The work on the current LWRP (Hudson's second try; the first was rejected) began in 2006 and, after five years of moving in and out of public purview, it was adopted by the Common Council in 2011. Since then, the people of Hudson have been waiting for the LWRP to be approved at the state and federal levels. As it turns out, we could have waited forever.
Many have been dissatisfied with the LWRP as it was adopted in 2011 because they believed it did not accurately reflect what the people of Hudson wanted for their waterfront. The WASC now has the opportunity to go back to the people, ten years later, to learn their vision for the waterfront and to suggest revisions to make the LWRP better reflect the community vision.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Full Disclosure: The author of The Gossips of Rivertown is also the chair of the Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee.
1.
ReplyDeleteLast night's meeting was a good start.
Contrary to what I'd believed, there were plenty of new faces and perspectives, and only the predictable few echoes of the tired old positions reportedly delivered at the committee's first meeting. (I refused to attend that meeting because, as advertised, the public was invited only to listen.)
I'm happy to say that last night, the public was permitted to ask questions. We even had members of the public disagreeing civilly with one another, which is pretty healthy in my opinion.
I saw new blood, heard good public involvement, and felt good energy.
The tired echoes weren't all specific to our previous history, however, as any community grappling with an LWRP ought to begin by learning what an LWRP is. To be specific, without being able to explicate the meaning for waterfront programs of the State Coastal Policies, on which everything turns, a community will necessarily drift aimlessly through a sea of predictable platitudes.
Without understanding what an LWRP must accomplish according to its enabling legislation (Article 42), then educating the public about the program will tend to wander towards whatever the educator wants to see happen. That's when listening ceases, a lesson branded into the survivors of the previous LWRP effort.
Telling, and not listening, is anathema to the spirit of both an LWRP and to Municipal Home Rule Law.
I feel like a jerk spelling it out, but the humblest of our fellow citizens, and people who aren't even Hudson residents, can make the most amazing contributions when given the lay of the land. Naturally, these were the first "stakeholders" to be excluded the last time around, when hired consultants showed up with their LWRP-making template. (Professionals who involve themselves in messy local processes don't survive without maximizing their efficiency to achieve their own ends.)
2.
ReplyDeleteI must say that in future, it would probably be best to have a meeting Agenda beforehand. Had I known the Agenda in advance of last night's meeting, I certainly would not have attended the meeting (for a second time). Needless to say, the focus should be on attendance, and not alienating the same groups who were excluded the last time. I'd go so far to say that that should be the guiding principle for now on.
We've been through all of this before, so we already know where the land mines are hidden.
It will take wisdom to keep the group focused when it needs to be focused. On the other hand, everyone must have a sense of when the conversation can and should be more diffuse. (It will help when the Committee members know equally what the program and the Coastal Policies are.)
But too much repetition of "getting it done in a year" would be a mistake so colossal I can hardly find the words.
If there's one warning worth repeating from our previous debacle, the single trope which led the way through each and every transitional phase - and that is no exaggeration - is that "we've been doing this long enough." (All of it is documented in the Council's Minutes.) The same supposition ended in disaster every time, but every time it was trotted out to corral some vote or decision, it was like people were hearing it anew.
It will be said during this process too, because it's the simplest thing in the world to say: We've been doing this long enough, ergo it's time to move on. That's a huge, huge, huge mistake. Please resist this terrible temptation.
The more things change...
ReplyDeleteLong before statehood, area fisherfolk gathered on shore in late March, hunters in October.
If we are all equal shareholders of shore we should be "allowed" to slip into the Faithful Lady, wherever one has the whim.
One disagreement between audience members concerned the credentials of committee members, and whether anyone really needs to see them.
ReplyDeleteMust a group of citizens asked to serve in an advisory capacity first prove themselves to their fellow citizens? Or is it enough to know that they're residents - neighbors in a small municipality - who were chosen on the basis of some perceived merit?
I give a resounding Yes to the latter.
Of all community efforts, an LWRP should resist the creeping professionalization of nearly everything else in our social lives. I've argued many times before that it was the managerial model which frustrated the last LWRP attempt. It was sad to watch as my neighbors relinquished their program to self-appointed managers, alleged experts who knew far less about the waterfront that those who were now, necessarily, excluded. Naturally these managers were goal-oriented, which is rarely to the advantage of the facts on the ground (/water).
As another consequence of this increasing fixation on credentials, a mere advisory committee will easily take on the appearance and trappings of a quasi-governmental organ, even despite its efforts not to.
When I cautioned against "educating" the public without first understanding what a waterfront program is, I was concerned that a quasi-governmental-looking advisory body is at risk of pushing its own waterfront visions ahead of whatever the public might imagine. Under those circumstances, that would even be unavoidable, which should recollect the managerial blunders of our recent past.
I was reminded of something Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, but I couldn't find the reference until this morning, in a Charles Lane op-ed in WaPo.
As society increasingly relies on the assumed expertise of government managers, those countless technicians in vast bureaucracies which exist to manage what we've pretty much accepted we're incapable of managing on our own, something vital is in great danger of being lost (is being lost!).
For the new WASC and the public alike, Tocqueville's words should encourage civic participation in a waterfront program, and like no other government-sponsored program you can think of. But it's a fragile exercise, as our previous effort demonstrated in spades. That's why we we must take care to be citizen volunteers, through and through, and to studiously avoid the managerial model which confers a quasi-agenda all on its own.
"The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and its industry if the government came to take the place of associations everywhere .... A government can no more suffice on its own to maintain and renew the civilization of sentiments and ideas in a great people then to conduct all its industrial undertakings. As soon as it tries to leave the political sphere to project itself on this new track, it will exercise an insupportable tyranny even without wishing to; for a government knows only how to dictate precise rules; it imposes the sentiments and the ideas that it favors, and it is always hard to distinguish its counsels from its orders” (Tocqueville, "Democracy in America").
Sorry: "THAN to conduct all its industrial undertakings."
Delete1) The public participated in the first meeting, asking questions and making suggestions, contrary to Mr. O’Connor’s assumptions above.
ReplyDelete2) Mr. O’Connor (who for the record has eagerly borrowed historical documents from certain parties he deems “tired,” but seemed less than willing to return them in a timely way) wants the public to understand the context and import of Waterfront policies—indeed it should. Yet he opposes above any airing of such details, except on his unique terms. This is not productive. If he has something to share, he should share it, and accept that others have the right to do the same.
3) A successful revised LWRP will benefit from an open dialogue about facts and history, as well as goals. That includes significant past public input, across several generations, which was never incorporated into the plan or even rebuffed in the current version.
Merging past input from the previous few decades with fresher, more current opinions can result in a plan which is more than just a snapshot in time, but rather can stand the test of it... Prior materials can also help save the City from having to start from square one—for example, prior legal memos on the (unsubmitted) LWRP point out mistakes and flaws which were never corrected. Rather than pay lawyers yet again to re-identify these errors, the WASC has materials in its possession which may let it skip to the next step.
Here's just one such item: It was pointed out in the last time around that LWRPs are not supposed to reference specific projects, groups, businesses and property owners, who may or may not remain in the future. That's per State guidance. Rather, Waterfront plans are supposed to set forth guiding principles and rules that pertain no matter who is here now or later. Even so, the LWRP developed several administrators ago is littered with references to organizations and companies which in some cases are no longer here.
So an easy first edit would be remove these references. And then consider what decisions were made merely to please specific parties, and consider whether those still pertain, or were ever appropriate.
From the notice for the first WASC meeting, "as advertised":
ReplyDelete"The public is welcome to attend the meeting, but it should be understood that the purpose of this initial meeting is not to gather public input."
Why would anyone expose themselves to the barely concealed ad hominem we see above when they also know they may be prohibited from defending themselves? (The above commenter was the guest of honor at the first meeting of the WASC.)
Am I being accused of stealing something? You had better be very clear, sir. For the benefit of my attorney, please be explicit with this accusation which Gossips has seen fit to publish.
This is the very kind of poisonous innuendo I sought to avoid by not attending that first meeting.
People should decide - yes or no - if there's a place for gratuitous rancor going forward. If we learned anything from our previous failure, the answer should be pretty obvious.
Must one be present for their natural rights be defended?
ReplyDeleteI have a question for the members of WASC -- Is any reliable data available regarding water quality in the North Bay? I'd like to take my kayak out in the bay this Sunday, but I hesitate to do so because I'm a bit concerned about coming in contact with the water. It sounds like a toxic mixture of effluent from the wastewater treatment plant, leachate from the landfill, and stormwater runoff from city streets. So, is it safe for a boater like me? Any advice would be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteWell said, jkhunka.
DeleteNo attention is being paid to the water quality of North Bay, let alone any other public safety issue there. (The water current beneath the trestle is treacherous on an outgoing tide.)
To the question of reliable water data for North Bay, it's complicated, but mostly discouraging.
For your weekend plans, if the rains on Saturday aren't large enough to cause a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), then the North Bay will be very clean. If CSOs occur upriver, that water will take days to reach us.
The Crawford engineers have the job of monitoring the leachate from the landfill. I'd like to ask what they're looking for first, before I learn what's being found.
The EPA tested the Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent in 2007, and drew some unhappy conclusions. I don't know what's happened since because the City is so tight-lipped where public safety is the concern. (We complained to the State last year, and hopefully brought more discipline to a sloppy situation.)
The Foster's site hasn't been tested since 2006 when lead (Pb) was found in the groundwater in the wetlands. We have to make sure that the State does its duty there, which someone other than me should inquire about when they ask why the main site's remediation method was allegedly changed from the planned removal to capping. (I'm not saying that's wrong - how would I know? - but that it wasn't explained to the public.)
Lead in the groundwater, though, that's different ...
For years the State "required" the City to conduct water quality monitoring (since 1982 actually), and for years the City gave excuse after excuse why the monitoring was still in the planning stages.
The last time the State renewed its interest in water monitoring in North Bay was 2008. Then, in 2009, the DEC Division of Water simply gave up, seemingly surrendering its approval for something the City sought for years.
The City waited out the DEC and won, but I think you and I would agree that the people and the wetlands lost.
In 2009, the Cary Institute did a study of depleted oxygen in North Bay. They found normal levels of oxygen, but they didn't coordinate their study with documented CSOs. I don't know what application the study could have, seeing as CSOs and stormwater runoff lead directly to oxygen depletion, and the absence of CSOs and stormwater restores the lost oxygen.
Anyway, that's about the size of it. Almost nothing is known about water quality in the North Bay.
This will change, however, when it comes time for the City's "post-construction" review. At that time, Water Quality Standards will come to the fore, and the public will have its first substantial opportunity (ever!) to participate in the City's sewer planning.
Thank you, Tim, for this useful information. For now, I think I'll go kayaking at Lake Taghkanic. At least I can be certain that I won't be exposed to PCBs and polluted water from a CSO event.
DeleteI didn't wish to be an alarmist. It's just very important to mind the timing of a visit to North Bay (1st Bay).
DeleteLast autumn there were a few days when the water clarity was spectacular. Other boaters will remember this too.
In 1st Bay I could see, at most, seven feet to the bottom, which had followed a period of drought.
On days like that in 2nd Bay, which is more pristine, I've snorkeled.
You must simply time your visit, and then accept some level of exposure to the usual background PCBs.
According to Wikipedia, "Leachate streams running directly into the aquatic environment have both an acute and chronic impact on the environment, which may be very severe and can severely diminish bio-diversity and greatly reduce populations of sensitive species. Where toxic metals and organics are present this can lead to chronic toxin accumulation in both local and far distant populations." Given these facts, it is important to evaluate whether it would be safe for people to use the North Bay for recreational purposes, especially boating.
ReplyDeleteDon't drink the water, and beware the snappers, they have no natural enemies since GE. When they your hull, you'll know it.
DeleteHigh tide this weekend is at sunrise or sunset, noontime nothing but mud. Next week high tide is mid afternoon or midnight.
ReplyDeleteI recommend that sediment and water from the North Bay should be sampled for biological and chemical contamination to determine whether it poses any significant hazard to people, especially children. It is important to ensure that North Bay does not contain carcinogenic substances like those that sickened people living near Love Canal in Niagara Falls.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly carcinogenic PCBs at the Foster's site (corner of Mill and 2nd), but when the State last tested in 2006, the PCBs were found to be stable in their matrix of loose fill.
DeleteBut is it a factor that the PCB-contaminated fill is on the waterside of the bay's original shoreline? Apparently the State doesn't think so.
The city impound lot and DPW squat on formerly submerged land just like Rick's refrigerator.
DeleteMove the HWL forward, fill, and take another little piece of the people's shore. After all, materials (salt, gasoline, machine oil) used by the DPW must be biodegradable and its only incrementally illegal.
Did you ever take a look behind the DPW lot to see the stuff they dump there? Yikes.
DeleteYikes is right!
DeleteShame there are no sharp attorneys on the council to explain that toxic waste dumped below the HWL is like blocking access to shore, betrayals of the Public Trust Doctrine.
Astute: that either ignoring or contributing to poor water quality is "blocking access to the shore."
DeleteIn one criticism we made on the State's draft Water Resource Summary for the City of Hudson (the final summary is not yet released), the DEC listed changes to water quality among the "impacts" of aquatic barriers for fish.
We protested that poor water quality isn't an "impact" from a fish barrier; it IS a barrier.
To say otherwise allows would-be polluters tons of wiggle room on their Environmental Assessment Forms.
For over one hundred years keeping fishermen bay resulted free and easy use of open water.
ReplyDeleteMight Fisher folk be natural environmentalists? Nobody wants filthy fish.
Fishers and hunters are among the best conservationists, but "environmentalists"? I won't call myself one of those, thank you very much.
DeleteLet's put it this way, I never met a conservationist who was a hypocrite.
Can we agree on free flowing citizens, Littoral Libertarians?
DeleteAs sixty year residents are removed, the question here is; who will the council of this entrapped Citadel replace them with?
The State of Virginia has a Fish Tissue and Sediment Contaminants Monitoring Program that conducts routine studies of fish tissue and sediment samples in state waters. The program fulfills the Clean Water Act 106 United States Environmental Protection Agency grant requirements. The City of Hudson should implement just such a program focusing on fish and sediment in the North Bay.
ReplyDeleteAt Freshkills Park in NYC, turtles are also being used to determine the health of the ecosystem...
ReplyDeletehttp://freshkillspark.org/scientific-research/turtle-research