The draft request for expressions of interest (RFEI) for the solar farm being proposed for City-owned land on North Second Street is now available on the City of Hudson website. To access the document, click here.
Still in the RFEI, the two properties listed include both halves of the landfill. (I was under the impression that 100.17-1-1 was to be removed.)
The very idea of placing such an eyesore atop the capped landfill is beyond ignorant. It's unconscionable. It's the equivalent in nature of what urban "renewal" did for Hudson in the 1970s.
And to think that some bean-counter from Kinderhook lets himself believe he's thinking "environmentally" on behalf of Hudson residents. Wrong! No thanks! Go away!
I've been reassured by Council President DePietro that the draft RFEI was entirely in error, and that there's no plan whatsoever to site a solar array on the landfill. Well, whew!
So far, only the property behind Charles Williams Park is an intended solar site, which always seemed reasonable to me if the eroding clay is not a problem.
After that, the vacant lot on the riverside of 2nd Street is a potential second site.
As for the vacant lot on 2nd, I reminded Tom that the last design plan produced for the Columbia Land Conservancy included the lot as a possible parking-and-entrance to the undeveloped "North Bay Recreation and Natura Area." In 2014, the City of Hudson and Columbia County finalized a Memorandum of Understanding in which each pledged to collaborate moving forward on the plan in partnership with the conservancy.
For those who've forgotten, much of the money for the planning was provided by the Hudson River Foundation as part of the settlement with the Athens Generating Plant; along with funding from the NYS OPRHP, the county, and the Catskill-Olana Mitigation Fund.
Whenever development in and around North Bay is considered, I trust that city residents will not forget the plans of these collective grantors and the city's and county's 2014 MoU.
The opening argument earlier this year was to place a solar array on the City-owned land just north of Charles Williams Park.
The lack of opposition to this north-of-the-park plan came as no surprise, so the usual cabal of sneaks in city and county government took things a step further. In May, the capped landfill suddenly appeared in a plan to reprise the county's 2016 proposal which had been roundly rejected by the city.
Next we'll be told the landfill's inclusion in the RFEI was merely an oversight, that there wasn't enough time to remove it from the document or some such b.s. The landfill made it in the RFEI nevertheless.
So we're being manipulated and worn down by elements inside and outside city government, managerial types with zero imagination and little at stake locally.
Commissioner Bujanow doesn't even live in Hudson. On behalf of county-level cronies who also live elsewhere, he'll continue to push this same divisive proposal even if it generates local resentment and antagonism. Indeed, opposition is already figured in; what do they care if city residents are used as fodder?
It's important that proposals like this serve the community as a whole (in which case the north-of-the-park plan was fine), but such considerations never figure into the plans of manipulative special interests.
Locals should do everything in their power to retain control over how this sort of development is managed on City- and IDA-owned lands.
The county's persistence through its current agent, DPW Commissioner Bujanow, is similar to the method used by the Colarusso company.
In both cases, previous city governments either rejected or profoundly qualified proposals which many residents found objectionable. Later, through sheer doggedness and the help of well-placed dissemblers in City government, the same proposals return to us as new wine in old bottles.
As always, the greatest problem is Hudson's wishy-washy residents who forget they're looking at the same plans they rejected last time around.
To cloud things further, and despite a losing lawsuit against the city (the delay of which improperly reordered two different environmental review processes), the Colarusso company is now complaining that its patience with the current Planning Board is being tested.
No doubt we'll soon hear similar chutzpah from County government about its planned solar array atop the city-owned capped landfill.
What other cynical parties in City government are promoting solar for the landfill? They should hear from residents in no uncertain terms.
Still in the RFEI, the two properties listed include both halves of the landfill. (I was under the impression that 100.17-1-1 was to be removed.)
ReplyDeleteThe very idea of placing such an eyesore atop the capped landfill is beyond ignorant. It's unconscionable. It's the equivalent in nature of what urban "renewal" did for Hudson in the 1970s.
And to think that some bean-counter from Kinderhook lets himself believe he's thinking "environmentally" on behalf of Hudson residents. Wrong! No thanks! Go away!
I've been reassured by Council President DePietro that the draft RFEI was entirely in error, and that there's no plan whatsoever to site a solar array on the landfill. Well, whew!
DeleteSo far, only the property behind Charles Williams Park is an intended solar site, which always seemed reasonable to me if the eroding clay is not a problem.
After that, the vacant lot on the riverside of 2nd Street is a potential second site.
As for the vacant lot on 2nd, I reminded Tom that the last design plan produced for the Columbia Land Conservancy included the lot as a possible parking-and-entrance to the undeveloped "North Bay Recreation and Natura Area." In 2014, the City of Hudson and Columbia County finalized a Memorandum of Understanding in which each pledged to collaborate moving forward on the plan in partnership with the conservancy.
For those who've forgotten, much of the money for the planning was provided by the Hudson River Foundation as part of the settlement with the Athens Generating Plant; along with funding from the NYS OPRHP, the county, and the Catskill-Olana Mitigation Fund.
Whenever development in and around North Bay is considered, I trust that city residents will not forget the plans of these collective grantors and the city's and county's 2014 MoU.
The opening argument earlier this year was to place a solar array on the City-owned land just north of Charles Williams Park.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of opposition to this north-of-the-park plan came as no surprise, so the usual cabal of sneaks in city and county government took things a step further. In May, the capped landfill suddenly appeared in a plan to reprise the county's 2016 proposal which had been roundly rejected by the city.
Next we'll be told the landfill's inclusion in the RFEI was merely an oversight, that there wasn't enough time to remove it from the document or some such b.s. The landfill made it in the RFEI nevertheless.
So we're being manipulated and worn down by elements inside and outside city government, managerial types with zero imagination and little at stake locally.
Commissioner Bujanow doesn't even live in Hudson. On behalf of county-level cronies who also live elsewhere, he'll continue to push this same divisive proposal even if it generates local resentment and antagonism. Indeed, opposition is already figured in; what do they care if city residents are used as fodder?
It's important that proposals like this serve the community as a whole (in which case the north-of-the-park plan was fine), but such considerations never figure into the plans of manipulative special interests.
Locals should do everything in their power to retain control over how this sort of development is managed on City- and IDA-owned lands.
The county's persistence through its current agent, DPW Commissioner Bujanow, is similar to the method used by the Colarusso company.
ReplyDeleteIn both cases, previous city governments either rejected or profoundly qualified proposals which many residents found objectionable. Later, through sheer doggedness and the help of well-placed dissemblers in City government, the same proposals return to us as new wine in old bottles.
As always, the greatest problem is Hudson's wishy-washy residents who forget they're looking at the same plans they rejected last time around.
To cloud things further, and despite a losing lawsuit against the city (the delay of which improperly reordered two different environmental review processes), the Colarusso company is now complaining that its patience with the current Planning Board is being tested.
No doubt we'll soon hear similar chutzpah from County government about its planned solar array atop the city-owned capped landfill.
What other cynical parties in City government are promoting solar for the landfill? They should hear from residents in no uncertain terms.