SamPratt.com

Foxy

Screen shot, Taghkanic (NY).

(South) Bay windows

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.

With a bullet

It’s not clear if anyone reads Hudson Valley Magazine, unless they are stuck in a train station and have already flipped through all the freebies (Metroland, The Artful Mind, Berkshire HomeStyle, etc.) from cover to cover twice. But every so often one is reminded that HVM still exists—this time because their current issue features the “Ten Top Towns” to “call home” in the Hudson Valley:

• Red Hook
• Pawling
• Hurley
• New Paltz
• Hudson
• Windham
• Highland Falls
• Washingtonville
• Pearl River
• Garrison

As far as we can tell the ten chosen above are not in either ascending or descending order, but are just considered the “best” by the editors.

HVM hastens to add Saugerties, Beacon, High Falls and Millbrook as honorable mentions, and provides a way for people to gripe about towns left off the list. They further hedge their bets (and insulate themselves from criticism) by admitting that the Hudson Valley is “pretty big” and that “it’s tough for us to nail down what exactly makes our region special.” Now, everyone loves a Top 10 list. They’re the uninspired editor’s best friend: easy to sell, and easy to digest; but if you’re not going to stand behind your choices, what’s the point?

Bactrian

Graffito, alleyway, Hudson (NY).

‘Prego’ means you’re welcome

Sidewalk, Warren Street, Hudson (NY).

Cautionary advice

Dumpster, Hudson (NY).

Ornamentum

Tanel Veenre opening, 506½ Warren Street, Hudson (NY).

A capital recommendation

From Michael Moore's most recent movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," a proposal made by FDR one year before his death...

Ed Thompson

This site wishes to pause a moment to mark the death of Edward Thompson, Jr., after 86 years on the planet. His full obituary can be read here in the Columbia Paper. I always addressed Ed as “Mr. Thompson,” because his bearing seemed to harken back to an earlier era where younger people addressed their elders more formally and respectfully.

Mr. Thompson was elected Alderman for Hudson’s 4th Ward as a Republican eight times. He generally remained quiet and seemingly bemused as he sat on the right hand side in the back (from the audience's point of view) behind the Council balustrade, near the City Clerk. He could be counted on to provide a second for a motion, though seldom offering ones of his own.

At the time I got to know Mr. Thompson, the Common Council was a very different place. Pretty much everyone on the Council was there because of their unquestioned and unquestioning loyalty to either the Hudson Democrats or Republicans—who were more Local Team A and Local Team B than ideological adherents to either party. Council meetings in the late ’90s were sometimes explosive affairs, and future activists  started attending just to watch the sparks fly among more fiery aldermen such as Bill(y) Hart, Jim(my) Dolan, Dean(o) Melino, Carmine (Cappy) Pierro, Bob (Doc) Donahue, or Ray Simmons. Citizen engagement only arose among the attendees later, as the Council’s topics became more serious than mundane fence disputes and the dreary “reading of the bills.”

Like his contemporary Jeff Seymour of the 1st Ward, Mr. Thompson stood out among his peers as reserved and courteous. Though I was rarely on the same side of an issue as him, he was never anything but civil, and invariably would give a smiling “Hello, young man” greeting whenever we saw each other at the market on the corner of 1st and Warren. Ed was oldschool—not the type to fill the Council chambers with shouting, insults and pointed fingers. He didn’t spend meetings chewing a gigantic wad of Nicorette like some rabid squirrel, or reading prepared speeches written for him by one of the political bosses. You got the sense his mind was elsewhere, in some more pleasant and far less ludicrous place than City Hall.

It was never really clear why exactly he’d want to be an Alderman at all. A veteran, he had also served in the Army in the South Pacific, and ran linotype machines for various newspapers and printers in the area. Maybe he agreed to be an Alderman  just for the health care; or maybe even he felt he owed someone the favor of service. All I can say for certain was that unlike many of his peers, Mr. Thompson comported himself like a gentleman, and he carried about him the air of an older Hudson which—while no doubt just as troubled and tawdry as the present-day—still believed in keeping up basic appearances of decorum and civility.

He’ll be missed.

The Don of South Bay

c. 1893 POSTCARD FOUND BY DON CHRISTENSEN IN THE ATTIC OF HIS WILLARD PLACE HOUSE, SHOWING THE SOUTH BAY STARTING TO DEGRADE FROM THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE RAILROAD, THE IRON WORKS, AND FRED JONES’ TRESTLE

At her Gossips of Rivertown blog, Carole Osterink posts about Don Christensen’s 2001 exhibit at the Hudson Opera House, Seeing South Bay. As she references Save the South Bay’s summary of this stunning show, I thought it might be useful to excerpt that portion of those comments here for interested readers. (The full comments can be read online or by downloading the files by following the links here; the one-page Executive Summary is here.)

---

IV. PRIOR PLANS & STUDIES

B. SAVE THE SOUTH BAY EXHIBITION

In 2000-2001, Hudson resident Don Christensen embarked on a remarkable exploration of a question he had every time he looked out the back window of his house on Willard Place: How did Hudson’s famous South Bay—once an open body of water full of schooners that was depicted repeatedly by the Hudson River School painters—become a degraded swamp and landfilled industrial wasteland?

Christensen came to Hudson in the 1980s without any intention of getting involved in local affairs. Now the threat of SLC turned this casual question into a matter of fight-or-flight urgency. Going through old deeds at the Columbia County Real Property Department, dusty files at the County Historical Society, spinning through acres of microfilm in area libraries, checking the archives of historic sites and museums, and quizzing astonished bureaucrats at agencies like the New York State Office of General Services, Bureau of Land Management, Division of Lands Underwater, Don unearthed the true history of the Bay. His research raised serious questions about the SLC’s title to illegally-filled acres along the river, and resulted in a major exhibit at the Hudson Opera House, Seeing South Bay. The more than 100 images and documents in Seeing South Bay included old maps, deeds, newspaper articles, photographs, 19th Century artwork, and numerous other historical resources are archived online [here].

Images from the exhibit are interspersed throughout these comments. The exhibit included this March 2001 statement from the National Trust for Historic Preservation:

“With a mix of scenery and history unmatched anywhere else in the country, the Hudson Valley is one of America’s greatest treasures. South Bay, with Mt. Merino rising overhead, represents a significant part of that heritage. The history of this landscape vista should compel each of us to ask: What have we lost and what could we lose further?”

[The exhibition’s effect] was to remind residents of the area that the South Bay was not always degraded— and that it does not have to remain so. Christensen’s project established the largely-ignored South Bay as a centerpiece of Hudson’s history and legacy, and created a public desire to see as much of it restored as possible—to reverse some 150 years of neglect. It made people realize that the City had more hidden assets and broader horizons than its leaders sometimes want them to believe.

Among the many small and large revelations of the exhibit was Christensen’s exposure of how industrialist Fred Jones, one of the earlier quarriers of Becraft Mountain, manoevered Hudson officials in the late 19th Century into allowing him to put a railroad trestle through South Bay, a body of water and view which was considered practically sacred by many residents.

Jones understood that if he simply proposed the trestle outright, he would be turned down. So instead he announced that he was going to put a railroad along one of Hudson’s residential streets to move vast quantities of stone to the Waterfront. As Jones correctly calculated, this announcement set off a firestorm of indignation and protest. After the initial hue and cry, Jones came back with a repentant attitude and a stated willingness to compromise: He’d “settle” instead for a railroad trestle through the Bay. Those who feared trains rolling past their doorsteps fell for his ploy, and agreed to his fake bargain.

The parallels with the present-day actions of Holcim are all too clear. Holcim, with the connivance of O&G, have steadily introduced excruciating levels of truck traffic into dense residential neighborhoods of Hudson. Now, as part of the LWRP, they are “agreeing” to relieve the City of this noxious and hazardous traffic by accepting instead a heavy haul road through the South Bay—along the exact same causeway which was built up from sediment and fill surrounding Jones’ trestle. Will Hudson fall for this gambit all over again?

---

C. LAND TITLE ISSUES

In 2001, in the course of his South Bay research, Christensen also unearthed significant land title problems at the Waterfront, working with Friends of Hudson and also former OGS attorney Robert Maclean.

Maclean was for several decades the attorney for the very agency which oversees such matters, and privately was able to verify with staff that Christensen’s claims had merit. (A copy of a Friends of Hudson news release summarizing Christensen’s findings is included as Attachment IV-B and a schematic map, Attachment IV-D, created by Friends of Hudson in consultation with Mr. Christensen in 2001, which shows the contested areas in great detail; a detail of that map appears below.)

 

Commenting on behalf of Friends of Hudson in July 2001 as part of the group’s application for full party status in the DEC review of the Greenport project, attorney Jeffrey S. Baker (who since has performed legal work for some City agencies) addressed the topic as follows. Due to the importance of this matter, we reproduce below a large portion of Baker’s brief:

X. LAND OWNERSHIP ON THE HUDSON WATERFRONT 

As part of its application, SLC proposes a significant expansion of its existing dock facilities in Hudson, primarily for the purpose of being able to simultaneously handle out-going barges receiving cement and in-coming HudsonMax vessels delivering coal and other inputs. 

SLC has applied to the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to dredge up to 80,000 cubic yards of river bottom and to fill up 51,907 square feet for construction of its dock facilities.[22] Associated with the requested dock expansion, SLC has applied to the New York State Office of General Services for a Grant for Lands Underwater. Very serious issues have arisen with respect to SLC's right to request such a grant including questions about whether it evens has valid title to the land it currently occupies. 

Public records indicate that SLC does not likely hold title to substantial land areas along the edge of the Hudson River where the company proposes to locate its dock operations. Because of probably unauthorized fill-in of the Hudson River by SLC and/or its predecessor companies beyond boundaries defined by State authority, the locale of the proposed dock occupies a large area of land that in all probability is held in title by the People of the State of New York.In addition, the area of the waterfront that was filled in by proper authority of the State was permitted under the express condition of maintenance in perpetuity of a sizeable dock for use by the public. SLC and its immediate predecessor company failed to comply with this condition, thereby raising the prospect of a return of these lands to the People of the State of New York. The land ownership of the waterfront area would directly affect the nature of any dock operation proposed by SLC if not raising a legal question about the actual right of the company to occupy any part of the area. 

The entire area of the current lands along the Hudson River now occupied by SLC's dock is landfill in the bed of the Hudson River. The issue of title ownership concerns approximately 1,400 feet along the River's edge that comprises SLC's primary area for its current and proposed active dock use. Authority for a precisely defined fill-in of this area of the Hudson River, along with conditions for the fill-in, was granted by State Legislative Act, Chapter 195, Laws of 1855, and was reconfirmed and slightly revised in a subsequent State Legislative Act, Chapter 167, Laws of 1861. These two Legislative Acts redefined the size and conditions of a previous “Grant of Land Underwater” issue by the State Land Commissioner through Letter Patent to John L. Graham dated December 12, 1836. There is no other apparent State authorization that provides any other definition of this area of the Hudson River permitted to be filled in or any other definition of conditions accompanying any fillin. 

The Legislative Acts provide: (a) precise measurements of the area of the Hudson River allowed to be filled in for use of commerce (b) the condition for the filling of the River that states “hereby required forever hereafter to keep open the slip or space now opened by them to the south of their furnace of a width of at least sixty feet, and extending back from the channel of said river at least two hundred and fifty feet, for the use of the public.” The restrictions defined by these acts for permitted landfill and the maintenance of the required public dock were honored for generations. Additional, and apparently unauthorized, landfill running most of the entire length of these 1400 feet of the Hudson River as well as the closing of the public dock was carried out by SLC and/or its immediate predecessor company at some time after approximately 1915. 

An in-depth research project by Friends of Hudson member Don Christensen and subsequent confirmation by Robert Maclean, Esq., former counsel to OGS have revealed the problems with SLC's existing title. That research was further confirmed by the rejection by OGS of the draft survey supplied by SLC with its application for the grant of state lands, where OGS determined that the proffered survey lacked sufficient detail and supporting information to demonstrate SLC title to the existing lands and the proper delineation of the requested grant. 

In the absence of a valid survey the precise extent of the possible unauthorized fill-in of the area cannot be determined. A rough approximation of the unauthorized landfill suggests an area upwards of seven acres and possibly more. All of the area of unauthorized landfill would be lands held in title by the People of the State of New York. Without proper title, SLC's proposed design and use of the waterfront as outlined in the EIS cannot be considered. 

The evidence of unauthorized fill by SLC and its predecessors in such a substantial area raises significant questions about the nature of the fill material and the real possibility that it was filled with industrial waste causing contamination to the lands of the People of the State of New York and the Hudson River. While the Joint Permit Application to DEC and the Army Corps of Engineer contains sediment samples in the river, there are no soil samples taken of the existing dock area itself and the area that was illegally filled. 

In addition to the illegal and potentially dangerous fill, SLC and its predecessor's violation of the specific conditions of the Legislative grant constitute a gross violation of the public trust. SLC was required to maintain a 60 foot wide public dock area in perpetuity. That requirement constituted an early Legislative recognition that public access to the waterfront, not just by spectators but as an active waterfront was essential to the orderly development and beneficial use by all members of the community. By failing to comply with that condition, title to all lands held by SLC associated with that condition is subject to challenge and revocation. There is well established legal precedent fro revoking grants of lands underwater where the grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of the grant. 

Non-compliance with the condition is not simply an academic exercise, but raises significant questions with respect to SLC's offered mitigation of a pedestrian walkway around its property so that people can view the river. Regardless of how attractive SLC attempts to make such an access area, it is an inadequate substitute for the lack of public landing that it was supposed to have maintained in the first place. Before SLC seeks to mitigate the impacts of what it intends to do, it must first restore the condition it was obligated to provide as a condition of the original grant. 

Coupled with SLC’s violation of its existing grant, are grave concerns regarding the requested expansion of the dock area. The Hudson River Estuary Management Action Plan issued by DEC in 1996 and the 9 NYCRR Part 2, priority use of the Hudson River is to be given to the public by use of lands still owned by the People of the State of New York and thus should preclude an extension of the grant to SLC. This is particularly relevant with the City of Hudson's plans to redevelop the waterfront and increase public access to the river.

However, apparently due to the intense controversy surrounding the Greenport Project in 2001- 2002, neither the DEC nor the Office of General Services’ Bureau of Lands Underwater was eager to investigate the land title issue. In addition to SLC being a political “hot potato,” private feedback from persons connected with OGS indicated that the State was loathe to open the whole “lands underwater” can of worms, since there is the potential of many supposedly private property owners along the river being similarly situated atop unpermitted fill into the River, lands which could be reclaimed by the State. 

As such, this key issue was tabled by the Pataki administration during the period when no state agency wanted to be first to make a move on the controversial SLC project. It was reported back to Friends of Hudson that OGS staff at one point were instructed to try to disprove Christensen’s research, but found that they could not. A single, inconclusive memo was issued which partially disputed one small portion of his research, but all the other aspects of the claim were left unaddressed. 

Maclean is now retired in Loudonville, but would likely be willing to address this matter again; this same suggestion was made to the WASC and Ms. Roberts several times in 2006-2007, to no effect. Nor to our knowledge has the City or DLWRP authors undertaken other independent efforts to ascertain the true extent of Holcim’s land holdings in the South Bay area, though it is rumored that the quasi-public Hudson Development Corporation (HDC) undertook some investigation of these matters in 2005-2006. And naturally, Holcim has had no interest in pursuing this itself, and has strenuously denied that it lacks clear title to these former lands underwater. 

But if the State and/or City were to ascertain that the disputed riverfront acres belonged to them, rather than to Holcim, the entire complexion of the DLWRP would change. All of the compromises and accommodations of the company’s demands would be transformed into a major new public opportunity. 

Save the South Bay thus recommends with the utmost urgency that this matter be fully investigated prior to the enactment of any LWRP for Hudson.