Two things learned from Leo Bower yesterday are worthy of sharing. First, the question of whether the primary accent in Furgary is on the first or second syllable can finally be put to rest, because the true name of the settlement is simply "The Shacks." Second, there were similar shacks south of Promenade Hill, where the parking lot for the state boat launch now is. Bower had a wonderful picture of those shacks among a collection of photographs he brought to the meeting for people to see. The best Gossips can offer is this screen capture from the 1959 film Odds Against Tomorrow, which shows one of those shacks and a bit of another in the background. The building farthest left, appearing under the bill of Harry Belafonte's cap, is now the clubhouse of the Hudson Power Boat Association.
Among the camp's former occupants, the factions were never clearer.
ReplyDeleteOne man asked, quite simply, if he'd be able to bring his kid in to fish in future. That may be the best question of all, and the answer was good too: "Yes."
Those who've always called the buildings "shacks," and the whole camp "Shantytown," emphasize one central fact going forward. In 2012, the State Supreme Court Appellate Division determined that Shantytown had been constructed on the underwater lands of the people of New York State. (So was the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, amazingly enough.)
So within the constraints of the court ruling, the first crowd looks for restored access to the river above all else, and then for historic continuity. This includes the best approximation to be attained of the formerly "living" shacks, while acknowledging at the same time that the days of a wholly unregulated Shantytown are behind us forever.
Then there are the "Furgarians," for whom nothing is acceptable in the end. Of these true believers (perhaps only two people with loud voices), one can easily imagine that the perfect restoration of the shacks to pre-2012 conditions would only be grounds for some fresh resentment.
Before yesterday's meeting, this faction seemed only to be concerned with restoring river access at North Dock. In fact, this argument was the strongest glue between all former inhabitants.
But when the promise of restored access was announced, it was immediately thrown back in the mayor's face. The one thing everyone had wanted above all, and the only reason for JG's thousand Gossips posts. And he was right, too.
So having rejected the mayor's announcement, the only thing remaining for that faction is the nursing of private resentments. (We could all resent the actions of Proprietor Cotton Gelston, though, who created the illegitimate deeds for North Bay in the first place.)
Finally, there are those who, for whatever reason, never loved the shacks, and yet they feel a historical duty to remember them. Some were on the Council last year, when the Aldermen whole-heartedly voted to raze all but one shack.
The incredible thing is, this vote was held at the same time that every Alderman knew the State was assessing the site for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Shouldn't they have waited for the review to finish?
Now that the State has determined that the entire site is eligible for the listing, these are the same people talking about saving "a few" of the shacks.
They should button their mouths. What they're really doing by saying "a few" is recapitulating their ignorant vote (or support of that vote) by last year's Council.
Yesterday I even heard untruth that the State has already decided which shacks will be saved.
There's no truth in it! and anyone who utters the line "a few of the shacks," will regret this disinformation. And for goodness' sake, don't anyone mindlessly repeat it! Break the chain of ignorance.
Furgary has the accent on the first syllable. Somehow it seems more specific than "the shacks."
ReplyDeleteFrom the NOR:
ReplyDeleteLaw enforcement officials should avoid citing or arresting people who are navigating, portaging, or walking along the beds and banks of rivers that are physically navigable in rafts, kayaks, or canoes. These rivers are navigable for Commerce Clause purposes under federal law. They cannot be closed to the public under erroneous notions about state law..
The shacks are there because in 1935 the DEC created a permanent easement for fishing that trumped recreation and commercial use.
Do fisherfolk scattered to the four corners of the county miss the shacks, not nearly as much as we miss each other.
Not as much as we miss each other?
DeleteIt didn't feel like that yesterday. That was embarrassing.
You fail to realize that some of our members were banished for the rest of their lives. Now our leaders seek outside funding and ten minutes after being assured that the "new use" would be all inclusive, Mr Bower's shouted out you guys aren't getting in.
DeleteSunday's expression of enmity was unfortunate but if the plan is to just switch users, you can expect more of the same going forward.
I've been thinking about a fair and objective test to determine which of the shacks, if any, have the potential to be saved. Perhaps the city should do exactly what it does with every other habitable structure in the city. If the building inspector determines that a structure is so dilapidated that it is unsafe to occupy, the structure is condemned and, if necessary, demolished. So, the building inspector should inspect the shacks one by one, and the city should act based on that objective evaluation.
ReplyDeleteBad idea. Aside from the fact that we already had a preliminary inspection last year, and almost all the shacks were rated in "good condition," this is a historical site.
DeleteIf the building inspector has sufficient historical knowledge about maritime vernacular architecture, which is the category the State determined the site is eligible under, then you may have a point.
Otherwise, your suggestion completely undermines the determination of the State Historic Preservation Office, which it explained in a report from last year I'll bet you haven't seen.
Your idea, though well meant, is bad, bad, bad.
Ultimately, the goal should be to restore the shacks so everyone can use and enjoy them, assuming they are "up to code" and safe for occupancy (which is different than saying they are in "good condition.") It would help if the individuals who claim to care about the shacks would step forward, get organized, enter into a written lease agreement with the city, and fix them up. Maybe someone should start a group with a name like "Friends of the Shacks" who pool their financial resources and energy to accomplish that goal. I keep hearing about a group called the "Furgary Boat Club," but I haven't seen a list of members or heard about any meetings. Does it really exist?
DeleteOh my. Isn't there Hudson River access via the South Bay Waterfront Park area, Rick's Point?
ReplyDeleteOr are the docks there my imagination.
What is the difference from entering the waterway via North or South Bays.
Hey, it's all river water.
Yes I know the Shanties offer memories, etc.
But the City of Hudson does not even have a City of Hudson Museum, a place to view or an office for the City Historian to show historical information.
And finally, can we agree it is the Shanties and/or the Shacks not "where the F..K are we" aka fugary.
Aren't there more shad to smoke?
R.I.P. E. Nack.
Docks without a slip are near useless. Try launching at the state site and walking over to Prick's point.
DeleteAlso there are four slips at North Dock that are much closer to the second bay and Island.
Water access is paramount in our culture, as recognized in our common law tradition over a thousand years ago.
DeleteFor boaters it's not the same as parking a car somewhere. It's not "all river," and it does matter where you put in. Sometimes your life may depend on it.
"Shantytown" is where I like to put in.
As Tim pointed out, it is tricky to enter and exit the North Bay from the river due to the strong current under the railroad trestle. It is much safer to launch a kayak directly from the shoreline of the North Bay.
DeleteI do believe the Fugari and its various spellings is a variation on Hekawi, and I seem to remember it being first used during a prior dispute between the shack owners and the city in the 1990s or so. I'm always surprised nobody picked up on this. facebook.com/Were-The-Fugawi-237676212976883/
ReplyDeleteMost folks I knew at Furgary knew about the fictional Hekawi tribe.
DeleteBut it's finally time to retire that wise crack, and call the camps what the old-timers did: The Shacks, and Shantytown.
Agreed. But I think it was a name coined by the shack owners themselves, not a pejorative term by others, to give the group an identity in their fight with the city.
DeleteAs I have mentioned before - people interested in what can be accomplished should google "fishtown michigan"
ReplyDeleteUnlike Lake Leelanau the Hudson is a tidal river. And North Dock is almost dry twice a day. It's ok to launch out under the bridge during low tide but there is nothing but mud in the uppermost bay.
DeleteThe next question is how to give all residents of Hudson equal access to slips at the North Dock.
ReplyDeleteIf it's true that there are only four slips at the dock, the City should determine whether it would be feasible to make the dock a bit larger to accommodate a few more boats.
Since the number of slips is limited, the City could conduct a lottery each year to determine who gets a slip. Winners of the lottery would pay for a seasonal permit, just like I pay an annual fee to the city for my parking permit for the municipal lot.
Finally, the City should install some fenced-in kayak storage racks. Again, a lottery would be held each season to determine who gets to store their boat, there would be a nominal fee for storage, like there is at Lake Taghkanic, and the storage racks would be locked to prevent theft.
I see a drift towards law-making in your comment which will be distasteful to many. It sure is to me.
DeleteI accept that you're a fellow boater, but these problems you're insinuating at the waterfront are rarely an issue. I've often noticed that it's non-boat owners who make the most noise about nonexistent dockage problems.
No one ever talks about the City's greatest docking issue, which is at the State boat launch. I've seen people tie up there and walk to the bar, stranding anyone who's trying to bring their boat in. You never hear anyone talk about that, and that's a safety issue.
The other issue is the Spirit of Hudson. The owner's lease permits his use of half the City's river-facing dock. So how come he uses the whole thing?
We can't even enforce the laws and agreements we have, but you want new statutes for nonexistent problems? Seriously?!
The reason there was never an issue with dockage at North Bay in the past is because the "members" of the "Furgary Boat Club" monopolized the site for themselves, excluding "nonmembers."
DeleteNow that the city is opening the site to everyone, don't be surprised if demand for slips exceeds the supply.
A lottery is an excellent way to decide who gets a slip. The Alpine Boat Basin at Palisades Park in New Jersey, where I used to keep my boat, uses a lottery system. Mills Norrie Marina uses one, too.
After thinking about it, I agree with you that people should be allowed to keep their kayaks and canoes on the shoreline without regulation. That's how it's done at Lake Taghkanic, where I also used to keep my boat. There, some boat owners lock their boats to trees, while others don't. Seems like a good system that avoids unnecessary bureaucracy.
Furgary "monopolized" the site? Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.
DeleteIt's true that certain new people were an obvious bad fit, and some would meet an exclusionary response. But that happens everywhere.
I hope it wasn't me that made you feel excluded, but your obvious hostility about the shacks comes through loud and clear: "I keep hearing about a group called the 'Furgary Boat Club,' but I haven't seen a list of members or heard about any meetings" (from above).
You write as if you're owed something. Anyone would have detected resentment like that and sent you packing. Naturally you'd have explained it to yourself as being about something else.
I'm right though that you see problems where they don't exist, and then set out to manage them.
Many real problems get created that way, by thinking that's too abstract and lacking in concrete relations. I'm not saying that this describes you, but people who don't understand the laws of unintended consequences, and have no feel for local culture (read: no respect), often set out to fix things and end up making a mess.
For example, you've suggested a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and most likely won't exist. In the end, you'll end up creating an unnecessary bureaucracy where no bureaucracy of any kind was needed, while saying all the while that you're committed to avoiding the need for bureaucracies.
Shouldn't you be on a ballot somewhere?
Dealing with actual problems should be enough for now, without inventing new ones. We can barely even manage that.
There's an article in the Register Star today about the new and improved kayak launch for the South Bay. Sheena Salvino states, "To date, we are still approximately $10,000 under the anticipated budget." I wonder whether the city could use that $10,000 to construct a kayak launch or install kayak storage racks at the North Bay.
ReplyDeleteGossips heard the mayor say was that the fence along the southern edge of the site was to be moved several yards north, to allow access to the river while still cordoning off the shacks.
ReplyDeleteMove the flood line forward, pave and boats never float there again...
The CLC's plan back in 2012 showed a paved parking lot where the 17 foot Checkmate is shown in the picture above. It floated there (with no plug in it) during Hurricane Sandy and should the Lady have the whim, she'll snatch it back. By definition it is riverbank.
City attorneys past and present try to spin this area as part of a floodplain, it is not and paving it would be illegal.
They may be great attorneys but lousy stewards of the people's shore.
Four years ago a simple sailor made a simple observation, fisherfolk only need the dock March, April and may. Tourists in June, July and August. Hunters in September, October and November. Trappers in December, January and February.
ReplyDeleteFisherfolk, hunters and trappers shouldn't be denied the primal use in months when few other people choose to. Then have these three "primal" navigators maintain the wharf and surrender use in the tourist season, June, July/August.
Do you remember Madam Mayor? You and the Mapmaker were present Captain Joe Skibo was still alive. Back then the objective was maximum use.
It's still closed.
Several other old friends have died waiting to be served "our" shore. Maybe it would please the council if we would just die faster.
From the NOR:
ReplyDeleteState and local restrictions on river use have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, fishermen who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies. - See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/frequently-asked-questions/?page=2#sthash.yK4JzzQ0.dpuf
Using a SWAT team to achieve a (corrupt) political goal:an abuse of power...
1460 days and counting...