At the end of the Planning Board meeting on October 11, the board agreed to meet on Thursday, October 26, at 4:00 p.m., to discuss the comments received regarding the proposed Colarusso haul road. Gossips reported this information, erroneously thinking it would be a public meeting. I have since learned that the meeting, which will take place on Zoom, is to be an attorney-client session, not accessible to the public.
 |
| Photo: Our Hudson Waterfront |
Our Hudson Waterfront has been keeping a tally of the comments on the proposed haul road received by the Planning Board from 2019 to the present. All together, there have been 227 letters, 80 percent of which ask that the Planning Board deny the application. Many of these are fact-based letters expressing serious concerns about the impact of intensified industrialization at the waterfront. Of the 38 letters in support of the haul road, 26 were received this year. Of these, 12 primarily express support for Colarusso, 10 express the need to remove gravel trucks from city streets, and 4 voice "us vs. them" sentiments.
The letters to the Planning Board regarding the haul road can be found here. COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK
It doesn't hurt to say it again; Colarusso will be just fine without sending 80,000 pound tractor trailers over 240 year old city streets, through our most child dense neighborhoods, and across some of the busiest passenger rails lines in New York.
ReplyDeleteThe new gravel dock is just that, new. The catastrophizing about a storied local company, jobs, and their P/L? Undiluted BS.
Nevermind the costly lawsuit tantrums which have so perfectly illustrated their willingness to work - say nothing of respect - the democratic institutions of our City.
They've already commenced abusing our oldest Wards and it's beyond high time this City claps back with a final No. And yes, they'll still be able to afford to donate fireworks on flag day without our lying prostrate to their demands.
I'd like to know how many of the letters in support of the gravel dump came from people who don't even live in Hudson.
ReplyDeleteI picked a letter in support of Colarusso and checked the name against the assessment rolls. The letter states they are a 5 generation family implying residence in Hudson. None of the 5 surnames in the assessment rolls resides in Hudson.
DeleteLikely most of them. It's noticeable that the gravel dump supporters, both at the meeting and in writing, alway seem to leave out their address. I think more consideration should be given to the actual constituents of Hudson, you know, the ones who live closest to the situation and have a vested interest in the future and taxbase of the city - and who vote. Rather than those who live in Greenport, or moved south, and want to support the family they went to high school with, who will do just fine either way.
DeleteI don't show up to Greenport town board meetings to complain about where they want to build the next KFC. That's their business.
The waterfront is not just for the residents of Hudson. There is already a park there and they want to turn the Dunn building into public space. That is pretty smart considering how close it is to the tracks. That means a lot of vehicle traffic using the crossing also. Why isn't there a problem with that?
DeleteFalse equivalence
DeleteThat ten of the letters "express the need to remove gravel trucks from city streets" is unmistakable evidence of the letter writers' ignorance and credulousness. As we've pointed out for years, the only connection between the road proposal and Colarusso's abuse of city neighborhoods is the one created by the company itself, to achieve its desired two-lane private road in South Bay.
ReplyDeleteSince 2016 and the company's near-completion of the LWRP-endorsed road alternative [see link below], the Colarusso company has intentionally exploited the city's environmental justice areas to legitimize a proposal which would never have merited a hearing during the 2008-2011 waterfront planning (LWRP).
But the company's trickery and planned exploitation of local ignorance - both in and out of city government - was likely developed even before Colarusso Ventures purchased the property. Recall that in its earliest SEQRA submissions Colarusso pretended not to know about the city's zoning amendments enacted three years before the multi-million dollar purchase. At the time, many city officials merely smiled at this with no idea what Colarusso still had in store for Hudson.
Through widespread trickery (the US Army Corps of Engineers felt especially burned, though few will remember that) and through the continued exploitation of low-income neighborhoods and a never-ending stream of lazy and obtuse city leaders, this ever-patient mining company may yet prevail in overcoming the city's adopted LWRP.
The question is, do the current Planning Board members place their own insights and innovations above the multi-year waterfront planning which Colarusso willingly bought into for its own pre-planned privation?
My guess about the likely out-of-town letter writers is that they are shareholders and employees of the Colarusso company. Personally I have much to say on this subject, but because I no longer live in Hudson I thought it inappropriate to submit new correspondence to the Planning Board.
- Timothy O'Connor
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_mkceiQGykY/WEtaIr3dhZI/AAAAAAAA9pE/yQg-VeCeqm0tD_WMcIKjhwUJFDgeSzx5ACLcB/s1600/haul%2Broad%2B2015%2B2016.jpg
A visit to the waterfront on a weekday afternoon quickly clarifies this issue. There is one guy pushing gravel around with a front-end loader, and a bunch of truck drivers coming from somewhere out in the county. There is ZERO upside for Hudson in this situation, so why should we accept all the downside?
ReplyDelete