COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Friday, July 31, 2015
Of Interest
It seems Billy Shannon was working on a story for his blog Hudson River Zeitgeist that he was planning to call "Five Things to Know about the Furgary Shacks Before the City Tears Them Down." When word came this morning that the State Historic Preservation Office had determined that "the Shacks" met the eligibility criteria for historic designation, he changed the title and published it: "Six Things to Know about Hudson's Furgary Shacks, which the State Just Saved."
Unfortunately, it's probably overly optimistic to think that SHPO's eligibility determination will save all seventeen shacks, but the official finding puts the lie to the opinion, which some have attributed to SHPO, that "there is nothing worth saving" down there and vindicates those who see the shack settlement as a rare survivor of a lost era and a valuable part of Hudson River history.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mr. Shannon saved the best for last, Mr. Tom Ponkos's memories from the 1930s:
ReplyDelete"Tom Ponkos, 93, of Claverack, lived in a shack at the Furgary from 1938 to 1940, before he shipped off to fight in World War II. Over the phone today, he said, 'It is history. People don’t know what life was like down there. It was a different life. A whole different ballgame.'
"Ponkos described the north dock area as a bustling center for fishermen and duck hunters, where men would net and sell fish, use that money buy booze, and go back to their shacks. He would swim and fish and watch people repair boats. 'The North Bay was [a] bizarre playground to grow up in,' he said.
One refinement worth making in an otherwise well-researched piece is that it wasn't known by anyone before 2012 that the shacks were built on state land, not even the state.
ReplyDeleteThe North Dock Tin Boat Association challenged any living descendant of the city's Proprietors for good reason, because they knew that deeds existed for their properties that had been passed down since the state granted Claverack Landing to the Proprietors in 1785, or sometime shortly thereafter.
If the city or state's title search in support of the Defense had turned up any of these deeds, then they certainly didn't tell anyone about it. But it only took me four hours to find a deed held by Samuel Gelston, son of one of the central Proprietors Cotton Gelston. The land included the present day "lots" along the harbor's southern shore.
It was surely Cotton Gelston himself who drew up the larger "water lots" beneath the North Bay, each one of which was issued to a Proprietor.
The question why the city forced the Furgarians out at gunpoint goes directly to these original water lots.
For 227 years - between 1785 and 2012 - there was no cause to question the ownership of underwater lands in North Bay. But deeds certainly did exist, and were handed down from that first generation of Nantucketers.
Probably the most embarrassing revelation for the city, which is further evidence that no one had explored the title to these lands, was the fact that the city built its Waste Water Treatment Plant on state land in 1965.
At the April 2015 Informal Meeting of the Common Council, city attorney Whitbeck dragged out the old chestnut that the Furgarians were "squatters," but the public threw it right back: the city was a "squatter" as much as anyone else.
The argument that the city cannot lease any of the shacks is bosh and misrepresentation (I should add that Mr. Shannon didn't say otherwise).
The only reason the city won't ask the state legislature to "alienate" a shack or two for leasing purposes is ... what? I'll leave that for others to answer.
To be fair, however, which is hardly deserved considering the repeated, alleged "illegality" of leasing property there, I also don't know whether the public has made a direct request.
Is there anything more thrilling though than making comparisons between the supposed illegality of leasing to Furgary and the lucrative arrangement Mr. Falkenheimer enjoys with his "Spirit of Hudson" at the city dock?
Did Mr. Falkenheimer have liability insurance during the three summers he operated his company from city property with no lease? Off the top of my head, those were the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010. Before then, he had an illegal lease which never went through the Common Council. And you can forget about the state having "alienated" the property.
So what's the real difference between these two cases? Which arrangement is truly the illegal one?
It all comes down to maximum public use. The shacks are but byproducts of the (ancient) historical use of shore, Navigation.
ReplyDeleteOGS wrote back in the 80s that the city should allow for the continuous historical use. And if the city seeks federal funding, it MUST allow for that use.
Now, let's start on a canoe sluice that reaches from Fosters to the shacks..
The craziness around the shacks has to stop, along with putting words into my uncle, Tom Ponkos’s mouth and/or twisting them. First the shacks of my father's and uncle’s time are not the man caves of the present with their bar's and booze. Yes, in my father's and uncle's time only a couple of old fishermen lived in one of the shacks. Augie Oleum an old man who rented boats and sold bait lived in a house very close to the shacks. The rest of the shacks were used to store boats and fishing gear. My uncle never lived in a shack. I just spoke to him and he was shocked by the article and said he never even spent a night and he never saw any one drink. My Aunt and Uncle are also saddened, they said how nice the callers seemed. North Bay was an extension of the North end neighbor where my uncles, aunt, dad, and Grandma lived, a playground of sorts but not defined by the shacks but by the community, people, bay, and river. An extension of the neighborhood. Today, the North Bay area needs to be returned to the Hudson community to once again become defined by the bay and river; maybe a beautiful park, a place to kayak or fish. We need to remember that the shacks became the focus when history was revised.
ReplyDeleteI agree that when I spoke with your uncle he told me he never spent a night at the camp.
DeleteBut I also know Billy Shannon, and I know he's a good person. He's definitely not the sort to put words in anyone's mouth.
There's just been some mistake, that's all.
I read the words in quotations though as I think everyone did, about fishermen using their profits to purchase alcohol. I suppose that's pretty universal thing, even among non-fishermen. The number the bars on Front Street alone was staggering, and no doubt as many people staggered home then as stagger home today.
I think everyone knows that the "man cave" characterization is a more recent thing, but as a recent arrival myself I have to say that that's not exactly fair. There was a lot more to it than that. There were plenty of people down there who didn't partake in "man cave," and I was one of them.
In years past, whatever its shape was at any one time, it was always a different culture than anything landward. And that's pretty standard for harbor cultures the world over.
Your uncle conveyed as much to me about his own time at the camp, which was surely a more innocent time. I loved it that he didn't know the word "Furgary," or even the names of people who were there in the 1960s. His memories were much older than that, and when he was able to he used to capture those times in his paintings, in a clear American style.
What was fascinating for me was when your uncle wondered (only briefly) about those who'd preceded him at the camp. Yes, it was prompted by me asking him, but it was nice for me to hear him wonder aloud about the kind of cultures that were there before him, before 1930s, the '20s, and the '10s.
The state was wise to consider all of these forgotten worlds, and to recognize that material culture can preserve all sorts of things - even values - of which we're currently unaware.
Someone could have destroyed Samuel Gelston's deed, but a whole story would have been lost about the shacks that can almost be re-imagined today. Who knows what future Hudsonians may discover down there, perhaps when the shad numbers return.
Hey Barb, spew that man cave BS to the (seven) daughters of Art Myers and Debbie Decintio. Both maintained their boat houses for years before the eviction, not to mention all the wives and daughters of other key holders.
DeleteBarb, I heartily support your interest in kayaking and fishing.
DeleteBut for kayaking locations, frankly I'm surprised you'd recommend such a dangerous spot near the entrance to North Bay. As someone associated with the shacks, I assume that you know what the Columbia Land Conservancy never bothered to find out, that the entrance to the Bay is treacherous twice a daily.
A safety study (or even a well-timed site visit) should have been conducted before the Conservancy ever decided that canoes and kayaks could safely navigate an outgoing tide. I'm a seasoned kayaker, but those confused waters always make me feel a little sick. That's called respect.
In Hudson we get the Great Idea first; next we make a large political display; a mindless Resolution follows, achieved by shutting out public participation; finally we hire someone to conduct the feasibility study from the usual cesspool of hired cheats: engineering firms, title search companies, and environmental "planners."
When it comes to fishing, your concern would have been well-placed and most helpful during the sewer separation controversy.
DeleteThe city's first study of combined sewer overflows (CSO) was our most comprehensive study to date. In 2015, City Hall somehow managed to ignore the comprehensive study altogether, probably because sewer separation didn't come out looking so good:
"The possibly harmful impacts of both the urban stormwater runoff and the possible existence of leachate from the adjacent Hudson Landfill might preclude any beneficial effect of CSO control in regard to fishing [in North Bay]."
Reading aloud the city's own previous caution about sewer separation will get you hectored, or even silenced, at a Common Council meeting (hectoring by politicians only, I should add).
Back when the DEC knew its business, and didn't just roll over for anything desired by local government, the state actually rejected the above statement for its incompleteness. Agreeing in principle that it was likely accurate, the state responded with a request for an empirically-based analysis to better understand the impact of sewer separation on fish.
The city simply ignored the request, even when it was repeated (as recently as 2008).
In the meantime, the culture within the DEC has mutated into what it is now: a bloated, expensive, environmentally irresponsible political operation. The state ducks all accountability by deferring to local governments, and municipalities are challenged only by their residents.
That's why it was unfortunate that someone who cares about fishing in North Bay didn't know about the city's sewer separation project. Your support would have been a great help towards stopping it.
Exactly, Joe, the shacks became private residences, the new squatters closed it, as if it were their private property. And, by the way Joe, do you know who hung the big Confederate flag? It hung there for years. Is that also part of the history you want to preserve? How is all of this part of the North end neighborhood?
DeleteYes Barb, the key holders of Caddy's (non white cabin) made them take it down.
DeleteAs in any group of 100 people, there will be tea drinkers and drunkards, racists and lovers of color.
The North Dock was closed by politicians trying to profit from the sale of public trust lands and not the stewards of same. Don't recall ever seeing you donate time or money there. If you were uncomfortable visiting it wasn't because you weren't welcome, just unfamiliar.
By the way, OK if us crackers still whistle Dixie once in a while?
use attainability analysis must be conducted for any water body with designated uses that do not include the "fishable/swimmable" goal uses identified in the section 101(a)(2) of the Act. Such water bodies must be reexamined every three years to determine if new information has become available that would warrant a revision of the standard. If new information indicates that "fishable/swimmable" uses can be attained, such uses must be designated...
DeleteForty years ago there was no water treatment plant and yet we swam, fished and Navigated from Hudson's North Dock.
Tens of millions of (outboard motor fuel) tax dollars later, our "servants" proscribe its use?
Reply
Replies
unheimlichApril 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Thank you Mr. Gallo, that is most useful.
Checkmate...
ReplyDeletethe shacks are not worth preserving. they are shacks, a tribal shelter of no merit whatsoever.
ReplyDelete\perhaps its the water in hudson and the weird chemicals in it that make hudsonites yearn for a bunch of tarpaper relics.
what about the great buildings of hudson thatwere torn down -- no one seems to regret that.
i think the people of hudson want to remain in the cesspool they live in for as long as possible
"the great buildings of hudson thatwere torn down -- no one seems to regret that."
DeleteI'd like to meet someone who doesn't regret that, but I don't believe such people exist.
Given that tricky Rick and his trusty side kick Cappy have been exposed as having no understanding public trust lands and even less of their historical value, why is Cappy still on the preservation board?
ReplyDeleteCappy Pierro is NOT on the Historic Preservation Commission. (The very thought of it makes my blood run cold.) He is, however, inappropriately in my opinion, the chair of the Planning Board.
DeleteI stand corrected, hard to keep these alphabet agencies apart. Point being; why the fox within the chicken coop?
DeleteAgreed! Why indeed?
DeleteGiven that tricky Rick and his trusty side kick Cappy have been exposed as having no understanding public trust lands and even less of their historical value, why is Cappy on the preservation board?
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned earlier, people interested in preserving them google "Fishtown Michigan" The area is a huge tourist draw with Mom and Pop stores, food and beverages etc
ReplyDeleteGossips April 24, 2015:
ReplyDeleteJoe Gallo
A use attainability analysis must be conducted for any water body with designated uses that do not include the "fishable/swimmable" goal uses identified in the section 101(a)(2) of the Act. Such water bodies must be reexamined every three years to determine if new information has become available that would warrant a revision of the standard. If new information indicates that "fishable/swimmable" uses can be attained, such uses must be designated...
Forty years ago there was no water treatment plant and yet we swam, fished and Navigated from Hudson's North Dock.
Tens of millions of (outboard motor fuel) tax dollars later, our "servants" proscribe its use?
Reply
Replies
unheimlichApril 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Thank you Mr. Gallo, that is most useful.
And I still mean it, Joe. You find amazingly apt policies and legislation that city government couldn't care less about.
DeleteLike bullies everywhere, city officials make it all up as they go along. Then they hire the right sorts of Yes Men (with our money) who'll confirm what they've been hired to confirm.
You don't want to find a troublesome deed? We can guarantee we won't find it, as with North Bay. Or we'll just overlook it, or maybe only look back so far. (But if it's Standard Oil in South Bay, maybe you'd better have someone outside city government tell us what you don't want us to find so there's no record.)
Ecology problems? Hire an engineer, of course! We're already myopic and greedy, so we can guarantee substandard environmental reviews. Whether its at South Bay, where we'll look no further than the title company did (the perfect excuse never to have look at the 19th c. fire insurance maps, which is otherwise standard industry practice), or at the North Bay where we guarantee our flawed mapping services will appear to confirm the Plaintiff's case, but which products will subsequently be proven incorrect by the NYS Office of Governmental Services which will nevertheless adopt the same map unaltered as an official state map of the North Bay.
Engineers for hire will stick together, and accomplish anything you wis that's against the public interest. We can guarantee an environmental review which circumvents the most basic principles of the state's Environmental Conservation Law. And in the event a few of these public idiots gets uppity, we'll coach the more willing and crooked politicians and officials in the hallowed tradition of circumventing the public altogether.
Oh, what? The City of Hudson already learned how to do that from BFJ Planners? Well congratulations, that LWRP was good for something after all.
Call me Diogenes Tim, but after reading the list of names on the city's environmental board, and more importantly, the fact that your name was missing, I (maybe incorrectly) assumed they were chosen like Cappy, to produce a political outcome, namely to channel (crony) grant money to their paid staffs.The last thing that group wants to hear, is the opinion of the founder of a 100% member supported NFP that never wanted anything to do with receiving tax money of any kind, much less the corrupt attachments that follow.
DeleteIt wasn't that I didn't want to offer my input, the separation sewer and storm water is a simple matter of physics and the only thing worse than not being asked, is to be asked and then ignored.
1 Riparian
Break out your bathtub and your lamp, Mr. Moore was the final decider who got appointed to the Conservation Advisory Council and who didn't. But to their great credit, they actually delivered what they were asked to deliver, even if the asking was only meant to be seen as asking.
DeleteI was suggesting that another commenter help on the sewer separation, but you can throw yourself on the heap, sure.
I guess the thing that won some people over in the end was the city's promise to get more grant money to install filtration devices where they're needed least, at the top of the system.
What's a simple matter of physics everywhere else in the universe is different in Hudson. If gravity propels water downhill towards the treatment plant, then why not put filters up at the top?
Whether we win a grant for these filters or not, the gesture has already accomplished its purpose in a place where water flows uphill.
Now where'd I put my lamp?
In the most corrupted state in the country, parks and preservation will now accomplish with regulation what the the city couldn't eliminate with a bull dozer. A distinction without a difference.
DeleteCarole if memory serves you played an instrumental role in getting the SHPO's attention and doing the necessary paperwork / follow up. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteLet's now see if Scott Paton would like a chance to get even by suing tricky Rick's crew of property pirates for defamation X 25.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the RS article, two things should be noted. First, Mr. Bowers must be unaware of the fact that the Columbia Land Conservancy does not do maintenance on their property. Captain Leo is well aware of the heavy lifting required to run the wharf at North Dock. Back in 2003 I rushed him up to CMH when the poll pounder he was using slipped and made an immediate adjustment to his way of thinking. I've also witnessed Unheimlich using of that very device, he'll verify, maintaining the place so others can flow through is no easy task, one that followers take for granted.
ReplyDeleteSecond; seasoned Navigators have passed beneath the North Dock bridge for over a hundred years. While laid off in 98/99, I circumnavigated the middle ground island several times a week in a canoe and never encountered much difficulty passing under.Yes it is dangerous, but then so are double diamond ski trails, to the novice. A small craft sluice would accomplish the prime directive, promote more public use, but like double diamond ski trails, beginners should use an abundance of caution.
The issue here is; who will now do the heavy lifting?
1 Riparian