Tuesday, August 1, 2017
What Did We Propose?
Although the time allowed for preparing the application for the DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) was limited, there were several public meetings about it, and people had a sense that they knew what was being proposed--until a week before the application was due, when there were no further meetings or communication. When the application had been submitted, and everyone involved was able to take a breath, Gossips asked when the final application could be seen by the public. First, I was told that it included financial information from businesses that had to be redacted. Then, a few weeks ago, I was told that the confidential information had been redacted, but it had been decided by the mayor and the Common Council president not to let the public see the application until after the decision had been made. This morning I learned that the application had been "totally rewritten" in the six days before it was due.
Now that the award has been announced, the application is available on the DRI website, and we can all see how it has been proposed that the $10 million be spent. Click here to view the document. The image above is from the application.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Somebody squeezed the language enclosed below into that grant application. I'd like to know which city officials and which neighboring business owners support the expansion of Colarusso:
ReplyDelete"City officials and neighboring business owners support the expansion of Colarusso. The Planning Board is working cooperatively with the company and neighboring property owners to find impact mitigation solutions that meet zoning requirements and environmental regulations while allowing the business to flourish."
What astounding b.s.! That's totally out of touch, but maybe it was to snare the grant.
DeleteFor example, there's no truth whatsoever in this assertion:
"The [Colarusso] purchase was made under terms of a conservation easement on the waterfront and the wetlands."
DeleteBy hook or crook, the City was going to get its filthy sewer separation project which will be so damaging to the North Bay.
How damaging will it be? Impossible to know, since the previous Common Council cheated on the SEQR by voting the plan exempt from any environmental review.
We citizens decided against an Article 78 because we thought we could kill the project by making a criminal complaint to the federal government. The evidence of fraud was probative, and last week we learned what that's worth. That's because last week the federal agency in question released the $600K to the City for the polluting proposal.
But today the State awarded the City $600K to complete the same filthy plan.
Where are the 527 people who signed a petition against this plan two summers ago? What happened to the interest in green infrastructure?
The DRI could have led with a vision which included 21st c. infrastructure, but instead we just got awarded twice to dump half the City's urban runoff straight into the North Bay.
So dumb, and so lucrative.
In the comment I removed above, I was incorrect that the sewer separation plan was awarded twice. I mistook the category in the DRI which was simply listing recent infrastructure awards.
DeleteOf course that changes nothing about the prospects of the sewer plan, which will degrade the North Bay every time it rains.
The sewer plan was the atavistic solution of the Hallenbeck administration, a plan with none of the sophistication of our previous sewer separation plan from 1984!
The new sewer plan which is about to be implemented was achieved by deceit and actual fraud. It was deliberately bereft of public participation, and it received no environmental review.
We should be installing green infrastructure instead. We don't have to accept HUD's $600K, especially after yesterday's news from Albany.