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).
