Frederick's point is that, so long as trucks have to travel from the end of the haul road to the railroad crossing at Broad Street, screening the dock area is of little consequence. What needs to happen is moving the crossing farther south.
 |
| Photo: Matthew Fredericks |
When Privatera has finished his discourse on the topic, Walter Chatham, Planning Board chair, told him, "What we would like is an agreement that you would cooperate if we were to pursue it in the future."
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK
I'm seeing too much of a conciliatory attitude from the Planning Board. They ought to be laying down the terms of any conditional use permit, rather than hoping that the applicant will make nice. It's all about empowerment, which has always been sadly lacking hereabouts.
ReplyDeleteI attended the Planning Board meeting and this comment exactly fits the impression I had.
DeleteIt was as if the promised screening alone put the City halfway towards a suddenly desired compromise.
But The Compromise already happened with the 2011 Zoning Amendments. When the present owners bought the property in 2014, they bought the predecessors' compromise along with it. They knew what they were buying when they read the Zoning Code.
To now seek out new compromises, that feels like someone's moving the goal posts for residents who already defended their interests and accepted their own compromises eight years ago.
To those who are now so eager to be conciliatory, I'd like to ask where were you eight years ago?
If you were not in Hudson then, and part of this story, then why does your vision take precedence over Peter's and my longtime efforts?
Some people suppose that a spirit of compromise makes them look open-minded and generous, but if it's ill-timed or inappropriate then that's easily an example of arrogance.
Instead of "free and easy" river access we get a single goat path with an ever increasing cost.
ReplyDeleteWow, I cry every time I put 12 gallons in my little 50 hp tin boat. Imagine fueling up a 2000 hp tug.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I call the "Mr. Moore" Tax, continue paying $.64/gallon while further shore (non)use is determined by land lovers.
To me, the worst "Don Moore tax" is the absurd expense and inconvenience endured by residents who earlier tried to warn a Council President Moore that his 2011 zoning amendments were flawed.
DeleteHis response? Suppression of public participation and a delayed price tag. (In 2019 the court ordered all parties to pay their own legal bills.)
The zoning in South Bay stills needs clarification, but it should be clear to all that contempt for residents by City officials can have serious economic consequences.
Ginna Moore who's running for Alderman in the 1st Ward demonstrates a similar contempt; it often appears that her most passionate interest is the quashing of dissent.
Some people never learn, but who do I mean here? The power couples or The People?
We'll soon find out.
When the City and its Development Corporation work in concert to disenfranchise a 100% member supported NFP in favor of others needing perpetual funding, somebody should go to jail, but this is NY and nobody ever go to jail, best we can do is let them know we know.
DeleteWhy after sixty-two years of taxes intended for "improved" river access, why should Colarusso have to finance improvements?
ReplyDeleteWho's mismanaged these $$$? Where'd the money go?