage around obstacles, and to rest.
Tom:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalrivers.org/what-are-you-buying-when-you-buy-riverfront-property.html.
The land beneath Navigable water remains vested in the people, not just as users but as owners...
J
The historical significance of of the Colonial Ordnance of 1640, (amended in 1647) was to give to American Navigators the land beneath Navigable water, all the way to the normal high vwater line. Up until then, the king ruled everything, but if the king could've taken these lands back, no one would build the wharves needed to bring in new immigrants.
ReplyDeleteLong live the people...
Despite all obstructions to their easement, Labradors continue to walk their humans past the HWL to "wade in the water".
ReplyDelete