The next step for the Furgary now, as it has been all along, is to identify which shacks should be saved and to agree on a use and vision for the site. At the meeting on Thursday, Hamilton suggested some criteria for making decisions about the former--age, stability, and history--and sought Krattinger's guidance in making that analysis. It was mentioned a few times during the meeting that the site is included in the City's Downtown Redevelopment Initiative application, but nothing more specific than "Site development for public access & use" is known about what was proposed in that application.
A proposal that addresses both the question of which shacks should be saved and the question of the site's future use has been put forward in a map created by a group calling itself the Shantytown Committee. The proposal defines the site's use as a "historic-and-recreational park" and identifies shacks to be redeveloped as a visitor center and a shad museum and others to be "sealed and preserved for aesthetic value."
On Thursday, Leo Bower, one of the Furgarians involved in developing the proposed site plan, told his fellow Furgarians who were calling for restored access to the site, "We're never going to go back in it. . . . It is historic. There could be a shad museum, so kids can see what it was like. It's so unique. It's so awesome."
 |
| The Furgary c. 1958 |
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Interesting irony, create a historic fishing village and museum by eliminating the continuous (pre)historic use.
ReplyDelete"Eliminating?"
DeleteSays who?! Not me.
If you read the following comment, the best approach to site planning may follow the initial achievement of establishing safe water access from City property.
It's time to let the Imagination flow ...
The occasion for this week's visit by the SHPO official - for which all credit goes to Mayor Hamilton - should mark the end of the years of mistrust initiated and fanned by the previous administration.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the planning involves knowledgeable and interested members of the public, as we saw at Thursday's meeting, there will be no grounds for resentment going forward. Everyone knows that the current circumstances are entirely thanks to public efforts, and entirely despite of the City's past obstructions.
Previously, underlying hostilities were the defining feature of nearly every municipal thought for the shacks. Now, however, we're decisively beyond the City's determination to destroy this resource, as the Common Council resolved to do in a July 2015 Resolution.
From here on out, the initiative is now squarely with the public. To that degree, the champions of Shantytown have won something tangible. Our success cannot be overlooked or underestimated, though we've got a ways to go before we know what to do with the site.
Perhaps the planning can be approached piecemeal.
For example, a safer alternative to using the railroad property for boat access will have to involve City property. To put the cart before the horse, there may be no other way to accomplish this all-important goal - safer access for boaters - than to make an early decision on the fate of one or two of the shacks. Now we know that we don't need the State to decide such things for us.
Likewise, the State leaves decisions about maintenance to the municipalities. I felt the most important insight to come out of Thursday's meeting was that citizen volunteers sometimes repair historic resources with the blessings of the municipality, particularly where the funding source is local.
Volunteers donating their own materials is a far cry from our present addiction to State funding, and the less evident addiction municipalities have to the spending rules imposed through such grants (Federal and State rules are a ready crutch to take the place of imaginative local leadership).
As one commenter put it at Thursday's meeting, shack maintenance isn't some great challenge. It isn't rocket science.
The common knowledge that residents have brought things this far will hopefully inform the outlook of our once-hostile representatives. Wouldn't it be refreshing if our Aldermen now decide to take a step back, to see what else an informed public can achieve in its determination to move the matter forward for everyone.
"citizen volunteers sometimes repair historic resources with the blessings of the municipality, particularly where the funding source is local"
DeleteThat precisely is the historic use ended thirty-five years ago when mayor Allen proposed sell the property...
Because there was no king in 1670, ancient laws of navigation were altered on the early American shore. It was decided to be forever given to the people, because no entrepreneur would invest their own money if when the king did arrive, he could just take back the shore.
DeleteThe more things change...
I'm looking forward to helping restore these structures. This is a tremendous opportunity to create a unique gathering place for the people of Hudson.
ReplyDeleteWould an old fisherman from Claverack be welcome?
DeleteEveryone should be welcome! When we moved to Hudson, I walked into the Hudson Power Boat Association and asked how I could join. I was told the someone would have to sponsor me to join their exclusive club.
DeleteI want a place where everyone who loves the water is welcome unconditionally. It should be a place to store small boats and launch them. It should be a place to go fishing, canoeing and kayaking. I'd like to have a place to lock my bike, because I'd probably ride there every day. My wife suggested that it would be nice to have some sort of snack bar or place to eat and picnic.
Above all, it should be a place to make new friends and have fun, especially for kids.
The historic use of citizen synergy ended thirty-five years ago when mayor Allen proposed selling the property, (due to an argument...over a fence!).
ReplyDeleteWorkers dropped their hammers and the decline began.
Maintenance goes to a minimum when one mayor proposes promotion and the next liquidation.
William Allen was mayor of Hudson from January 1992 until his death in June 1993. That wasn't thirty-five years ago; it was twenty-five years ago. I value accuracy.
DeleteMy misteak, the fight over fencing and eviction was ten years earlier, Mr Alllen ran on removal.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was (inartfully) trying to make involves the historical use of citizen involved maintenance. It slowed to a trickle after the fight between Captn's Hank and Art, and all but ended when Bill Allen ran in 1992 (and won) on eviction.
DeleteAnd here we are again, trying to decide future use.
Why would citizens invest their resources if the next mayor could take them and give them away?
The biggest question in my mind is how to restore the structures in light of the fact that they will be subject to floodwaters periodically. It is important to use materials that will not be damaged by floodwater, and to make it easy to clean up the buildings after floodwater recedes.
ReplyDeleteFishing shack #7 now sits on the river bottom. It's completely comprised of PT wood and should last for many years, even underwater.
DeleteIf we have to worry about someone burning them down, I guess we'll also have to use fireproof building materials.
ReplyDeleteWhile our leaders dither, why not use the city pound for small vessel storage? Then anybody with a garden tractor (and access) could slip them in and out (for a fee) of a single slip And dock.
ReplyDeleteI like Joe's suggestion. I don't have enough room in my back yard on Union Street to store a kayak. I'd gladly pay for a convenient place to store one and/or dockage.
DeleteWhy, if motor boat operators pay the OMF Tax used to fund projects like this one, why must they end up with one less access point when operators that don't pay the tax have three?
Deletejkhunka, restoration in this case is not complicated. The shacks will be "restored" as they always have been, simply by maintaining them without fuss.
ReplyDeleteWorld Heritage Sites are being worked on all the time worldwide, where concerns for historical accuracy can become a philosophical question.
Ours is probably the simplest situation imaginable. We just need to shore them up, and the sooner the better (like under the current mayor).
Too bad you missed the SHPO official's visit when we discussed the issues surrounding "restoration." It was interesting and nebulous.
Why, if motor boat operators pay the OMF Tax used to fund projects like this one, why must they end up with one less access point when operators that don't pay the tax have three?
Delete