The news was first reported on Facebook. The shacks are being destroyed!
The plan for the redevelopment of the site as a "historic-and-recreational park," which was designated as one of the city's DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) projects, did not envision the preservation of all the shacks, but it did make recommendations for two of the four shacks that were demolished today. Shack 13 was to be a Shad Museum, and Shack 16 was to be "sealed . . . awaiting potential local tenant." Despite what was proposed, the four shacks are now gone.
Rob Perry, Superintendent of Public Works, told Gossips that the four shacks demolished today had no environmental issues, so it was possible to demolish them without great precaution and expense. He also said that the Department of State will not give Hudson an extension on its DRI funding (Hudson was a DRI winner in 2017) without showing progress on its two outstanding projects: the historic fishing village and the connectivity project. It seems the demolition of the four shacks was done to show progress.
Since we no longer know who comprises the DRI Committee, and its meetings, if indeed there are meetings, are no longer accessible to the public, it is not known what the final plan is for the site, but the plan that was proposed and accepted by the Department of State can be found here.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
Shacks 13 and 16 were the oldest, the latter appearing on the 1889 Sanborn map. But it was Shack 13 that had the most interesting story. In fact, Shack 13 was significant enough to launch a new approach to maritime archaeology within the NYS Office of Historic Preservation, a distinction which undoubtedly informed the City's decision to make it among first shacks razed (c.f. the Chicken Shack saga:
ReplyDeletehttps://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-saga-of-chicken-shack.html
I'd say of those who always wanted the shacks obliterated that there are just too many among us who secretly, or even overtly, despise history itself. Their instinct is to distort and destroy history in any way necessary to satisfy their ill-examined agonism. And where history of the vernacular is concerned, their excited negations betray a nasty penchant for iconoclasm.
In Hudson, this disdain for the vernacular developed among a decades-old local elite for whom cultural embarrassment was the shacks' greatest affront. Yet, is anything more illustrative of cultural insecurity than the urge to disappear every last trace of funkiness from local memory?
In past threads I argued with those who claimed that the plan to stabilize and secure select shacks was unworkable. But in every instance it soon became apparent that they didn't know any details of the actual plan. This was true of City officials, too, the City's CEO first among the critics who had little or no idea about the actual plan. To this day the CEO believes the plan required Certificates of Occupancy! So why was this official informing the DRI Committee so frequently?
It was a good plan and it got plenty of state support. But despite the fact that all of our funding was already secured, our biggest challenge was simply garnering local support.
"History is bunk, " Henry Ford famously said, and I can't think of the City of Hudson's more fitting epitaph for its erstwhile shacks.
As for the claim of "no environmental issues" regarding those already razed, was Mr. Perry thinking only of their remediation? Actually, Shack 13 had minimal asbestos even though its removal was projected to be extremely expensive when the DRI Committee unilaterally commandeered the budgeting.
But did the City acquire the necessary Freshwater Wetland Permits to remove any of the shacks? I'd say that's an important "environmental issue." Recall that in the environmental review for the HUD grant to divert the north-side's street runoff into North Bay, Mr. Perry, et al, lied at NEPA/SEQRA's specific question asking whether the shacks were already "eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places." In fact, they were already eligible, which is why I pursued a fraud investigation with HUD's Inspector General. (Afterwards, and by then during the Trump administration, the HUD IG's conclusions were improperly inaccessible to a FOIA request.)
Also of interest, what permissions will the City seek before it razes Shack no. 17? Approximately one-third of that shack is built on CSXT-owned property. Hmm, I suddenly feel a letter coming on.