This morning, I went by the shacks to survey the damage. A backhoe was at work, raking up the rubble, and a DPW vehicle was parked not far away.
Now that four of the seventeen shacks have been demolished, and the fate of the remaining shacks--indeed, of the entire site--is unclear, it seems a good time to review, however briefly, what has happened in the past decade. In 2012, when the City was about to take possession of the shacks, Lance Wheeler did a video, which can be found here.
Over the years, Gossips has published many posts about the Furgary Boat Club, a.k.a. North Dock, a.k.a. The Shacks, and the efforts to make it recognized and valued as a historic resource. In August 2015, as the result of a formal request submitted by an interested third party, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) determined that the site, whose history dates back to the 19th century, met the criteria for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places. Sad to say, there is no evidence that the City ever pursued the process of getting the site actually listed.
In 2018, a plan for preserving selected shacks and converting the historic fishing village into a public park was one of the projects selected for DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) funding. From the beginning, the amount of DRI funding allocated for the project was thought by City decision makers to be inadequate, and as a consequence, for the past six years, not much attention as been paid to the project. The demolition of the four shacks yesterday seems to suggest that the City is ready to move forward, but it is unclear what the plan now being pursued is.
The original application for DRI funding, which contains SHPO's Resource Evaluation and a conceptual plan for the park, can be found here.
In 2015, Trish Gabriel, NYS DEC Region 4 analyst and permitter, confirmed what her predecessor Michael Higgins told me in 2013: that a state permit would be required before removal of any of the shacks.
ReplyDeleteGabriel (8/4/15):
"A Freshwater Wetlands Permit is required for the removal of the Furgary Boat Club shacks because the shacks are located within a state-regulated wetland and its adjacent area."
Then-City attorney Cheryl Roberts confirmed the requirement and the issue was discussed by the Common Council, as shown in the Minutes.
In 2015, Gabriel had not yet received an application for the shacks' removal.
What are the chances that today's demolition is illegal? I'm thinking they're pretty good.
Gossips of Rivertown, 2015:
ReplyDelete"In an email submitted to the Common Council yesterday, Trish Gabriel, an environmental analyst for the Department of Environmental Conservation, stated: 'A Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for the removal of the Furgary Boat Club shacks because the shacks are located within a state-regulated wetland and its adjacent area. . . . No application has been received by the Department as of the date [August 4, 2015] of this email.'"
https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2015/08/what-does-it-mean.html
Didn't the wetland rules change multiple times since 2015? It might not even be applicable. Regardless, in todays political environment I doubt anyone would care, government seems to do whatever it wants, assassinate people, instigate wars, provide weapons and financing for genocide, so I doubt the removal of a few old rotting shacks to make room for a park is going to ruffle any feathers.
DeleteThe "wetland rules" are actually state LAWS. Nothing's changed in these laws, though the state has discontinued its wetlands review board. Actors must still follow the laws.
DeleteYour unending contempt for the shacks strikes me as being anti-art, and nearer to the authoritarianism of "government seem[-ing] to do whatever it wants."
Pray tell, what is your art theory or philosophy that celebrates such iconoclasm (meaning a breaker or destroyer of images).
In art historical terms, where are you coming from when you side so doggedly with unaccountable government vandalism?
I do hope the City is/will doing something to save the remainder of the shacks and will work on the historic designation. It would be a shame to loose it. Sort of like loosing the old 19thC village which was where HAVE is down below the court house on the way to 9G - I remember it from the early '80's before it was all torn down and it was quite something. I think you can get a glimpse of it in "Odds Against Tomorrow"
ReplyDeleteHi Jennifer, the two oldest and most historically interesting shacks were the first to be torn down.
DeleteYes I blame City officials. But I also blame residents who increasingly have no idea that even local government is of, by, and for The People. It's a dereliction of the public's duty, and it's not lost on our officials.
Simpsonville, it was.
DeleteNo comparison, most of the small shacks look like they were made of salvaged materials that could not be described as historical. Particle board, plywood, asphalt shingles, cement blocks, etc.
DeleteWrong again, SlowArt.
DeleteALL of the shacks were made of salvaged materials, some from historically significant structures themselves (e.g. local ice houses) which no longer exist.
It's evident that you number among those with a particular detestation and ignorance of the vernacular.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
So if I go to the dump and get some material from a historic house that was demolished and build a shack, that shack is transmuted into a historical structure? That's absurd. Have you been down there to look at those shacks in the past year? They are rotting, decrepit, falling down trash. The whole place is a public embarrassment.
DeleteYes SlowArt. That is the truth, as long as the shack that you're building is a century or more old.
DeleteThe shacks need maintenance because the City prohibited work on them. For someone like yourself who supports the City so blindly to now complain that they're in disrepair is a variety of chutzpah. Simply put, they're in disrepair thanks to secrecy in government which you tacitly support.
If it's not too much to ask, what is your artistic "philosophy" that it is iconoclastic, erases the past, and uncritically supports authoritarian government? Is that what passes for "art" these days? Looking around, I suppose that it is.
This could be a nice little park with some picnic tables and grills for outdoor cooking. Most of the shacks themselves are so rotten they aren't restorable. A book or collection of photographs seems a better place for preserving the history. Time to take most of them to the dump and move on if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteIt was never, ever, about "restoring" anything. Your failure to understand derails any reasonable discussion, unless that is the point.
DeleteI was writing about your approach to history yesterday, under Gossips' initial post on the razing of the shacks. At the risk of unseemliness, it's worth quoting myself:
"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."
I wrote that anticipating the nonsense readers would face in subsequent threads.
I repeat, our DRI proposal was never about "restoration," nor should it have been. But not everyone is cut out to grasp the nuances of historical stewardship.
Hi Tim, you speak the truth. There is a lot of apathy and seeming blindness to what goes on. the 'Concerned Citizens' group has long since disappeared.
DeleteI've been gone from Gossips for some time -- trying to save our local public school system. Taking a breather from that sisyphean task, I wander into the shacks debacle, which reminds of the Chicken Shack debacle, which was my introduction to Hudson corruption, 20-some years ago.... Carole, I'm very grateful that you are still plying the integrity waters as is Unheimlich, but so sad that Hudson governance has not changed. --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteBut why does it take someone who lives out-of-state and hundreds of miles away to alert NY state authorities to Hudson's apparently permit-less action? Isn't that absurd?
DeleteThis according to the state's DART system re state permitting:
https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/cfmx/extapps/envapps/index.cfm
Isn't the citizenry itself a major part of the problem?
I had my little part in the DRI giveaway when Mayor Tiffany appointed me to the committee that was to hand out the money and asked, at the first meeting, who was going to take minutes. "Are you volunteering," someone laughed. No I wasn't and so nobody did take minutes -- at least, not the kind that get before the public. How about an agenda for our meetings that get's posted to the paper. Nope. That's the long answer to your question about why it takes someone from out-of-state to alert the authorities (and the citizenry) to the truth.... It's also why, years later, nothing has happened -- or happened poorly: information is tightly controlled. --peter meyer
ReplyDelete