| Subject: The South Bay Coalition |
Author:
Ned Depew
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:39:37 09/06/05 Tue
I went to the meeting tonight. Here's a little of what it was about and what I learned.
The SBC just formed about five months ago - in March or April. It's not a registered organization or anything, at this point - it is pretty much, as I said, ad hoc, for the study of the Waterfront and South Bay development, although it does has a "mission statement" (which no one had with them!) and is borrowing "staff support" (to do things like prepare tonight's presentation, make the maps, create the slide show, etc.) from various member organizations and individual volunteers.
The SBC grew out of meetings between interested groups like Scenic Hudson and Friends of Hudson, getting together and talking about the very thing Tom is always chiding them for not presenting - "alternatives" that could be created when and if the SLC proposal was withdrawn.
Eventually, kicking around ideas and doing research on ownership, deeds, designations (South Bay and part of the Waterfront are Class 1 Wetlands), restrictions and so forth, they decided that the "Waterfront Committee" was meeting too infrequently (only twice in the last year) and with too ittle public information to get important work done on development planning for the area.
Secretary of State Randy Daniels, in his decision that found the SLC proposal to be incompatible with the DOS's policies on Waterfront Use, said: "It is recommended that a new "Waterfront Zone" plan be created that addresses the goals of the [City of Hudson's] Vision Plan and the specifics of the Master Plan. The zone should be created immediately."
The individuals and groups involved in the SBC have been doing that - while the meeting scheduled for 3pm tomorrow (Wednesday, September 6) will be the first the "Waterfront Committee" has bothered to have since SLC withdrew their application last spring - hardly an "immediate" response.
While the SBC has some ideas about the Waterfront Zone Plan, at this point they are looking to expand their membership base by involving new members, and doing outreach to the community to get input from City residents.
At tonight's meeting, they presented a brief overview of the history of South Bay, talked about its current designations and zoning. They talked about - and showed plans and pictures of - some of the best mixed-use development that has been done in other towns, like Beacon, North Tarrytown (where I grew up!), Irvington, and Yonkers. They asked for suggestions about what those who attended thought development should look like here
The response strongly emphasized mixed use. Everyone who spoke wanted to see a combination of residential use - a large part of it low- to moderate-income - recreational use, conservancy or open parkland, some industrial use and some commercial development.
Some speakers were more emphatic about open space and access to the river, some were more emphatic about addressing Hudson's crying need for affordable housing. Some stressed the need to provide jobs for Hudson's residents for whom transportation to distant job sites was becoming prohibitively expensive. Some talked about the contribution that commercial development could make by providing jobs, sales tax income, increasd tax base and helping to attract more tourism - which brings money into the local economy without putting much load on services.
But everybody agreed that the Community should make the decisions by creating a plan now - not waiting until some large developer comes in with a plan of their own and tries to spring it on the City. Stories were told of some of the fiascos that have developed in other communities where developers have forced through plans that did, indeed, make the waterfront the "Rich Man's Playground" that some fear here.
But they also stressed that communities all up and down the Hudson have taken control of their Waterfronts, and in many localities made them centers of community, cultural, recreational and commercial/industrial activity - in additon, in some cases, to providing a mix of attractive, affordable housing and some higher-end living spaces.
Contrary to what Tim implied in a post on his board, there already is an official LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan), one which was originally developed from the "Vison Plan" process back in the 1990s.
But that LWRP has been found "deficient" by the Department of State (the agency that has oversight in such matters). It needs to be completed - which in this case means re-drafted. The "Waterfront Committee" (the same one that brought us the Butterworth Toilet Blockhouse and the Concrete Gazebo) is meeting tomorrow. It would be a good time to come and give your input - to ask the Committee to revisit the LWRP now that the SLC proposal has been withdrawn, which changes things a lot.
We need a plan. Otherwise we'll be at the mercy of events that are forced on us. You can be part of making that plan if you take the time and accept the responsibility to do so. If you don't, then don't complain because others do.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 