There’s one thing that Rick Scalera and I may agree about... If you take a look at the so-called “progress” on Hudson Waterfront, it does “speak volumes.” But the words it’s speaking are:

“Is that all there is?”

• In 1977, according to 1st Ward resident John Cody, a group of local businessmen proposed “a new restaurant and marina complex for Hudson’s waterfront.” But the proposal died. Now, more than 30 years later—and despite having Rick at the helm for so many terms—there is still nowhere to take your family to dinner or store your boat at the Waterfront. This is progress?
  


• Also in 1977, the Columbia County Planning Department and Federal government studied Hudson’s South Bay. They determined that there was an irreconcilable “use conflict” between blighting industry and restoration of habitats, so that the Bay could play host to other, less high-impact uses. The study concluded that you couldn’t have both. But again more than 30 years later, nothing has been done to resolve that conflict. Indeed, the new draft LWRP only makes that conflict worse.


• In the Fall and Winter of 1983-84, the Register-Star’s pages were full of press releases from Hudson officials, such as Edmond Schorno, touting the benefits of the proposed Octane Petroleum refinery at the Waterfront. The paper was also full of letters from members of Save Hudson’s Only Waterfront (SHOW) opposing the plan, such as Herb Weintraub, Jim Ryan, David Kermani, Peggy Lampman, Gilbert Raab, Frank Faulkner, George Jurgsatis, Sophronus Mundy, Steve Kingsley, Jeremiah Rusconi, John Cody and many others—though none from Rick Scalera. At the time, these folks who saved the Waterfront from ruin were subjected to the same type of crude insults that others have endured from Rick in more recent battles to save the Waterfront.


• For example, City Cemetery Commissioner Mark Salomon said he was “thoroughly disgusted” with refinery opponents, insisting that nothing would “satisfy” them, that they “oppose everything” and that they were “not interested in the well-being of our local citizenry.” Does anyone today think that the SHOW group didn’t benefit the City and its entire citizenry by stopping an oil refinery at the Waterfront? Rick’s insults to activists today are just an echo of the misguided grandstanding of the past.
  


• Hudson has been officially talking about passing a Waterfront plan since 1987—longer, if you count the years it took to get local leaders to participate. During that time, numerous other towns and small cities from Croton-on-Hudson to Athens have enacted model plans, taking only a few years to complete the process. After 23 years (more than half of them with Rick as Mayor), Hudson is still arguing about it. Indeed, the current planning process was set into motion during one of the terms when he decided not to run because he feared he’d lose.


• In the early 1990s, a boat-builder (who works, among other things, on repairs to the Clearwater Sloop which periodically visits Hudson) wanted to buy land in the South Bay and move his business to the Hudson Waterfront. This would have created well-paid local jobs and provided training in a skilled trade, while also showcasing the Bay’s fabled maritime history. Instead, City leaders shortsightedly decided to sell this parcel along the river just north of “Sandy Beach” to St. Lawrence Cement.


• In the mid-90s, the Hudson Opera House commissioned the Vision Plan, which created a roadmap for expanded Waterfront activities, business, shopping and recreational access to the river. Rick scuttled the Plan by spitefully attacking its leader, who he perceived as a political rival.


• Once Rick managed to get the Vision Plan shelved, he set up a rival Waterfront Committee, which mainly sat on its hands for the next decade. From the late 1990s into 2005, the possibility of enacting a Waterfront revitalization plan was becalmed due to the stormy controversies over projects supported by Rick—first the Americlean toxic waste processing operation, then the St. Lawrence Cement plant).


• During the two-year Cranna administration (2000-2001), over $500,000 was secured in Federal grant funding for the Waterfront. While Rick is happy to take credit himself for the few amenities that were paid for from these funds, you won’t hear him thanking those involved with securing them.


• In 2003, Nancy Welsh of the State Coastal Resources Department twice wrote to the City that “further industrialization of the wetlands of South Bay is not appropriate.” Rick ignored those clear orders then, just as he does now in supporting the current Waterfront Plan.


• In 2003, the Spirit of Hudson got a sweet deal on a long lease taking up the most prime portion of Hudson’s Waterfront Park. Coincidentally, an owner of the company made a substantial campaign contribution to Rick’s election campaign. And in 2004, the Spirit of Hudson abruptly sank, allegedly due to a design flaw in the pier.


• In 2004, one of Rick’s hand-picked Waterfront advisors, Bill Ebel, stated that the LWRP topic was “boring,” adding that it was “too burdensome” to share copies of the draft with the public, and questioning the motivations of citizens who’d attended the most recent Waterfront meeting. Another, Craig Thorn (R.I.P.) rolled his eyes when the topic of public participation was raised and denounced those attempting to do so as “making speeches.


• In 2005, as part of the SLC ruling, New York’s Secretary of State instructed Hudson to “immediately” rezone its Waterfront according to specific guidelines he supplied. Those guidelines ruled out heavy industry, trucking, and other activities which would hurt more forward-looking economic development. Nearly five years later, the City not only has ignored these instructions, but has actually proposed a Waterfront plan that goes against them.


• In 2005, as in 1999, Rick realized he couldn’t win re-election, and decided not to run. The new Mayor and Council asked me to analyze the state of the City’s Waterfront grants, and that study showed that the City’s record-keeping was a shambles. It took months to unravel which funds had been spent, which were still available, and which were in danger of being lost entirely. Such was Rick’s commitment to the Waterfront in his 2001 and 2003 terms.


• In early 2006, at a public information session hosted by the Council’s Waterfront Advisory Steering Committee (of which I was a member at the time), Department of State Coastal Resources staff member Bonnie Devine stated that “Even the parcels not publicly-owned are still the city’s waterfront, and you do have local tools to shape what happens on any and all parcels.” Likewise, City attorney and LWRP co-author Cheryl Roberts stated that “It should not be assumed that SLC will continue to be owner of property. Across the board, don't assume anyone will remain owners of a given parcel." Yet the City, including its attorney, seem to have forgotten or discarded this correct advice, providing special treatment and consideration to a few industrial interests’ short-term concerns.


• In 2007, over 1,000 comments were received by the City and State calling for a greener, more sustainable and more responsive vision for the Waterfront. But the City, its planners and its attorney have chosen to disregard public input, including extensive surveys conducted showing that the public wanted a more ambitious plan which consolidated the entire South Bay (including lands occupied by SLC) into the City’s long-term goals.
  

Such are just a few of the tales we might hear from the Waterfront, if it could talk. But what about what we can see? What does a clear-eyed look at the Hudson Waterfront reveal?

“Public” bathrooms which are almost never unlocked. A $125,000 gazebo built by one of Rick’s political allies. Barely any spots to park a boat for a few days (let alone store one for the winter). A small patch of grass which the Council members don’t seem to want either dog-walkers and young soccer players to enjoy. A lease of dubious legality to a little-used tour boat company. Unresolved land title issues. Industrial wreckage and blight, some of which is so old it might have to be landmarked. More lurking brownfield remediation projects. And an LWRP that is a mish-mosh of meaningless “compromises,” deferred difficult decisions, and preferential treatment for a few favored corporations.

Several terms ago, Rick talked about how he was looking forward to the day when he could “go down to the waterfront and have a beer sitting by the river.” Today, despite his several decades in local government, he still can’t do that (unless there is a rare special event, or is fortunate enough to have a coveted membership in the Hudson Boat Club). If it ever happens, I’ll be glad to have a beer by that river with Rick, and give him a little credit for his few contributions to the Waterfront—such as his claimed central role in removing the old oil tanks. But considering the snail’s pace that passes for progress under his leadership, I wouldn’t put it on your calendar any time soon.

For the Waterfront to make real progress, more people will need to speak up on its behalf. The way to do that is by submitting comments on the LWRP before March 15th to:

Mr. Kevin Millington
New York State Department of State
Office of Coastal Resources,
      Local Government and Community Sustainability
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 1010
Albany, NY 12231-0001
Phone: (518) 473-2479
Email: [email protected]