The Valley Alliance

Updates

Updates on the status of the LWRP process will be posted here as they arise. Click the various links above, below and to the right of this text to explore the rest of the site; you can also leave suggestions in the comments section.

2nd salvo: Community comments

The Valley Alliance today submitted comments on behalf of its supporters to supplement the legal memorandum filed yesterday by our counsel, Warren S. Replansky. This second, 24-page document includes a concise executive summary as follows:

• I. RAIL ALTERNATIVE: The Plan has yet to consider a rail alternative for aggregate transport which bypasses the Waterfront altogether, making the Hudson dock area available for more compatible, beneficial uses.


• II. SEGMENTATION:Paid for by O&G, this Generic Environmental Impact Statement is not 'generic' at all, but tailored instead to a single, site-specific project, whose review has been illegally segmented under SEQRA.


• III. 'MAKING THE MOST OF YOUR WATERFRONT': The clear lack of community consensus and public acceptance of this Plan endangers its future implementation and success, a problem which needs urgent correction, with State assistance.


• IV. ABANDONED RAILROAD BED: Holcim itself has repeatedly described the 'causeway' as an abandoned, demolished, dismantled and/or inactive 'railbed'; yet the GEIS insists that it's always been a road.


• V. MOORE LETTER: The head of the lead agency for this review has arbitrarily and capriciously discarded his own prior laundry list of problems with this Plan, pushing it forward without resolving those concerns.

The full document can be downloaded by clicking here.

Alliance questions legality of Hudson Waterfront process

Attorney Warren S. Replansky today filed a hard-hitting, 10-point brief with the City of Hudson and New York State, detailing a host of legal problems which continue to afflict Hudson’s waterfront planning process. A summary follows below of the serious legal issues raised by Replansky in his memorandum (click here to download it in full) on behalf of the Valley Alliance.

Replansky’s extensive experience includes assisting municipalities and citizens throughout the region to properly enact and enforce land use planning laws. He has acted as special counsel to the Town of Rhinebeck in the recent passage of their Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Law and Wetlands Law, and has served as the attorney for area municipalities such as the towns of Gallatin and North East. In Greenport, he assisted residents who opposed a gravel mine expansion, winning a case at the trial court level and on appeal. His work representing the towns of Ancram and Copake regarding the mile-long Palumbo gravel mine along the Route 22 corridor resulted in a rare denial of the mining permit by the DEC Commissioner; Replansky then worked with Ancram and Copake in developing Scenic Overlay Protection Districts.

10-POINT MEMO ADDRESSES KEY LEGAL FLAWS IN PROCESS

In his memo, Replansky cites extensive case law to argue that:

1. Since significant and substantial changes have been made to the Waterfront plan since the close of the public hearing, the law requires that the hearing be re-opened, so that citizens have a fair opportunity to participate.


2. As lead agency, the Common Council has failed to take the requisite “hard look” required by law at the impacts of enacting the Waterfront plan.


3. The lead agency improperly postponed necessary review (and the possible imposition of mitigation measures) of the impacts of Holcim and O&G’s site-specific plans.


4. The lead agency failed to evaluate the impacts of the recent work on (and use of) the so-called “causeway” as a heavy haul road for moving gravel.


5. The Council has received mistaken legal advice about whether Holcim and O&G’s use of the dock and “causeway” are entitled to protections, and whether the City has the power to control or stop it.


6. The plan’s alternative analysis is deeply flawed, as it considers only a “no action” option, and fails to consider other potentially-viable alternatives.


7. The entire process has been perverted by the plan’s identification of the “causeway” as its preferred route for moving gravel.


8. Calling the “causeway” a “temporary short term measure” undermines the endorsement of it as the City’s preferred alternative route.


9. The proposed zoning is fatally flawed because it provides no mechanisms for terminating the “causeway” as a short-term option.


10. As either a short-term solution or a permanent alternative, the plan has failed to consider either banning or otherwise regulating truck traffic.

Details of each of these ten numbered points can be found in the full legal memorandum, which is attached.

ABOUT THE VALLEY ALLIANCE, COMMENTS FROM ITS DIRECTORS

Since 2007, the Valley Alliance has represented hundreds of residents in the 12534 zip code who have been concerned with the direction of the City’s waterfront plan. Several thousand citizen comments have been submitted over the years to the City and State expressing those concerns, but the City’s legal and planning consultants have been largely unresponsive.

“The City has spent over two decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars, just to accommodate Holcim and O&G,” said Alliance co-director Peter Jung, “Meanwhile, residents’ concerns have gotten the short end of the stick.” 

“After all this time, they still haven’t solved the problem of the gravel trucks,” Jung noted. “Every ward of the City is still being affected by Holcim and O&G’s heavy dump truck traffic. Now it’s just been moved to upper Columbia and 3rd Street. This plan doesn’t fix that problem anytime soon, even though Hudson’s consultants have already given away the store to Holcim and O&G.”

“This is simply not a plan that anyone can point to with pride, or as a model of how to do waterfronts right,” commented Alliance co-director Sam Pratt on Wednesday. 

“For all the time and money it’s taken to piece together this deeply-flawed plan, Hudson is no better off if it passes,” Pratt added. “The plan does little except preserve the status quo: No new jobs or construction at the Waterfront. No realistic improvement in public access to the River. No restoration of the South Bay. No community consensus. No public acceptance or enthusiasm. No unification of past divisions. 

“The plan’s vision statement is a hodgepodge of technocratic mumbo-jumbo, inspiring to no one. And its details offer only muddled guidance to future leaders on how to proceed. As it stands, this plan just perpetuates existing problems—dooming the Waterfront to mediocrity at best, failure at worst. Frankly, the City’s planners and attorney have made a mockery of the State’s well-intentioned goals for Waterfront planning. Hudson can, and must, do better.”

Regarding the Replanksy memo, Pratt noted that “Over 80 people showed up for their last meeting, but the Common Council would not allow any comments or questions from the audience before rushing to take a vote. If they had, our attorney was there and prepared to address each of these issues. This memo then might have proved unnecessary. Hudson is already beset with lawsuits, so it’s a lousy idea to recklessly invite more legal headaches. Instead of continuing to shut residents out and heed shoddy legal advice, we hope the Council will take a serious look at Mr. Replansky’s forthright legal memo, and then sit down with people to work out a more amicable and positive outcome. We continue to believe that for the people who live here, there are more points of common interest than of disagreement, once the smokescreens created by foreign and out-of-state interests are cleared away.”

The Alliance will also be submitting, within the 10-day window for comments on the GEIS, a 20-plus page supplement to Replansky’s memo consisting of citizen comments on the process and how it has gone wrong. Residents interested in learning more about the Alliance are encouraged to send an email inquiry to hudsonbay@mac.com.

Public silenced at key Waterfront meeting

On Monday night, the Hudson Common Council took a key vote on the Hudson Waterfront plan, without allowing citizens to ask questions or make comments prior to a vote.

Despite the meeting (variously described as a “special meeting” or “work session”) not being publicly-noticed, some 80 residents and businesspeople attended. Council President Don Moore introduced a motion to accept the general environmental impact statement for the plan, released less than a week prior, and called for a vote without allowing for public input.

At the request of The Columbia Paper, the co-directors of the Valley Alliance submitted the following remarks on the conduct of the meeting:

PETER JUNG: Hudson has an extraordinary cadre of smart, committed, diligent citizens who are passionate about civic outcomes in our town. Why wouldn’t the Common Council (which is the Lead Agency for the LWRP) wish to avail itself of the wealth of experience and expertise that is available for free?

SAM PRATT: It is not every night that 80+ people show up for a local meeting, or that decisions are made that can affect the life of a place for decades to come. So to deny the public any chance to comment prior to a vote is doubly undemocratic, and even un-American.

It’s emblematic of the flawed and unresponsive process thus far for this plan. Council President Don Moore plainly was afraid of the Alderman hearing from the public, as there were many in the audience who had information that would  have cast doubt on the misleading legal and planning info presented.

The plan as presented simply is not the result of citizen input, community consensus, and public acceptance, each of which are explicit State goals for waterfront planning. This is instead the product of a Spencertown lawyer  and downstate planner working in private, who’ve catered again and again to the demands of a single foreign company and their Connecticut subsidiary.

Worst of all, the current version of this plan offers nothing to celebrate: no realistic hope of new jobs, restored habitats, social cohesion, or even basic riverfront amenities. After more than a quarter-century and hundreds of thousands down the drain, Hudson has little to show for it, except the likelihood of more controversy down the road.

Heartfelt and expert comments from local  voices have been silenced, in favor of  amplifying the clout of a few privileged interests. Under Moore’s desultory guidance, what began as a hopeful and positive initiative has become a dispiriting testament to the breakdown of democratic processes.

Alliance submits detailed comments

The Valley Alliance has submitted 20 pages of detailed comments on the proposed designation of the South Bay Creek and Marsh as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. These comments are specifically addressed to the particular evaluation criteria which the State uses to make decisions on such designations, but also include a great deal of local history and background. To read them in their entirety, click here [PDF].

Comment Deadline Extended

Peter Jung of the Valley Alliance attended last night’s Department of State meeting in Catskill, and learned that the deadline for public comments on the proposed designation of Hudson’s South Bay as a Significant Fish & Wildlife Habitat has been extended to August 15th.

Click here to go to our action page to make your voice heard for this important upgrade of protections to this unique area. Another meeting will be held at Norrie Point in Staatsburg on July 27th, where the DOS and DEC will be particularly interested in information regarding Coastal Management Policy 7, which can be read here as a PDF.

 

Action Alert: Upgrade the South Bay!

DEADLINE: July 15th, 2011 August 15th, 2011

GOAL: Encourage the restoration of South Bay, protecting its habitats and species, by supporting the State's plan to upgrade it to a Significant Coastal Fish & Wildlife Habitat.

ACTION: Send an urgent email message to the New York Department of State Division of Coastal Resources...

 ♦ CLICK HERE TO ACT NOW! ♦ 

When you click the link above, a draft message will be created in your email program which states:

Dear Ms. Wojtowicz and Deputy Secretary Stafford:

I support the designation of the South Bay Creek and Marsh as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat.

These unique wetlands, creeks, marshes and swamps and other habitats in the Bay are rare and irreplaceable. As functioning elements of the Hudson River Estuary, the diverse habitats of South Bay merit restoration. The species which call it home require clear protections from degradation, impairment and destruction by non-natural incursions.

The habitat functions and values of the area could be improved significantly if human impairments to it, such as filling, contamination, and other discharges, are corrected. Roadways and other inappropriate industrial and transportation uses must be prohibited there.

The Bay clearly supports species which are rare, threatened, endangered, or of other special concern, but not listed in the draft. The Bay likewise has human uses not mentioned, such as its value as open space, and the enjoyment of its natural resources (e.g. kayaking, photography, and nature study.)

Thank you for your consideration.

Add your name and address to the end of the message... Naturally, you can alter the text as you see fit, or else send it as-is.

If you have any difficulty using the email link, you can cut-and-paste it into a letter and mail it to the address below, or call DOS directly:.

Stephanie Wojtowicz
Department of State
Division of Coastal Resources
99 Washington Ave., Suite 1010
Albany NY 12231
Stephanie.Wojtowicz@dos.state.ny.us
(518) 486-7641

And you can always contact us at hudsonbay@mac.com with any questions and suggestions.

Our previous action page is archived here.

Video of Alliance at Basilica

Rob Johanson of Midhudsonmedia has graciously provided video of The Valley Alliance’s recent presentation at Basilica Hudson on the City of Hudson waterfront plan (LWRP). Click here to see the event.

Tech note: The video is offered in two sections. At the end of the first section, the next portion of the meeting will load separately.

Radio Interview

Peter Jung and Sam Pratt of The Valley Alliance were interviewed yesterday by Victor Mendolia and Debora Gilbert (of The Columbia Paper) on 90.7’s @Issue program on WGXC. Click here to listen to the audio, which begins about 3 minutes into the interview.

Alliance Presentation, 6/7/11

PHOTO: T. Alden Mann; click to enlarge

If you were among the many attendees of Tuesday night’s Alliance event at the Basilica Hudson and want to review the presentation materials—or missed it and want to find out what was presented—click here to download the slides as a PDF. Audio and video should be available in the next few days.

Tuesday, 6 pm, at the Basilica Hudson

The Valley Alliance has completed its initial review of the new Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) for Hudson. Next Tuesday, you are invited to attend a presentation and Q & A session at the Basilica Hudson to discuss our findings in depth:

DATE: Tuesday, June 7th
TIME: 6 pm—8 pm
WHERE: Basilica Hudson
ADDRESS: South Front Street, just below the Amtrak station

This plan could shape the future of Hudson and the surrounding area for generations to come. We hope you’ll attend, and maybe even bring a friend. After a half-hour presentation, the rest of the meeting will be devoted to questions, answers and some steps you can take to secure a better outcome. The meeting is intended to help inform and prepare citizens in advance of the Common Council taking up the matter for a vote.

For more information about the Hudson Waterfront and the Valley Alliance, please visit our website. If you’d like to read the proposed plan for yourself, you can download it in two parts by clicking here and here. We look forward seeing you on Tuesday, and to a productive dialogue.