SamPratt.com: Environment

49 entries categorized "Environment"

August 25, 2010

Letter to the Editor

The following “Our View” column was submmitted today by The Valley Alliance, in response to recent attacks by Hudson Mayor Rick Scalera and former Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee chair Linda Mussmann of Time & Space Ltd.

It’s the people’s waterfront,

not a political football

by Sam Pratt & Peter Jung
Co-directors, The Valley Alliance

For the Valley Alliance, the future of the Waterfront isn't about personalities, or who wins and loses. That future should be all about securing the most economic, social, educational, cultural and ecological benefits for a broad spectrum of residents. The Waterfront has terrific potential to be the prime vehicle for spreading prosperity to all segments of the community.

Compared with the draft now on the table, the Waterfront plan we favor would create many more jobs, local tax relief, recreational and commercial opportunities. It would foster more cohesion among divided groups, and also eliminate the heavy truck traffic which Holcim has imposed on our downtown. Plus, a more community-minded approach could be enacted both efficiently and legally.

Our singular goal is to ensure an outcome that will stand Hudson and the region in good stead for decades to come, long after the current personalities and politics are forgotten. We have openly set forth these principles at our website:

www.hudsonwaterfront.org

Meanwhile, the Valley Alliance is just one of many who have participated in good faith in the Waterfront process. Others, from the Village of Athens to the Olana Partnership to the LWRP Task Force to nearly 900 residents have expressed concerns about where the draft plan is headed. Also this week, the Greenport Planning Board asked tough questions and insisted on more information from Swiss-owned Holcim and Connecticut-based O&G, the two companies at the center of all the ruckus. (Both have had major recent worker safety problems, by the way.) It’s not so easy to accuse the Greenport board of either delaying tactics or being “newcomers.”

But lately, readers don't hear much about all those other groups and peoples’ concerns. Instead, the pages of the Register-Star and the halls of government have become the scene of outbursts from Rick Scalera and Linda Mussmann, each in a personal rage against "Peter and Sam" or "Pratt and Jung."

Unfortunately, these explosions of anger suggest that they consider the Waterfront only good for one thing: settling political scores. Their motivation to personalize the issue are obvious. Scalera failed to site both a toxic waste operation and a massive cement operation in South Bay. Mussmann betrayed her own principles to cozy up to the cement folks, wrongly imagining this would help her third attempt to become Mayor turn out differently from the previous two. So both have seized on the Waterfront as their best chance to get even, all at the expense of the people.

That’s not a sensible approach to public policy. Readers are free to take Scalera and Mussmann's outbursts at face value, though it defies reason how a group formed several months ago could have delayed a plan that's been in the works for 23 years. And of course, it was politicos like Scalera who didn't want the LWRP to move forward an inch from 1998-2005, as it might have hurt campaign contributors at St. Lawrence Cement.

For those who like to make up their own minds based on first-hand information, Mid-Hudson Media’s Rob Johanson has documented our half-hour presentation to Hudson business leaders last month. These online videos also include a frank, hourlong question-and-answer session:

www.midhudsonmedia.com/clients/valleyalliance

One key question from that session was asked by local mortgage broker Seth Rapport, who wondered how the public might acquire the remainder of the waterfront for more beneficial uses. We clearly discuss how this can be done without any use of eminent domain, through a partnership of City, State, Federal, nonprofit, and private funding.

More defeatist voices like those of the Mayor and Ms. Mussmann don't want the public to hear realistic and nuanced solutions. Instead they want to inflame and limit debate by focusing n personal vendettas and extreme either/or options, such as industry vs. recreation or eminent domain vs. property rights. That’s just the usual Hudson divide-and-conquer politics. There are many shades of gray along those spectrums, and also creative solutions which don't fit into their predictable us vs. them pattern.

Meanwhile, falling in line with instructions from their City Hall patrons, the city's attorney and planner (who've just been awarded another $15,000 to grade their own work) have worsened this unhelpful dynamic by repeating these false either/or choices. In over 100 pages of comments, we (like many others) have soberly set forth many omissions and misreprestations in the draft, such the lack of a true Harbor Management Plan necessary to ensure boater safety.

Now the City is in the last stages of the process, when it's required to review and incorporate public input. Legally, that required step can't be skipped over. Yet the City's hired guns spent nearly all of three recent Council meetings lobbying the Aldermen to let them ignore the clear community consensus contained in those comments. The advice received has been both slanted and incomplete.

Residents, taxpayers, businesses, workers, investors and travelers alike can benefit enormously from a better plan which allows many types of positive development alongside well-protected habitats. Unlike Newburgh or Yonkers, Hudson's waterfront is compact, so the key issue is compatibility. The one piece of the puzzle which simply can't coexist with the rest is noisy, dusty, and hazardous activities which harm other legitimate uses and scare away jobs.

On that score we agree 100% with the Secretary of State who set forth in 2005 exactly how to rezone the Waterfront in a more forward-looking, economically-beneficial direction which phases out incompatible uses. The basis for that official finding was, ironically, the 1995 Hudson Vision Plan, which recommended that the City acquire property from the cement company, and zone out harsh impacts. The Mayor opposed and derailed that plan, so it’s astonishing that he would now try to misconstrue and even co-opt it.

It's time to streamline the draft Plan so that it fully reflects the Secretary’s clear recommendations. Finishing the Waterfront process doesn't have to be difficult or lengthy, if it's done right — rather than used as a vehicle for political retribution and community division. This is no longer high school, so the Mayor should stop playing political football with the City's future.

in Cities | Hudson, Economic Development, Environment, Hudson River, Letters to Editors, Planning & Land Use | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

May 6, 2010

Stone polled

This blog has received two credible reports from entirely separate sources that residents of Bethlehem, Coxsackie, and Hudson have been polled over the phone recently regarding the Lafarge cement plant and mercury pollution—and that the poll included a question about now-embattled State wildlife pathologist Ward Stone.

Stone has been doing independent research into mercury contamination downwind of the coal-fired Lafarge plant, and was the subject of a lengthy exposé in Sunday’s Times-Union. Now he’s also become the subject of a State investigation into alleged misconduct, including apparent charges by former coworkers of misuse of public resources, abuse of staff, abuse of wildlife, and more. It appears the polling calls began 10-14 days before this article was published.

Here is a report from one reader of this blog (who wishes to remain anonymous, but whose identity and bona fides I have verified) who received a call from the unidentified pollster... First, the reader’s comment on my initial blog post:

I’ve listened to Ward Stone and In Our Backyard since moving to this area and I have been impressed, touched even, by his message to appreciate the world in which we live, to get out and enjoy it. Through him I've learned to notice signs in nature I'd not been aware of... it's been an awakening. Truth be told, I've only been mildly aware of his real environmental crusades; I've just not been paying that much attention.
That's why I was surprised his name came up in a phone call I took last weekend. It was a "poll" thing and honed in on the Lafarge mercury emissions events of late. The pollster asked what opinion I had of Ward Stone; solely based on my knowledge of him and the radio program, I said, "Very favorable." I still have a favorable opinion of him, still based solely on his radio program, and though the allegations against him are serious, I'll wait to pass judgment until they are sorted out. I absolutely question the timing of the allegations, as well as the timing of the poll-call, and I'm dying to know who/what was behind it.

Curious, I posted a request for the commenter to provide more details, which s/he did via email.

I’m the person who took the Lafarge "poll call" on [May 1st], then posted about it on your blog. I'll share with you what I remember:

It came around noon Saturday, a man calling said he was not from a political party etc. but would like to ask questions about environmental issues in the area. He may have stated an organization he was representing, but I don't remember (wish I did!). I was happy to respond because I always wonder where poll results come from... I'm rarely asked, nor is anyone I know.
At any rate, at first he asked about my basic awareness of local issues, and one question asked me to choose, in order of importance, two or three issues I felt were most pressing. Slightly aware of the Lafarge situation, as well as the fight in Hudson a few years back to keep out a cement plant (THANK YOU), I included "mercury emissions" in my answer. The man quickly took that answer and honed in on Lafarge. I do think the call was aiming at Lafarge, and my answer about mercury contamination as a local environmental concern was the pollster's go ahead to continue with his script of questions. He did not mention or ask about any other issues once Lafarge was on the table.
He then asked a series of questions about my opinion whether the plant should be shut down, forced to modernize, allowed to continue as is. He asked what importance I place on the jobs at the plant. He asked my opinion of several different people, Ward Stone and Governor Patterson included, others whose names I didn't recognize. I’m quite certain that there was only one question about Ward Stone—just my opinion of him, which as I said is favorable.

At the end of the questions, the man asked my age, income range, level of education, and first name. I hesitated, then gave it, though I wish now that I hadn't.

I paid attention during the call-- and thought a lot afterward-- to try and identify a bias, a clue to which "side" the call might have come from; nothing stood out. Then again, I'm not very well informed about Lafarge, which led me to realize: I want to learn more about the circumstances at there so I will have (if only for myself) a more clearly defined opinion of what needs to happen.

Let me know if you have further questions, and if I think of anything else of significance, I'll let you know.

I enjoy your blog. Very informative, sophisticated, and fun.

As for my own opinion of this situation, I take a slightly different view of this evolving matter than some of my environmentalist peers (and am waiting to see what further evidence evolves before making a definitive judgement).

This situation strikes me much like The New York Times’ exposure of Eliot Spitzer’s frequenting prostitutes did. Without question, people like Spitzer and Stone had (and still have) enemies eager to find any reason to tear them down. Such people know they are being monitored closely for any mis-step, which will be pounced on. The mystery is why such controversial figures would hand their critics the gasoline with which to immolate them—rather than taking precautionary steps to foil those eager to torch their reputations.

Spitzer knew that Wall Street and the American right-wing were itching to take him down. Furthermore, as someone who had prosecuted both financial fraud and prostitution rings, he knew that if you go into a bank and ask to have a large amount of money wired anonymously, that bank is required to report the transaction to authorities as suspicious. He likewise knew that arranging to transport a prostitute across state lines incurred yet another level of legal jeopardy. And yet he recklessly pursued his (apparent) sex addiction without using his inside knowledge of the legal and financial system to make it harder to catch him.

Indeed, Spitzer made it easy for his enemies. The surprising part is that it took so long to catch him, not that he was caught.

With the Stone situation–in which all the facts have yet to come out—one similarly wonders why a controversial survivor of past bureaucratic and media wars did not take steps to protect his work and legacy.

At the start of his WAMC interview this morning, Stone claimed that he “knew” this was coming because his phone was “tapped,” his computer “entered,” and he had been “watched and followed for some time.” (Unfortunately, his interviewers moved on very quickly from the topic and did not explore such eyebrow-raising and hard-to-credit claims—which frankly seem more suited to a Bourne Identity flick than a DEC feud.)

Either way, Stone not only had more credible reasons to know he was a target, he also had been specifically admonished repeatedly to address the complaints which came, year after year, from supervisors at his agency. Any objective read of the documents posted by the T-U to back up its reporting are a dose of cold reality to those, like me, who would normally be disposed to side with Stone.

This brings us back to the question of the Lafarge poll, which experience would suggest most likely was commissioned by the cement company, in anticipation of an upcoming DEC hearing on its Ravena plant. Did Lafarge ask about Stone’s credibility? And did the results suggest to the company that his strong reputation as a scientist needed tarnishing? I would not be the least bit surprised. But while the answer to that question might well reflect poorly on Lafarge, it also would not excuse Stone if the charges he faces turn out to be true. We can both deplore corporate skulduggery, admire talented and courageous environment work, and distance ourselves from behaviors and practices among “our” people that we would never tolerate from the “other” side.

It is often said that “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” A corollary might be: “Just because they’re out to get you, doesn’t mean you are beyond reproach.” The Times-Union’s editorial this morning makes that point well (though it fails to disclose or acknowledge the source of its leaks, or at least address the questionable timing of its exposé.) In the long run, if we want to fight for environmental and other forms of justice, we can’t hold ourselves to a lower standard of evidence and ethics than the one we tend to apply to those on the other side.

in Environment, Media & Publishing, Politics | New York State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

May 3, 2010

Reactions to the Ward Stone exposé

« UPDATE » WAMC has announced that it’s suspending Stone’s program pending the results of a State investigation into allegations of misconduct:

WAMC believes in the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We are grateful to Ward Stone for his generous volunteer contribution to WAMC’s “In Our Backyard” program and for his tireless work for the state as Wildlife Pathologist. We hope these allegations prove to be false, nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to suspend production of the program until these charges are resolved. WAMC news will continue to cover this story.

Suspending Stone allows WAMC to more credibly follow the story, and Dave Lucas has indeed now filed a report on the investigation. Joe Donahue and Alan Chartock likewise had a frank discussion of the Times Union’s article on air this morning, a recording of which can be heard here.

« ORIGINAL POST » The Albany Times-Union has published a lengthy article by Capitol correspondent James Odato about alleged personnel issues with State wildlife pathologist Ward Stone, including stark allegations of personal use of State resources, financial woes, abusive behavior to co-workers, and even cruelty to deer.

Naturally, the piece is generating a lot of heat from both longtime supporters and detractors, and Stone—a Hudson native, now 71, and no stranger to controversy—has begun to respond in the broadcast media here and here.

Somewhat defensively, the T-U has also now posted PDF files of various internal personnel documents from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), along with information about Stone’s academic credentials.

Below are two perceptive and balanced reactions to the story from solid sources who have worked and interacted with Stone, but have no direct allegiance to (or stake in the outcome of the complaints against) him. These are shared below without attribution, at the authors’ requests:

An Albany insider writes...
WAMC was airing this issue for callers on The Roundtable this morning (a good pre-emptive move on their part, given their recent close association with Stone via the radio show). A lot of support for him was being expressed–matching some of the Republican rhetoric on the Bruno sentencing, to a degree.

Ward is an environmental hero and catalyst, and notably, the article does not attack his accomplishments in that context, or his pathology work.

However, he is one self-centered son of a gun, and I’ve never been too impressed during my direct interactions with or around him. Little of the criticism directed at him in the article is surprising–these issues have been swirling around the Albany environmental community for many years.
I think the article ultimately reveals that he is someone with a very strong sense of himself, someone who likely sees himself as essential to “real” environmental work in New York State, and therefore someone who feels they can bend the rules, or is entitled to something more as a result. My read has long been that Stone acts too important for himself and has perhaps become too institutionalized as the renegade, if that is possible. Factor in his age and some tough personal issues, and you’ve got the makings of a difficult character.
I don’t see the T-U at fault in this–they had real issues to work with, and someone like Ward, given his controversial roles in addition to/because of his state employment, should have left far less ammunition around for someone to use against him.
Given that few of the allegations in the article surprised me, the more interesting question is: Why make the move on him now? Who felt this was the time to force him out? I suspect a distinct lack of support from the departing Second Floor may be a key factor in that.

A media expert writes...

It smacks of a hit to me.

This is a man on a mission, and if he’s taken up residence in his office, that’s why. I don't believe for a second that he’s not working hard. If he’s working on “outside” projects, I’ll bet that it’s stuff he considers important that DEC won’t fund. They’ve tried to push him out for decades, and this is just the latest push.
Far from being “protected from on high,” Ward’s had his staff limited by design, had resources siphoned from his department, and, according to him, has been stuck in the same pay grade since the 1970s. To say his personal finances are in a shambles, then cite income well in excess of his debts, is really cheap, and shows that they’re desperate to discredit him in any way they can, even though they don’t have much—which casts everything they say into suspicion.
Ward has often expressed disgust with the clock punchers in the DEC, and that they lacked real commitment. Maybe his kind of passion offends other state employees. If this stuff were true, and he was just living there, freeloading, it would be contrary to every impression I’ve had of him.
That being said, he does strike me as a Norman Mailer type, so any sort of chauvinism/out of control ego issue would be par for the course.

The key question both commenters ask above—Why now?—is particularly intriguing.

It may simply be that the internal complaints at DEC had reached a point in the bureaucratic food chain where failing to let the news out would play into allegations from Stone’s more conservative critics; so maybe the State decided to leak this info to the press to cover their rumps. But given that most of the complaints are strung out over a period of many years, there doesn't seem to be an obvious catalyst for the story.

The only public controversy of any note over Stone’s recent work was DEC’s refusal to fund his proposed study of downwind mercury impacts from the Lafarge cement plant along the Hudson River—which has an air permit and planned expansion currently under review.

As the comments on the T-U’s articles indicate, the plant’s Ravena neighbors believe that this story was timed to help Lafarge. Barring any hard evidence, that seems something of a stretch, though not out of the realm of possibility. Not every situation like this is a case of follow-the-money or an Insideresque takedown. The paper’s reporters strenuously reject the insinuation that they are being used, but crazier things have been said to happen before, including some involving Odato.

in Environment, Politics | New York State | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

March 23, 2010

Straightened out?

AFTERNOON UPDATE: The full Stipulation between Scenic Hudson and DEC now can be downloaded by clicking here. An initial reading of the document suggests that many of the settlement’s provisions seem positive as far as the Waterfront planning process goes, as well as any possible future reviews by various agencies (from the Hudson and Greenport planning agencies to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) of a haul road proposal.

However, the document leaves one big question hanging which needs clarification.

On the plus side, the Stipulation states that “the issuance of the Permit was not, and should not be construed to be, an endorsement by DEC of any particular truck route or alternative route to be used by O&G Industries [...] as part of its operations in the Town of Greenport and City of Hudson.” DEC concedes that no coordinated SEQR review occurred related to such a proposal, and that the DEC’s negative declaration “should not be construed to be binding on any other agency with jurisdiction over the activities of the Permittee in or near South Bay, and should not be considered either “a substitute for the permit authority of any other agency.” All of that is excellent.

The one potentially troubling and unclear portion—and this could be a biggie—is a curious statement that the DEC permit “is limited to the pavement of two hundred +/- feet of the causeway in the adjacent area of the South Bay wetland.”

While that provision seems tempered by an acknowledgment that “it does not authorize any other activities in South Bay that would be jurisdictional under the Freshwater Wetlands Act,” it is unclear where this 200-foot stretch of pavement would go, and whether that number refers to the length or the width of the causeway. One assumes it refers to the area near the entrance to Holcim’s desired route off 9G, as evidently was discussed in the original deal with DEC, but that is not spelled out.

(If Scenic Hudson were agreeing to a 200-foot-wide paved area, that would be appalling. But given that such a provision would require extensive filling of the Bay, that seems improbable. The current abandoned railbed is more like 15 feet wide, bordered by some 25-30 or so feet along some stretches of its south side where Holcim carried forth illegal bulldozing, for which it was fined, back in 2004; marshes and open water border much of the remainder.) What’s puzzling is how a 200-foot-length of paving would serve any purpose to either party, as that would extend barely 20% or so across the Bay. Scenic Hudson needs to clarify this matter, as that one line could spoil some very good work on their part to secure an otherwise positive resolution.

The overall effect of the Stipulation would seem to be that the idea of an active industrial haul road is, though not dead, at least on hold pending future decisions and reviews.

ORIGINAL POST: This morning, a State official confirmed a persistent rumor that Scenic Hudson and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have made a deal concerning the proposed heavy industrial haul road from Becraft Mountain, across routes 9 and 9G, and through the wetlands of South Bay to the Hudson Waterfront.

A representative of the State’s Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board confirms that the two parties have entered into a “Stipulation of Settlement” which “resolves and terminates the appeal to the Board.” A copy of that document is on its way from the agency.

The big question now is: What were the terms of the settlement?

DEC had issued nebulous “maintenance” permits to O&G and Holcim regarding the proposed haul road. There was little real opportunity for public input, no recognition that there isn’t any pre-existing permitted road in place, and no notice to interested parties that a decision had been reached. Holcim and O&G tried hard to spin this in the press as the final word on the question of bringing hundreds of trucks daily down from the mines and through the Bay.

Scenic Hudson, to its credit, filed an appeal noting that the permits issued were based on false premises and a lack of data about the habitats which would be affected. The DEC tried and failed to have this appeal dismissed.

Now that the mystery Stipulation has been made, it will be fascinating to see the actual terms. Has DEC backed off its hasty and ill-informed decision and voided the permits? Or, have they suspended their endorsement until the resolution of the Hudson waterfront plan contoversy? Or, as happened with the shockingly craven secret deal over the Athens Gemerating plant, have Ned Sullivan and crew sold out the citizenry again?

One hopes that Scenic Hudson learned its well-deserved lesson from Athens, and that this new, quiet agreement will turn out to be a real improvement over the DEC’s reckless behavior up to this point. Word is that the Stipulation will be produced tonight by a Scenic Hudson representative at the Greenport Planning Commission... So stay tuned.

People power

This week, the Columbia County retail landscape will be dotted with stacks of the new environment issue of Our Town, the Claverack-based quarterly. Along with articles by Dave Gargill of Harper’s Magazine and Germantown filmmaker Barbara Ettinger, the issue includes a lengthy piece by Yours Truly, titled “The Bullet We Dodged,” on the occasion of the imminent fifth anniversary of the victory over St. Lawrence Cement.

Rather than delving much into the elaborate strategies, tactics, fundraising, day-to-day labor, organization, legal maneuvering, and other minutiae of this grinding battle, the piece focuses on the role of people power in our against-the-odds success. We were huge underdogs when this began, with most giving us less than a 1% chance of winning. Among those whose contributions are mentioned in the piece are:

Al Cook, Alan Hamilton, Alex Matthiessen, Alex Sagady, Alice Platt, Ally Anderson-Spivy, Andrea Smallwood, Ann Birckmayer, Annie Leibovitz, B. Docktor, Barbara Ettinger, Bob & Monica Mechling, Bonnie Sanders, Bridget Rockwell, Bud Mann, Carole Clark, Carole Osterink, Cassandra Danz, Chet Stark, Chloe Zerwick, Chris Pfister , Christopher Burge, Claire Oravec, Craig Fitt, Cyndy Hall, Cynthia Richardson, Dave Staats, David Kermani, David Rubel, Deb Novack, Deborah Bowen, Diana Jelinek, Dick Donovan, Dick Jenrette, Don & Marnie MacLean, Don Christensen , Elizabeth Nyland, Ellen Thurston, Ellsworth Kelly, Enid Futterman, Fran & Vinny DeGrazia, Frank Aultman, Gabe Miller, Gabi Hermann, George Wislocki, Hannah Hanani, Hannah Williamson, Hillary Hillman, Howard Brandston, Ian Nitschke, Ira Marks, Jay Rasku, Jeff Monkash, Jennifer Arenskjold, Jim Schermbeck, Joan Hintermeister, Jock Spivy, John Ashbery, John Davis, John Isaacs, Kate Kerin, Katy Hubener, Ken McCarthy, Laura Skutch, Lisa Durfee, Lynn Davis, Maiysha Kramer, Martha Lane, Martina Arfwidson, Marty Davidson, Mary Sanchez, Michael Brown, Michael Vertetis, Mitchell Gaynor, Moisha Blechman, Nancy Gordon, Neil Carman, Nicholas Blechman, Pamela Kline, Patrick Manning, Paul Swedenburg, Penny Wheat, Peter Jung, Philip Glass, Phyllis Herbert, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Katzman, Rudy Wurlitzer, Ruth Piwonka, Sally Drummond, Sarah Griffen, Steve Kaufman, Stu Kaufman, Sven Huseby, Tarquin Cardona , Thomas Teich, Tom Mabley, Travis Kline, and Warren Collins.

Though the piece runs well over 7,000 words, this list still barely scratches the surface of the contributions by the thousands of people who took the time to (and the risk of) getting involved, when faced with a fight-or-flight situation, and an adversary prepared to spend nearly $60 million on advertising, astroturfing, consultants, lobbyists, lawyers, payouts and public relations. Frankly it would have been cheaper for them to simply buy the whole City of Hudson, before the controversy spread across the whole Valley and far into New England.

And now five years later, all that herculean effort by so many people has now been put at risk by the likes of Linda Mussmann, Cheryl Roberts and Rick Scalera, with a dangerous plan to reindustrialize the Hudson Waterfront and give SLC’s parent company, Holcim, many of the very same waterfront goodies they were denied back on April 19th, 2005, by the New York State Secretary of State. You can also all about the new struggle at HudsonWaterfront.org.

in Activism, Environment, Hudson Valley, Media & Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

March 17, 2010

Scrap Irony

Back in March 2006, Metroland covered the kick-off meeting of the Hudson Common Council’s newly-appointed Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee. In light of more recent Waterfront developments, the kindest thing that can be said is that the current situation is not lacking in irony.

The story was subtitled “Citizens of Hudson are given the opportunity to reimagine their waterfront,” and covered “what Linda Mussmann, chair of the Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee, hopes will be a series of meetings meant to guide and shape Hudson’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan.” The rest of the article included the following passages... which can only fill the mouths of those who remember the optimism and energy of those initial meetings with the bitter taste of wormwood:

The room filled with more than 100 residents who buzzed with excitement over the chance to construct a waterfront district. The energy in the room was palpable as members of the Common Council, Mayor Richard Tracy and Department of State Coastal Resources specialists Bonnie Devine and Nancy Welsh took their seats. Applause erupted frequently as officials welcomed the crowd.

Said Mussmann, “To have an opportunity to have access [to the waterfront] is a big thing. It always seems to have a fence in front of it or a barge of an industrial plant...”

While the LWRP’s history is a long saga, [Basilica Industria developer and former LWRP Subcommittee Chair Patrick] Doyle says he is now focused on the future. “It’s all in the past. It’s a new age now. It’s about unifying the community, opening up the process.”

Mayor [Dick] Tracy agrees that giving the community a voice is the key in moving the LWRP forward. “They have been denied the opportunity to offer input for too long,” he said.

What may have really sparked the turnout on Wednesday, however, is the recent defeat of the proposed St. Lawrence Cement plant. Hudson residents seem to realize they have a chance to take control of what they so nearly lost.

According to Mussmann, the delay surrounding the LWRP has stemmed from a number of different pressures. “In my opinion,” said Mussmann, “Many government officials knew about it but the public wasn’t informed. In terms of openness it was handled in a less public way than I think was helpful to this city. . . . There was also some lag time because of the huge cement plant that was potentially coming to our shores. People were awaiting the result.”

The Secretary of State’s April 2005 decision rejecting the St. Lawrence plant declared that Hudson’s current waterfront zoning is “far too broad and does not recognize the value of the waterfront as a historical, cultural, commercial and recreational zone for the city.”

Members of the public brought up simple suggestions such as acquiring signage to let people know Hudson has a waterfront and connecting the waterfront to downtown. Others worried about eyesores such as prominent power lines and towers on St. Lawrence property abutting the waterfront. Some expressed hope for a museum or a research center[,] a bird sanctuary or some other kind of environmental center, free of development. DOS representatives reassured participants that these are the kind of decisions that would be made by the community as a whole.

Robert O’Brien, president of the Common Council, and Mussmann both stressed that the goal is to get as much community input as possible.

“It’s an opportunity to re-create this area in the way that the citizens of this community would like to see it happen,” [Mussmann] said, “and it’s the first time they’ve had the chance.”

The extraordinary irony is of course that Mussmann, along with City Attorney Cheryl Roberts, became in 2007 the principle advocates of ignoring public input, and instead using the Waterfront plan to permanently ensconce or even expand the cement company’s blighting industrial presence next to public parks, recreation areas, small boat launches, habitat restoration projects, and appropriate commericial development such as restaurants, kayak rentals, marine supply, and the like.

So it’s no wonder they decided to erase all traces of the March meetings of the WASC from the narrative of public input on the draft plan. That glaring bit of historical revisionism has been brought to the attention of the City and State in Save the South Bay’s 32,000-word submission of comments on the schizophrenic and short-sighted draft LWRP currently under consideration.

ENDNOTE: Other titles considered but rejected for this post included Iron(y) Mining, Scrap Iron(y), Cast Iron(y), The Iron(y) Curtain, The Iron(y) Lady, The Iron(y) Maiden, Strike While the Iron(y) is Hot, Iron(y) Deficiency, Iron(y) Refinery, and Pumping Iron(y).

in Cities | Hudson, Economic Development, Environment, Media & Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 17, 2010

Board to DEC and O&G: Not so fast

Since late last Fall, local officials cozy with various cement, mining and trucking interests have been presenting as a fait accompli that Holcim and O&G had received an irrevocable State endorsement of their plans for a heavy haul road down from Becraft Mountain, across Routes 9 and 9G, and through Hudson’s once-historic South Bay.

The claim was somewhat fishy (no pun intended) to begin with, since mining-friendly regulators at New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation appeared to have approved only “maintenance” of the long-neglected route, not conducted a full review of what is intended to be a major new industrial thoroughfare.

And now, a new document obtained today from the State’s Freshwater Appeals Board further calls into question whether this hasty and secretive “approval” will actually stand up.

On February 2nd, the Appeals Board rejected an effort by DEC to dismiss a motion by Scenic Hudson, Inc. of Poughkeepsie to overturn the agency’s decision, meaning that the organization may now proceed with their appeal. (O&G has likewise filed to be an “intervenor” in the appeal. )

Particularly noteworthy in the FWAB’s interim decision is the revelation that DEC issued no public notice whatsoever of its decision. The agency itself admits it did not issue such a notice. And yet it sought to deny Scenic Hudson’s appeal based on the allegation that it did not file its motion in a timely matter. The Appeals Board completely rejects DEC’s argument, noting their nonsensical position that one can punish someone for not immediately appealing an agency action they have absolutely no way of knowing took place.

DEC’s position is Kafkaesque, to say the least, and the Appeals Board knocks them for it:

“If we agree with the DEC interpretation as to when the clock begins to run with regard to a third-party like Scenic Hudson, it would make it very difficult (if not completely shut the door) for any interested third-parties to ever have the opportunity to appeal. In the interest of fairness and due process (and common sense), actual notice must be applied. [...I]t is uncontested that public notice was never provided on the challenged permits.”

Now, as I’ve stated publicly before, I’m not a big fan of Scenic Hudson’s upper management. But there are still some good people within the organization, and their effort to hold DEC’s feet to the fire in this matter is to be commended.

Some key questions this situation raises:

Why is DEC so afraid of allowing Scenic Hudson to introduce documents pertinent to the permitting process that the agency failed to provide to the Appeals Board?

Will the FWAB be able to process this appeal in a timely way, considering that the Paterson administration has gutted much of its staff to deal with the State’s bankrupt condition?

Why is O&G, a Connecticut-based subcontractor, the sole industrial participant in this matter—and not the landowner, Holcim?

Will the press now explore the purported permits and the appeal based on something other than the p.r. spin of Holcim/O&G and its political allies?

A copy of the Appeals Board ruling can be downloaded as a PDF by clicking here.

in Cities | Hudson, Environment, Planning & Land Use | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 13, 2010

Crude and unrefined

Some recent postings here prompted a longtime local resident to share a copy of an old 1984 Hudson Valley Magazine article entitled, An Oil Refinery in our Backyard (There May Soon Be One in Hudson, on the River).

Its authors, Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Robert Miraldi, could not have imagined the extent to which their piece would underscore for future generations how the more things change in Hudson, the more its politics remain crude and unrefined.

First proposed in 1983, the Octane Petroleum project would have entailed a refinery, some 22 storage tanks holding up to 25,000 barrels of oil, and the discharge of some 2.6 million gallons of wastewater annually—all sprawled over 9 acres at the Waterfront, including parts of the river itself, 1.2 acres of which would have been landfilled.

Here are just a few of the more eerily familiar factoids and quotations which have been repeated, in so many words, in later and current controversies:

Then-Mayor Mike Yusko riffing on the then-ubiquitous Rolaids commercial, saying “Relief would be spelled O-C-T-A-N-E.”

Refinery opponents arguing that amenities such as “a restaurant, park or public boating facility could generate money for the city without the same risks.”

Officials of a foreign-owned company arguing that “this stretch of the river is good for little else but industry.”

HCDPA chairman Art Koweek stating that the oil refinery would “save this city” and was “a matter of economic survival for Hudson.”

Koweek adding that the refinery would “put out less pollution than the local hospital”; that those who want access to the river should “go out of town”; and that anyway, the Hudson is “not a recreational river.”

Initial promises of 300 jobs dropping to 146, and then to 43, and then down to 32, even with the State promising to loan $3.6 million to the company for job creation.

Activist John Cody of SHOW (Save Hudson’s Only Waterfront) noting that “the city has been unresponsive to their legitimate concerns.”

City officials trashing Cody’s 300-member organization as “a local vocal group that wants to live in the past.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department noting that a false choice was being presented to the citizens, with no justification for “the conclusion that only two alternatives are available.”

The same Federal agency expressing “concern for the effect of the project on South Bay Wetlands, a sprawling marshy area that would be cut by the facility’s access road.”

The NYS Department of State writing to Mayor Yusko that the refinery “would have a significant adverse effect upon the neighboring historic district,” into which $12 million in public funding had been invested in the previous 15 years—with the city seeming “ready [...] to give up on the revival.”

The Department of State also writing to the Mayor that the (now-endangered) American shad is active nearby, for example using the shoals of Middle Ground Flats “for spawning and nursery grounds.”

Fast-forward to 2010, and we have the New York State Department of State again contemplating a deeply-flawed new Waterfront plan for Hudson. That plan has been in the works since about the time the Octane Petroleum project was finally shelved in the late ’80s, with Hudson officials such as Linda Davidson acting to the bitter end as if the refinery idea was still viable and in play.

As previously reported here, concerned citizens and activists were also subjected to an almost endless stream of press releases and abuse from then-HCDPA director Edmond Schorno, as well as other City leaders such as Cemetery Commissioner Mark Salomon—who pronounced himself “thoroughly disgusted” with refinery opponents, arguing that they “oppose everything” and nothing would “satisfy” those “not interested in the well-being of our local citizenry.”

The full Hudson Valley article may be downloaded in PDF format by clicking here..

in Activism, Cities | Hudson, Economic Development, Environment, Hudson River, Media & Publishing, Planning & Land Use | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

For a better Waterfront

Click here to download a 2-page guide to sending comments to State officials who have the power to revise and improve the City of Hudson’s deeply-flawed draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. We can do better, and you can help. A more extensive site, featuring research and alternative visions for the South Bay, is in the works. [PDF]

in Activism, Cities | Hudson, Environment, Hudson River, Planning & Land Use | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 9, 2010

Nine years ago today

image from https://www.sampratt.com/.a/6a00d83454ca3969e20128778112ae970c-pi

... an item about this billboard (on Route 9 near the Alvarez modular homes site) featuring a photograph by Annie Leibovitz, appeared in the now-defunct Independent newspaper.

Today, Liebovitz is rumored to be selling her stone barns on River Road in Rhinebeck, possibly to David Bowie (details at The Real Deal). Below is a photograph of Claverack resident Peggy Ayers at the Leibovitz property, at a benefit held there in 2004 by cement plant opponents:

in Environment, Local Celebrities, Photographs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

January 29, 2010

Blog ping-pong: South Bay tournament

Below are some points I’m volleying back at Carole Osterink’s Gossips of Rivertown blog, specifically in response to her informative post on the recent Greenport Planning Board meeting about truck traffic to the Hudson Waterfront...

Carole, here are several additional points to consider:

1. Anyone who has lived more than a couple of seasons in Hudson knows that 9G routinely floods just north of Mount Merino, which is precisely where this unnecessary and (I believe) unpermitted truck traffic is proposed. I've seen no mention of the flooding problem in published reports; maybe it was discussed and not reported. This raises the more general issue of emergency conditions: What happens if the road, crossings, or causeway are impassable for days, weeks or months? You can bet that in the absence of requirements from Hudson and Greenport, the trucks would resume their trips through downtown.

2. Speed is another non-trivial issue at the proposed 9G crossing. Even with one’s foot riding the brakes downhill, it is easy to arrive at the entrance to South Bay at double the posted speed limit due to the preceding long, steep incline. Warning signs and flashing lights would not prevent an eventual fatality. Hudson is already the Bermuda Quadrangle of traffic danger, with no route into or out of the City which isn't fraught with riskily-designed intersections.

3. Even those critical of the road plan and LWRP seem to be missing the big picture and allowing themselves to get bogged down in the minutiae of the issue. The root problem is not whether Hudson can get some picturesque piece of industrial wreckage landmarked, or even which “alternative” route is less horrible than the rest. No: The bigger picture is that waterfront plans are supposed to proceed from a long-range vision (articulated via the mundane terms of zoning law). It is not supposed to address short-term transitory conditions and demands of present-day developers, such as the owners of L&B in Queens or Holcim execs in Switzerland. Yet the current document is driven by and obsessed with those narrow, short-term pressures—rather than the broad and positive vision for a greener, more humane and more economically productive Waterfront for which the public asked. This version of what an LWRP should contain was espoused by none other than City attorney Cheryl Roberts and State Coastal expert Bonnie Devine at the outset of the process, before certain Hudson “leaders” caved to defeatist and small-minded political concerns. Those backing this plan want residents to get diverted into obscure arguments about minute details, rather than demanding that the big picture make sense. So we anatomize the finer details of O&G’s plans, rather than demanding that all truck traffic be barred from both the Bay and Downtown... They want us chasing fantasies about railroad relics, rather than demanding a far-reaching plan (one that will stand up long after the names Scalera, Mussmann, Osterink or Pratt are forgotten).

4. Speaking of history, my comments posted here last week highlighted a 1977 Federally-funded County Planning report. That report identified an irreconcilable “use conflict” in South Bay—a conflict between heavy industry and ecological restoration. It advised that Hudson needed to choose one or the other; that at such a unique and sensitive location, the two could not coexist peacefully. Yet that conflict was not tackled in either 1977, or even in 2005, when the Secretary of State issued a clear road map for ending it “immediately.” And still even some progressive voices who should know better bandy about empty buzzwords about “mixed use” and “working waterfronts.” The bottom line is people won’t have picnics, toss frisbees, or open small businesses if waves of noise and diesel exhaust are cascading over the Waterfront.

5. Speaking of Chris Reed, how come there is no notice of the LWRP comment period, meeting times, or a run-down of these pressing Waterfront issues on the front page of Friends of Hudson website? For an organization that claims to be still active— rather than just 2-3 people with a listserve—this seems like a glaring omission. The point of a citizens’ group is first and foremost to mobilize and empower citizens, giving them the tools to participate in a meaningful fashion.

6. In my consulting to citizens’ groups, I encourage discussion of such projects to use the verb “would” instead of “will.” (“The road through the wetlands would be 12 feet wide,” etc.) These projects are potential, not inevitable.

January 20, 2010

On the waterfront

An Acrobat (PDF) file of comments I filed late this afternoon regarding the City of Hudson draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan can be downloaded by clicking here.

The five main points made in the document (which is only a warm-up for more extensive comments to be filed with the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources) are:

The plan is not responsive to the Secretary of State's clear guidance about rezoning the Hudson Waterfront in his key April 2005 ruling on the St. Lawrence Cement proposal;
The plan ignores and contradicts the repeated instructions of the State's Coastal staff advisors not to further industrialize the wetlands of Hudson's South Bay;
The plan is not responsive to overwhelming public input preferring a more sustainable, forward-looking, long-range vision for the Waterfront, choosing instead to favor narrow and short-term private industrial interests;
The plan's “alternatives analysis” for getting trucks off the City’s streets and out of urban neighborhoods is both perfunctory, and based upon false premises.
The plan worsens, rather than resolves, the "use conflict" in South Bay between heavy industry and public enjoyment that was identified more than 30 years ago.

The City could have a far more ambitious Waterfront plan—one which would serve a more diverse group of people over a wider area, providing social, economic and environmental benefits that could make this small City the top destination in the mid-Hudson Valley.

Instead, the plan’s consultant, attorneys and leaders (most notably former Waterfront chair Linda Mussmann of Time & Space Ltd.) turned their backs on the public’s clearly-articulated wishes. They failed to use the many tools provided to them to enact a more visionary and ambitious plan, instead choosing to cave in and cater privately to monied industrial interests.

But the public still has a chance with the State to correct the mess made by certain local leaders’ lack of gumption and integrity. Public input is being accepted by the State through mid-March; I'll post an email address for submitting comments soon:

Comments on the City of Hudson draft LWRP should be submitted by March 15, 2010 to: Kevin Millington, Department of State, Office of Coastal Resources, Local Government and Community Sustainability, 99 Washington Ave., Suite 1010, Albany, NY 12231-0001, (518) 473- 2479

SamPratt.com