tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post1552024621480112830..comments2024-03-28T14:37:17.081-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Hudson, Greenport, and the Haul RoadCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-2349668794434037992017-01-01T19:56:20.488-05:002017-01-01T19:56:20.488-05:00And if the rails traveled that straight line, Huds...And if the rails traveled that straight line, Hudson would regain priceless miles of waterfront.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-15292541434090283852017-01-01T17:45:43.726-05:002017-01-01T17:45:43.726-05:00Can we agree that third street is straight line, t...Can we agree that third street is straight line, tangent to the mouth of south and north bays?1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-73740160096363929952016-12-31T11:20:21.723-05:002016-12-31T11:20:21.723-05:00The RR didn't leave black bridge to be nice. W...The RR didn't leave black bridge to be nice. Wherever they crossed roads, blocked docks or entrapped bays, they couldn't reduce access to zero. They left that obligation to City Hall.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-52699076172168586962016-12-31T09:08:05.731-05:002016-12-31T09:08:05.731-05:00Ha! But a bearing of N 57º W, which is the directi...Ha! But a bearing of N 57º W, which is the direction specified in the 1785 grant, is surprisingly parallel to the Mt. Merino Road where it leaves Rte 9-G. So if you go 180' from shore in that area, you're back on dry land pretty quickly at Mt. Merino.unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-9757958360676200522016-12-30T19:23:00.289-05:002016-12-30T19:23:00.289-05:00ˌpərpənˈdikyələr/
adjective
1.at an angle of 90° t...ˌpərpənˈdikyələr/<br />adjective<br />1.at an angle of 90° to a (third street) given line, plane, or surface.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-72786898346819585112016-12-30T15:46:45.956-05:002016-12-30T15:46:45.956-05:00I see, a line departing from 3rd. (I beg Euclid...I see, a line departing from 3rd. (I beg Euclid's pardon.)<br /><br />Don't you mean such a line which would run "in a course north fifty-seven degrees west" and end 180 feet from shore?unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-83109793198300428312016-12-30T15:19:47.316-05:002016-12-30T15:19:47.316-05:003rd Street and Black Bridge are parallel, so they ...3rd Street and Black Bridge are parallel, so they only intersect in a non-Euclidian world. (I love that world.)unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-6888173953418579172016-12-29T19:53:20.200-05:002016-12-29T19:53:20.200-05:00Mapmaker please, precisely where on third would a ...Mapmaker please, precisely where on third would a perpendicular line intersect with the black bridge?1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-18970057787440356602016-12-29T13:51:49.836-05:002016-12-29T13:51:49.836-05:00That may be the crux, "assuming that the gran...That may be the crux, "assuming that the grant was for public use lands."<br /><br />Was that a condition before 1836?<br /><br />And if it was a condition by 1872, did it apply to already-established, but now abandoned uses? <br /><br />I don't think so.unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-8135465481358956742016-12-29T13:25:45.307-05:002016-12-29T13:25:45.307-05:00legitimately granted by the legislature in 1836 an...legitimately granted by the legislature in 1836 and 1872...<br /><br />Little known fact: assuming that the grant was for public use lands, once the rails are removed the public use ends and the property reverts back to the original owner, the people of NY.<br /><br />On the shaded side of Warren, a grant app had to be approved to acquire land formerly under water.<br /><br />Are there different rules for the sunny side?<br />1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-4827406819857855652016-12-29T11:25:43.147-05:002016-12-29T11:25:43.147-05:00It's a private causeway sitting on formerly un...It's a private causeway sitting on formerly underwater lands which were legitimately granted by the legislature in 1836 and 1872.<br /><br />Now riddle me this sea lawyer, why did the Proprietors and their children (including O. Wiswall) petition the State for lands beneath South Bay, but not do the same for North Bay?<br /><br />For North Bay they drew up deeds - fake deeds - but when it came to the South Bay they were upstanding. Why?unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-2569818454569826322016-12-28T22:27:59.608-05:002016-12-28T22:27:59.608-05:00What a nightmare. Thank you 'unheimlich' ...What a nightmare. Thank you 'unheimlich' for keeping track of a very complicated matter and shining the light the officials who are sitting on their duffs and turning blind eyes while the public likely gets screwed again and thanks to the concerned public who did show up and are on the case.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14147241257381928706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-28774974592123372472016-12-28T20:23:46.306-05:002016-12-28T20:23:46.306-05:00Riddle me this mapmaker, if the city is squatting ...Riddle me this mapmaker, if the city is squatting on illegally filled land in north bay, who "owns" the road through south bay?1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-82220677746770118492016-12-28T11:03:33.111-05:002016-12-28T11:03:33.111-05:00Definitions (cont.)
The landowner is apparently c...Definitions (cont.)<br /><br />The landowner is apparently clueless that any changes made to any part of its extended dock operations - which includes the causeway, the wharf, everything - requires a conditional use permit for the entire property. <br /><br />Either from design or ignorance, however, they've repeatedly characterized their multiple actions as "maintenance," or continuing operations, an umbrella definition which has rationalized multiple modifications to the causeway, significant work on the wharf, the creation of a gigantic revetment into the river, and lately the shipping of new materials.<br /><br />In ignorance of its own Zoning Code, the City accepted the landowner's erroneous characterizations (allegedly) as if maintenance itself doesn't also require a permit since the 2011 zoning amendments.<br /><br />Another problem with definitions crops up in the Environmental Assessment Forms. That's plural - forms - because challenges to a string of EAFs called the applicant's definitions into question. <br /><br />There were multiple revisions to the EAF since the first one submitted in April (the current iteration from August is still filled with demonstrably false claims!), but one narrative to which the engineer desperately clings was a direct result of that first EAF, a document so idiotic it would be superseded again and again by later EAFs.<br /><br />In the project engineer's telling, there's no federal permitting required for the action. But that determination from the Department of the Army was based on the April EAF.<br /><br />So rather than saying that the project engineer "noted that no permits were need from the Army Corps of Engineers or [consequently] the NYS Department of State," it is more accurate to say he alleged it, merely.<br /><br />Had the City been allowed to speak last night, it would have reminded Greenport of the last communication Greenport received from the Army Corps of Engineers. It was in its letter of August 29th that the Corps first referenced a later iteration of the EAF than the one it received in April. <br /><br />Consequently, the Corps was alerting Greenport, and the project sponsor who was copied, of the potential need for a federal permit after all: "[T]he proposed activities may require a Department of the Army permit" (8/29/16 letter from ACE in "Project Narrative").<br /><br />So if the Greenport Planning Board doesn't even read its mail from the Federal government, which was also reproduced in the Project Narrative, what hope is there that they'll read a letter from a City of Hudson attorney?<br /><br />It appears that the Greenport Planning Board is taking this matter less seriously than our own Planning Board, which can barely get a word in edgewise, let alone get its questions answered.<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-59710658452028591892016-12-28T11:03:20.707-05:002016-12-28T11:03:20.707-05:00In his December 22 letter to Greenport, Mr. Khosro...In his December 22 letter to Greenport, Mr. Khosrova already presented the dock operations - and also questions about the Broad Street railroad crossing - as proper subjects of a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). We can glean from his question at the end that the Greenport Planning Board hasn't addressed his letter, but did they even read it?!<br /><br />Where does South Front Street begin, anyway? I saw an earlier version of the site plan where "Front Street" wrapped down along the causeway itself, which is obviously to the advantage of the applicant. (Related: where's the actual City limit at the east causeway? The project engineer alleges that it lies farther west than where it can possibly be, which minimizes his footprint within the City.)<br /><br />The City must define absolutely everything, or else allow the project sponsor and its engineer to define everything for us. <br /><br />First among these "definitions" is the overall narrative, which in the project sponsor's hands is false and amounts to a kind of extortion against City residents. That's the simplistic either/or which has worked so well in the past: trucks on City streets versus giving the company everything it wants.<br /><br />Going forward, we will take possession of the narrative. <br /><br />Our subject is Environmental Justice, and the importance for Environmental Justice that before any consideration of an industrial expansion at the City's waterfront commences, that the Common Council finally draft a Resolution banning gravel trucks west of 3rd Street. <br /><br />We can get to the next step next, but we can't get anywhere without a draft Resolution. <br /><br />This should have been done years ago. And actually, if we look back into the Common Council's notes, we may find the start of something we can build upon.<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.com