tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post4042760816021829337..comments2024-03-28T07:54:47.319-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Last Night at City HallCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-15869076445559852582019-08-25T14:31:59.819-04:002019-08-25T14:31:59.819-04:00See #1 above:
"1836 Letters Patent from the ...See #1 above:<br /><br />"1836 Letters Patent from the NYS Legislature to John Lorimer Graham."<br /><br />The entire 4.4 acres, once underwater, were filled legally. Even the type of fill was specified in the 1869 deed to the Delaware & Hudson Canal company (#4).<br /><br />Very soon we'll be defending free and easy access to our waterfront parcel from a predatory CSX and Amtrak, and this time the people will win.unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-14782801762379605522019-08-25T09:37:54.200-04:002019-08-25T09:37:54.200-04:00Of the $.64/gal that (only) county motor boaters p...Of the $.64/gal that (only) county motor boaters pay for access to the Faithful, $.15/gal goes to the feds, who are indifferent to the collective littoral liberty lost, to lying landfilling land gators.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-89073287475261959022019-08-25T07:24:37.827-04:002019-08-25T07:24:37.827-04:00Might Mr Dow know what I have long suspected, that...Might Mr Dow know what I have long suspected, that land beneath navigable (illegally) filled remains vested in the state?<br /><br />Neither New York nor this dirty little berg will defend our right to "free and easy" access to a federal waterway as long as there's more city and state tax involved.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-39087342067389496402019-08-23T12:27:23.260-04:002019-08-23T12:27:23.260-04:00Only Giffy can make everything right again.Only Giffy can make everything right again.unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-66218795299476181712019-08-23T11:53:29.930-04:002019-08-23T11:53:29.930-04:00If anyone wants to see the deed, it is easy to fin...If anyone wants to see the deed, it is easy to find (at the County Real Property Dept. on Warren Street) the indenture by which Lone Star handed over the 4.38 acres plus other parcels to the City of Hudson in 1969.<br /><br />If anyone wants a copy, email:<br /><br />hudsonbay@mac.com<br /><br />All subsequent transactions recorded in the County Clerk’s office regarding those 4.4+/- acres are automatically void, per Ken Dow’s thorough legal analysis, in the absence of an Act of the Legislature authorizing their sale.<br /><br />The State Legislative Librarian found no record of any such Act ever passing in Albany, and we find no reference in any Council minutes to the City even asking for one.<br /><br />There is no gray area on this: You can’t “alienate” public land on the river without the State’s explicit authorization.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the Valley Alliance is now in possession of a letter to the City from Arcadian Abstract, who had been approached by then-Hudson attorney Cheryl Roberts, to address Ken Dow’s memoranda.<br /><br />Arcadian agreed with Dow and said there was no need to retain them to do any further searches, as they would be redundant. What would be accomplished by doing it again, I can’t see. The City should probably just hire a lawyer with specific expertise in alienation of public land and finish the job. It’s time for the people to enjoy this piece of land, rather than for Hudson to keep allowing private corporations to occupy it.<br /><br />We will have more on this and other details soon. In addition to what the City coughed up in response to our FOIL, we are reviewing a bunch of other official documents which have come into our hands.Sam Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139366555091167364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-86262430362736322272019-08-23T07:49:57.603-04:002019-08-23T07:49:57.603-04:00Wait, why would the same company have to conduct a...Wait, why would the same company have to conduct a new title search? Wouldn't it be on file?unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-12434499072206666912019-08-22T14:48:31.516-04:002019-08-22T14:48:31.516-04:00A full title search of the 4.4-acre parcel would i...A full title search of the 4.4-acre parcel would include the initial Legislative grant from 1836, which means a trip to Albany for the Letters Patent. (These are not in the possession of Columbia County, so that's even more taxpayer money wasted.) <br /><br />Fortunately, Don Christensen did this work years ago and subsequently shared his research with all so that it wouldn’t be lost.<br /><br />Following is the chain of ownership, with numbers 2 through 7 easily located in our county archive:<br /><br />1. 1836 Letters Patent from the NYS Legislature to John Lorimer Graham.<br /> <br />2. Liber EE, pp. 97, 98: John Graham to Ambrose Jordan, 1840 (see NYS Laws of 1855, Chap. 195)<br /><br />3.Liber RR, pp. 64-66: Ambrose Jordan to The Hudson Iron Company, 1849 (referenced in Chapter 195 NYS Laws of 1855)<br /> <br />4. Liber 34, pp. 545-548: Hudson Iron Company to Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 1869<br /> <br />5. Liber 137, pp 241-243: John F. Brennan to Charles H. Pope, 1909<br /> <br />6. Liber 453, pp. 15, 16: Lone Star Cement Corp. to City of Hudson, 1969 (cites Pope metes and bounds of 1909)<br /><br />7. Liber 559, p. 533 City of Hudson to St. Lawrence cement Co., December 21, 1981<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-40638930663170896112019-08-22T14:14:30.851-04:002019-08-22T14:14:30.851-04:00The diligence of the Valley Alliance's prior w...The diligence of the Valley Alliance's prior work is undeniable. And his suggestion above is a very sensible way for the City to go. To spend tax dollars of hard pressed citizens to do all this work again is unthinkable. I hope the Mayor and Council President and Council will agree and go back and follow the trail. Surely the lawyers have copies. Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10964219905365378579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-17663003950403672242019-08-21T21:03:48.891-04:002019-08-21T21:03:48.891-04:00Sam: There are documents in file. You will recei...Sam: There are documents in file. You will receive them tomorrow. The file is not as robust as any of us might wish, but you will find it of value. And, yes, I professed not to know, because after six years, my memory of what substantiated my one line statement on October 20, 2013 is not such that I could recall the basis for my statement. Where I come from to do otherwise than say I am unable to confidently recall would be, among other things, to bear false witness. I do trust that you will release the documents publicly. They may help.Don Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05123927706785693239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-36450925033256981692019-08-21T15:32:49.591-04:002019-08-21T15:32:49.591-04:00(2) This is really crucial: A standard, perfunctor...(2) This is really crucial: A standard, perfunctory title search will not resolve the issue. The person responsible must be cognizant of the New York State laws regarding “alienation” (sale/lease) of public waterfront lands.<br /><br />The reason Hudson still owns this land is because the City failed to get an Act of the Legislature authorizing the transfer in the early 80s.<br /><br />The Valley Alliance reviewed all Common Council records for a year prior and a year after the transfer, and found no mention of asking the State’s permission.<br /><br />We then reviewed the deed and title information at the County Clerk’s office. Again, there was no mention of State authorization.<br /><br />Next, the Preservation League of New York asked the State Legislative Librarian on our behalf to search for any Act of the Legislature related to transfer of public land in Hudson at this location. Again, nothing was found.<br /><br />Next, we retained a reputable surveyor to read the deeds and place the location of the 4.4+/- acres on a plat created by Holcim of the Waterfront parcels (that is the image posted above by Carole).<br /><br />Lastly, we retained an attorney to check and vet all of our work. We packaged all this material with a cover letter from the lawyer, and sent it off to multiple agencies including the City in June 2013.<br /><br />Four months later, Moore announced that the Valley was right.<br /><br />Moore approached me in the halls of 401 State Street several weeks later, and personally gave his thanks—despite, in his words, our past “differences”—for “a real service” we’d performed for the City.<br /><br />However, when asked last month about obtaining the paperwork related to his announcement, Moore professed not to remember the topic, even when presented with a copy of the minutes documenting his statement.<br /><br />Now the City wants to do all that work all over again. It could, instead, look into who they paid (lawyers and title searchers) to do the research in 2013 into our discovery, and have them furnish the materials already generated, rather than spending more tax dollars all over again.<br /><br />If the City somehow comes forward with a different opinion the second time around, it would be a true scandal.<br />Sam Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139366555091167364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-86578495828627757452019-08-21T15:23:59.498-04:002019-08-21T15:23:59.498-04:00(1) Re: the “cannot be found” part: Peter Jung has...(1) Re: the “cannot be found” part: Peter Jung has spoken with both of the former City Attorneys involved with (a) the 2013 search and (b) the 1982 sale. Both told him that there *is* a file in City Hall with all the documentation upon which the 2013 announcement was based.<br /><br />Interesting that it now can’t be found.<br /><br />The minutes of the Council of October 2013 clearly record that Don Moore announced the City had done a title search, and determined that “we do own” the 4.4 acres.<br /><br />Those minutes were ratified, without any comment or emendation, at the following meeting in November 2013. (Irony: the motion was seconded by Cappy Pierro). I also have retained extensive records of written reactions to the announcement by several Alderman.<br /><br />The City Planning Board also recently received a detailed memorandum from another former attorney paid by the City, again setting forth exactly why the 4.4 acres still belongs to Hudson.<br /><br />Only in Hudson does something have to be verified multiple times, with certain chagrined partisans getting selective amnesia.Sam Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139366555091167364noreply@blogger.com