tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post73785002938746856..comments2024-03-28T17:55:31.180-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Last Night's Informal Council Meeting: Part 3Carole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-6275260584331699852017-01-11T14:04:06.332-05:002017-01-11T14:04:06.332-05:00The answer is in the Findings Statement, and not i...The answer is in the Findings Statement, and not in the incidental remarks of the LWRP. The Findings explains that the land transfer was a prerequisite before the NYSDOS could "approve" the waterfront program.<br /><br />The deal collapsed when it was discovered that the 9.9 acres (and not "approximately 7) was being sold to a third party. This became apparent in January 2013. <br /><br />Some of us knew later in 2013 that the LWRP wasn't submitted to the DOS, but what difference does it make who knew, or who didn't, or whether it was submitted or not? <br /><br />According to our own SEQR Findings, it couldn't be approved and that was that.<br /><br />The land transfer should never enter into any agreements which also involve conditional use permitting (CUP). That's just sickening to think we could be as stupid as that, and I doubt we are that stupid. That's got to be a rumor (and ask yourselves who it profits).<br /><br />Things will get out of hand quickly unless 1.) City officials finally begin to UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING ZONING [duh], and 2.) the same individuals who f**ked everything up the last time don't get in the way again. This type is forever with us, those who've gained no humility from their mistakes.<br /><br />Any question about previous illegal sales of our shorefront must wait until the LWRP process is back underway. There may even be a subcommittee to look at the issue.<br /><br />In this way we'll discover it's more efficacious to take things one item at a time, and always with the public's involvement. <br /><br />This mad rush we're seeing to conflate all subjects is very old, and very doomed. Most of it results from not understanding the existing zoning, so that we're even hearing calls to change the waterfront zoning! (This has echoes of Pelosi: we need to pass new zoning to find out what's in the zoning.)<br /><br />Old timers: let's please pass the baton to a younger, more patient, and more transparent generation. In my opinion, they're some of the smartest and wisest people we've seen in Hudson in a long, long time.<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-71322397489673116342017-01-11T12:11:04.349-05:002017-01-11T12:11:04.349-05:00If the transfer to Holcim of "most" of t...If the transfer to Holcim of "most" of the seven acres was illegal, why does not the City just demand it back from Holcim's successor in interest, Colarusso, and if it refuses, sue to get it back? <br /><br />I am confused as to just why the language in the LWRP to the effect that "Holcim has indicated it has no plans to use the 7 acres of land south of the port and may be amenable to entering into an agreement with the City whereby the company would grant to the City title or some form of title to the approximately 7 acres," caused the DOS to refuse to review the LWRP. Why would some precatory chatter about possibilities derail anything? Why? That makes no sense to me. I thought the story was that the then Mayor didn't like the LWRP, and just sat on it, rather than refer it to the DOS, and nobody noticed or something. <br /><br />Which is it, the Don Moore version, or the Mayor sat upon it version, or maybe neither of such versions? Inquiring minds want to know. And now the seven acre matter pops back up vis a vis negotiating with Colarusso in the context of issuing a CUP (to the extent the Hudson zoning code is not "marginalized" or eviscerated or some other unpleasant thing, by virtue of whatever findings are made by Greenport as the lead agency as to environmental issues). <br /><br />Some very careful legal research, and in writing, in a full dress memorandum of law, desperately needs to be done on all of these topics, among others, and there are more, many more. This oral chatter, whether by lawyers or anybody else, simply will not do, and should not be relied upon. Surely Hudson has learned that by now, hasn't it?<br /><br />I mean to get going myself, full blast on this, after I get completed some drafting some rather pressing legislation for the city on a couple of other matters, that need addressing ASAP before a derailment occurs. In the meantime, all I can do is whine and express angst. Not good, and not my style, but that is the way it is for the moment. Steve Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04588935402322108968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-33229652171095528782017-01-11T11:59:21.024-05:002017-01-11T11:59:21.024-05:00Wait, you want to reverse the order of the univers...Wait, you want to reverse the order of the universe? Next thing we'll have people applying for permits before they begin building their projects. Society could crumble! <br /><br />Take my advice and rethink your revolutionary schemes.<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-6271051727535663282017-01-11T08:58:24.799-05:002017-01-11T08:58:24.799-05:00Grant money in search of a good idea? Should be th...Grant money in search of a good idea? Should be the other way around.1Riparianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248602693560230557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-70638517852812632562017-01-10T20:20:15.404-05:002017-01-10T20:20:15.404-05:00(This is in no way a comment about Gossips' re...(This is in no way a comment about Gossips' reporting.)unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-75267380946412258432017-01-10T18:43:49.858-05:002017-01-10T18:43:49.858-05:00Setting a deadline on the waterfront planning?! Se...Setting a deadline on the waterfront planning?! Seriously?! Some people have learned absolutely nothing ...<br /><br />For the City's newer arrivals who are just getting involved, very little of what was apparently discussed on the subject of the LWRP last night has any relevance. It sounds more like a bunch of tired, old players mulling over the dead details.<br /><br />Going forward, I think we'll see the waterfront planning moving along briskly. Obviously we will use the best features of the previous plan as a sort of template, and maybe by the time it's over we'll have a new appreciation for the waterfront-related zoning that's already in effect (unfortunately that may require actual understanding).<br /><br />For those who are already wringing their hands, please desist from these unhelpful gestures. With the subcommittees reportedly already formed (many with "old players" among their members), the program is finally in the very best of hands. We are finally where we should have been decades ago, but for the meddling of self-proclaimed experts.<br /><br />The fact that the history of our waterfront program was previously derailed by autocracy, obtuseness and skulduggery is probably the best reason not to waste time looking back. <br /><br />Anyone who starts complaining that "it's taking so long," expect to be publicly flayed!<br /><br />That's my answer to where we stand as a community.<br />unheimlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00204285837938988668noreply@blogger.com