- “It should not be assumed that SLC will continue to be owner of [its Waterfront] property. Across the board, don't assume anyone will remain owners of a given parcel.” —City Attorney Cheryl Roberts at an LWRP meeting in 2006, before she reversed position and decided to build a plan around the company's demands. Records of these meetings were not included in the plans narrative.
- “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.” —Department of State Coastal Resources staff member Bonnie Devin, again at a 2006 LWRP meeting
A SUMMARY OF THE KEY FLAWS in the current draft Local Waterfront revitalization plan for Hudson...
- The draft plan is not responsive to the public’s clarion call for a more sustainable, forward-looking, long-range plan. Instead, it was designed to accommodate short-term, transitory demands from a handful of special corporate interests.
- It is not responsive to the Secretary of State’s clear guidance about how to rezone the Hudson Waterfront in his April 2005 ruling on the SLC proposal.
- It likewise endorses special and destructive privileges to the Swiss-owned Holcim company which are nearly identical to those rejected by the Secretary of State in his April 2005 cement plant ruling—for example the extension of adock some 400 feet to allow for loading and unloading of massive barges.
- It ignores and even contradicts the repeated instructions of the the State's Coastal staff, which issued two advisories in 2003 stating that it is not appropriate to further industrialize the wetlands of South Bay.
- Its “alternative analysis” for getting trucks of Hudson’s streets and out of urban neighborhoods is both perfunctory and,based upon false premises. Such traffic should be blocked from both the South Bay and downtown.
- It worsens rather than resolves the longstanding use conflict at the Waterfront between heavy industry and public access to (and enjoyment of) the Hudson River.
- Lastly, the plan guarantees future bitter conflicts among competing industrial uses and more positive commerical and recerational uses, as well as threatening meaningful ecological restoration.
For more details on the above points, you can download Sam Pratt’s 8-page memorandum to the City of Hudson in Acrobat (PDF) format by clicking here.