On Sunday, the Times Union published an article by Roger Hannigan Gilson called "Here's how the rising Hudson River will impact all of us." There isn't much in the article about the City of Hudson specifically, but it includes this map, on which Hudson appears with this annotation: "The micropolis is in the process of redesigning its public waterfront to incorporate expected tidal flooding."
"In the process of redesigning its public waterfront" seems a bit of an overstatement. Back in December, there was a gathering at the river, announced by Future Hudson on Instagram, to collect input for a "design framework for an urban riverfront park that regenerates the shoreline, responds to climate change, and maintains recreational access that is critical to the Hudson community." The announcement indicated that the City of Hudson was partnering in this undertaking with Hudson Valley Collaborative and eDESIGN DYNAMICS. According to the "year-long process" outlined in the announcement, there is to be another meeting next month, in April 2022, to "Share Preliminary Designs for Feedback." The entire planning process is anticipated to be completed by September 2022. That's the plan for Henry Hudson Riverfront Park.
There is also a plan being developed for the Hudson State Boat Launch, which came to light earlier this month. Hudson is one of five state boat launches to receive upgrades under the Hudson Eagles Recreation Area initiative. The upgrades planned for the boat launch are intended to expand access for boating, fishing, and wildlife observation, as well as improving resiliency.
As more information about these initiatives is available, Gossips will keep you informed.COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK
ReplyDeleteCarole,
I have to say there is something about the way you use those quotation marks that calls everything into question in a most unhelpful way.
Here are some links that can speak to those questioning quotations.
This one announced the project:
https://neiwpcc.org/2021/09/16/three-projects-announced-to-protect-hudson-river-estuary/
For convenience, I thought I'd quote the description:
"The Hudson Valley Collaborative received a $125,000 award for a project in the city of Hudson that will use a nature-based approach to protecting shoreline and tidal wetlands from sea-level rise, while maintaining active recreation and cultural activities. Hudson Valley Collaborative will seek community consensus on the design which will prioritize ecological solutions that restore the intertidal marshland, as well as the access points for public boat docks and launches. The final preliminary design will provide the necessary design, engineering, and permitting documentation for the city to finalize and construct the project."
This one links to the Climate Adaptive Communities in the Hudson River Estuary Program of the NYS DEC that is funding the work:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4920.html
Peter, are you aware that quotation marks are used to acknowledge that what is within them has been taken from another source? In this case, the Instagram announcement of the December event.
DeleteI'm guessing Peter knows that, and I think the point is that you use quotes to make a critique as opposed to giving straight info. There is a difference.
DeleteCarole,
DeleteI am.
Thank you for asking.
I think this is why the way you use them is so unhelpful.
This is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But, in this case, I think you’re being unfair in addition to inaccurate.
This Climate Adaptive Hudson Waterfront project is real.
The goal is to transform the physical shoreline of our city to adapt it to water level rise.
This powerful piece of good news is absent from this post.
Instead, you assert:
“’In the process of redesigning its public waterfront’ seems a bit of an overstatement.”
Did you know that the first sentence of a paragraph is called the topic sentence? Its goal is to introduce the main idea of the paragraph.
This means that every cherry-picked phrase in the remainder of the paragraph has been assigned the job of supporting your assertion.
And, because we impute the authority of primary sources onto things that are in quotations, we read it as if it were the truth.
But it’s not.
And you demonstrate no effort at discovering the truth through any form of reporting. f
So I take issue with your use of quotations here in a post that actively calls Roger Hannigan Gilson’s actual reporting and the transformational Climate Adaptive Waterfront project into question.
This is an opportunity lost.
You have the power to help us see positive change in our community.
Yet, in this case, you choose not to.
Instead, by marshaling a bunch of cherry-picked quotes to support your unsupported assertion that “it’s an overstatement” your work reinforces confusion, encourages apathy and sows distrust.
While I’m at it, your commenting policy is toxic, and while you may profit from it, it does us no good.
Thanks, Peter, for a well-written and spot-on comment
DeleteI don't know, it's kind of hard not to be cynical with that industrial gravel transfer station down there. So long as that's there, what's the point of spending money to improve the boat launch or anything else? It's like planting vegetable garden seeds in a toxic garbage dump. Nothing good will grow out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe line that Carole takes issue with is, in fact, exactly accurate.
DeleteThis project is the redesign of those aspects of the waterfront that are public property.
Roger, as an actual reporter, chose his words carefully.
Lotta "mansplanning"
ReplyDeleteLeonardo
DeleteThanks for reading!
Here is what I mean to explain: this is not journalism.
Roger Hannigan Gilson is a professional journalist.
He called me as part of the reporting he did on this story.
Carole questioned the veracity of his reporting.
She described his reporting on the goal of the project as “a bit of an overstatement.”
This snide sentiment is contagious.
Anyone who reads it, carries it with them.
Did Carole do any reporting? No. She did not.
She took words from an Instagram post and re-ordered them.
And this will be most people’s only encounter with news about this project.
I benefit from the work that Carole does.
But I do not pretend it’s anything other than an amateur blog.
It is not journalism.
Because local journalism is something we need.
It’s the absence of local journalism that has us all here, lulled into a false sense of civic engagement by the veneer of ‘journalism’ in the tone.
No, not mansplaining. Fact. It's not journalism!
DeleteAgree with P Winslow above. The rethinking does not address the noisy, dusty and, if Colarusso gets its way, far busier gravel loading operation right beside all this. The company is currently fighting for a conditional use permit because the operation is not aligned with the city’s waterfront vision or zoning. What’s more, Colarusso’s planned two-lane truckway will bring as many as 284 truck trips a day through protected wetlands, past Basilica, across our our busy tracks, and right past “Rick’s Knoll,” a lovely, climate-smart re-imagining of poor, shabby Rick’s Point. The redesign also does not incorporate the 4.4 acres the city owns south of Colarusso, a big potential public asset that, because of its politically inconvenient location, the city would rather we all forget.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought Colarusso could make way more money by converting the quarry into a recreational site. Has anyone ever done a feasibility study suggesting that?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but that would require imagination.
DeleteThank you Carole, for correctly contextualizing the meetings and efforts in question. "In the process of redesigning its waterfront" seems, in light of the fact that those undertaking the effort have appointed themselves to the task without a clear mandate, to be something of an overstatement, whether or not the effort is a good one.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I would like to understand the point you are trying to make, so I might respond. Can you be more clear?
DeleteThanks.