Monday, March 9, 2020

What a Difference Five Years Makes

A reader just informed me that the photograph accompanying yesterday's "'Historic Fishing Village' Update" was old. Indeed, it is. It was taken in the summer of 2015. He helpfully provided a picture of the same two shacks taken not long ago.

Photo: Bill Huston
While conversations about the demolition of some shacks and the preservation of others are ongoing, weather, neglect, and gravity are taking over.


  1. The first shack is a goner, but we've got detailed plans to shore up shack number 8 (in the distance), and without using any public money.

    That will not be enough to satisfy our critics, though, who are only satisfied by the sound of their own complaining.

    Among this coterie, one individual in a state of frustrated rage once cried out at me, "If we can't have them [the shacks], then nobody can!"

    That's the base attitude behind the criticism we're reading in these threads. All the rest is noise.

    1. What is the point of restoring that old shack? Seriously, is it to be like a museum piece, for people to look at, or are they supposed to go inside it? If we have little shacks down there for people to go inside and use, who is going to be down there to supervise and regulate the use? Will people rent them out by the hour, or pay to go inside them like an amusement park? Will they eat in there, do other things? If someone is to be paid to supervise the shacks, how much will they be paid? I really don't see the point of having shacks there locked up as artifacts, they are not that scenic, most of the are eyesores. If not locked up someone will have to be paid. Another paid city employee will not help the tax situation. It seems overly complicated.

    2. I've already said that the plan is to seal the shacks. It was the plan all along, as described in our 2018 DRI application.

      If you're just figuring this out then you're too late. You missed the boat. Why am I even explaining anything to you? You don't know a thing.

  2. Quick .Someone notify the Tourist Board,so they can make it a " have to see destination " Foget OLANA. HUDSON has it's very own Arabesque outhouse, and being so close to the sewer plant.

  3. HELP!!!

    We need everyone’s help who ever supported the DRI shacks project, and there were so many of you in the past!

    Today I made inquiries and nobody can tell me who substituted new project goals in the RFP for the objectives which won the award.

    It was possibly done during the last administration, and even by an unelected planning consultant. (But it was not Steve Kearney from Stantec who always, thoughtfully, kept us in the loop.)

    However these new features arrived, they’re already static to the newcomers now administering the project grant.

    So if you ever cared about the shacks, or even found yourself supporting the project during the DRI public workshops, please write to Michael Chameides, the Mayor’s Aide, and demand that these unaccountable and gratuitous goals be stricken from the RFP.

    From Sheena Salvino to Stantec to the troop of Department of State officials who visited Hudson, all knew that the award for the shacks was too small to afford a “Master Plan” for a new park, or “interpretive” signage. That was never in the plan!

    Whether it was intended or not, someone along the way inserted these project-killing ideas and now we can’t get rid of them without a concerted effort.

    We never knew about any added plans because no one after Sheena and Steve ever let us in. Evidently it’s still the case.