The editor's note that prefaces the article promises a similar interview with Common Council president Don Moore "later this week." Since it's Thursday, "later this week" probably means tomorrow.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The State of the City: Part I
The editor's note that prefaces the article promises a similar interview with Common Council president Don Moore "later this week." Since it's Thursday, "later this week" probably means tomorrow.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pravda strikes again.
ReplyDeleteThe mayor used to base his justification for the construction of a parking garage on increased traffic due to new casinos which we all knew would be located nowhere near Hudson. In fact, the closest casinos will be built in Sullivan County and outside of Schnectady. Hmmmmmm.
Binders of projects? Does he have binders of women too? Is the Reg Star being unintentionally tongue-in-cheek.
What about the project that robbed the Community Garden of half its land?
Could he deign in 2015 to respond to emails from property taxpayers?
How about grabbing a bite occasionally at one of the eateries on Warren Street? Or shopping in a store or two?
Why are Hudson's mayors always conspicuously absent from the buzz of Warren Street except on parade days?
All very strange, eh?
Some states have passed laws that restrict or deny public uses of rivers. Many people believe their state has the final word on the law, which is a false assumption. State law does not apply to the extent that it conflicts with federal law, because of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The parallel governing system between state law and federal law creates tension between state and federal jurisdiction, particularly regarding river rights. It is often controversial to say that a state government needs to follow federal law regarding public rights on rivers and streams in their state, especially when state law denies public access, but that is what the U.S. Constitution requires.
ReplyDeleteIn most places the federal government does not patrol rivers to confirm public rights under federal law. Instead they leave it up to each state’s law enforcement agencies. State law enforcement agencies do not study river law. Instead they tend to enforce what’s expected by politicians and riverfront landowners. Yet, states can never lawfully “abdicate” their “general control” over “lands under navigable waters,” because “such abdication is not consistent with the exercise of that trust which requires the government of the state to preserve such waters for the use of the public.”
- See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/why-are-public-rights-on-rivers-an-issue.html#sthash.Qs6PPz2n.dpuf
Federal law requires that land beneath navigable waters are to be used for fishing, fowling and recreation. Nine hundred twenty-four days and waiting, to be served, our share of shore.
"Instead they leave it up to each state’s law enforcement agencies."
DeleteToo true!
HUD, a federal agency, has just given $600K to the City of Hudson to split its sewer system. HUD's rules leave it to anyone except HUD to make sure that New York's environmental laws are respected.
But in a "Home Rule" state like New York, locals are the only permissible enforcers of those environmental laws which regulate the actions of local governments. That is the purpose of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
Because local Progressives won't lift a finger to defend their surroundings any more than their cherished federal or state agencies will, local municipalities can pretty much get away with anything they want. (To put it another way, the mayor is not the hypocrite here.)
HUD's $600K is based on false claims which appear in the City of Hudson's Long Term Control Plan for its sewer system (LTCP).
The federal EPA was meant to oversee and sign off on our LTCP, but enforcement of its own requirements was otherwise entirely delegated to the state DEC's Division of Water.
At first, the state rejected former DPW Superintendent Charlie Butterworth's LTCP. That was in 2003 when the city was presented with a list of criticisms in response. Years of idiotic back-and-forth followed between the city and state, our DPW playing a cat and mouse game with the dysfunctional DEC.
Then in 2009, the LTCP was accepted by the state as final, even though the document hadn't undergone any changes since 2003. Even the original typos were intact! The only difference was that a public meeting was finally held in January 2009, a federal requirement demanded by the state ever since its initial criticisms in 2003.
This public meeting was attended by five Hudson residents and lasted an estimated 20 minutes.
The EPA was nowhere to be found throughout any of this, and as if to imitate the residents of Hudson who are the intended beneficiaries of the LTCP, the EPA remains AWOL to this day.
The more things change the more they stay the same, all but the prices which keep escalating.
"The more things change the more they stay the same, all but the prices which keep escalating."
DeleteThis means that when the city finally removes its (illegal) fence, they are obligated to serve, the 100% member supported rod and gun, they took it from (at gunpoint) two and a half years ago...
This permanent public easement continues "regardless of who owns the riverbed" in various places along the river, and includes public rights to engage in "sports fishing and duck hunting." Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1961)