One of the voices calling for the Planning Board to grant Colarusso its permits of that of Alderman Shershah Mizan (Third Ward). For a month now, this sign has appeared in front of his property at the corner of Fairview Avenue and Green Street. Even before the sign appeared, Mizan had been trying to persuade his colleagues on the Common Council to recommend that the Planning Board approve the conditional use permits.
A moving force behind the pressure to get the gravel trucks off the streets by granting Colarusso the needed permits is Linda Mussmann, Fourth Ward supervisor and co-director of Time & Space Limited (TSL). In June, Mussmann sent letters to people who live on Green Street and Columbia Street, the route of the Colarusso trucks through the city. In the letters, Mussmann stated: "I am organizing an effort to have people speak out about the Gravel Trucks that pass near your door daily here in Hudson, NY. . . . This traffic can move if the Hudson Planning board will give them the permits that Colarusso seeks to seek [sic] an alternative route--thereby removing the gravel trucks from Greene St."
In recent weeks, Mussmann has been posting videos on her Facebook page featuring people who live or work on lower Columbia Street talking about the tyranny of the gravel trucks in their neighborhood and calling on the Planning Board to grant Colarusso its conditional use permits to get the gravel trucks off the streets.
Last week, The Valley Alliance did a mailing also calling for an end to the gravel trucks but arguing for a different means to achieve the goal: deny the permits.
For too long, gravel mining companies have put Hudson at risk by running heavy, dngerous gravel trucks to the Hudson Waterfront. Now we have a chance to put a stop to it. Colarusso did work on the dock without getting the necessary permits. This gives the Hudson Planning Board the power to end these deliveries.
Without access to the dock, the trucks have nowhere to go. But if instead the permit were approved, trucks would continue on Broad Street and through the protected South Bay, still creating hazards for pedestrians, cars, trains, businesses & homes nearby and harming the environment.
Colarusso has had more than enough special treatment from previous City administrations. Denying the permit protects everyone--both the safety of our families on the streets and the environment. The Waterfront can then generate more jobs, recreation, housing and other benefits for the whole community, rather than all benefits going to one out-of-town company.The mailing asks the recipient to detach the post card, sign it, and mail it to Planning Board chair Betsy Gramkow.
The Planning Board meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14. It is expected that access to the Zoom meeting will be published on the City of Hudson website sometime on Tuesday.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
It would be negligent not to mention a third alternative which has the best pedigree of all.
ReplyDeleteOut of the gravel truck study conducted between 2008 and 2011, the City has already committed itself to a plan and taken significant steps towards achieving it (from creating a new Zoning District to passing a whole slew of local laws).
The only problem with the 2011 plan is that a new property owner, in 2014, wanted more – a lot more – and simply ignored the City Code to achieve an outcome never envisioned in the 2008-2011 study.
Now it seems that residents and irresponsible local officials aim to accomplish what the landowner couldn’t, by simply abandoning a plan which was formally adopted by the city in 2011.
And who made that arrogant decision? Was it Linda Mussman? Jeff Baker? The Valley Alliance? The Gossips of Rivertown? All of the above?
Thanks to the landowner’s illicit roadwork in 2015, the 2011 plan is nearly completed. You'd think that would merit a mention here. I guess not.
Nor is the Chairman of the Planning Board under any obligation to appear before the Common Council. That’s just more arrogant nonsense!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I never received the Valley Alliance's mailing or else I definitely would have sent the postcard in requesting to deny the Permit. We've been held up long enough by Colarusso's shenanigans. Change of address, I guess.
ReplyDeleteDeny the permit and damn the consequences?
DeleteDon't forget this same crowd's insistence in 2011 on using eminent domain, except the follow-through was so poorly considered that the only effect of the popular cure-all was to rob the public's attention from the immediate challenges of an ongoing SEQR review.
It was disastrous, but thanks to a concerted effort the failure quietly vanished down the memory hole.
Back to the present, please explain why denying the permit without thought for the likely unintended consequences is not a repeat of 2011?
The best advice then bears repeating today: if we don't plan beyond our immediate feelings of self-righteousness we risk losing everything, more than likely before a judge.
No one insisted on eminent domain in 2011. It was merely pointed out that the City had (and still has) that option.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the poster is more interested in revisionist and selective memory to valorize only his own point of view. He does not want this resolved unless he can take sole credit for the solution.