Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Hudson Waterfront Committee Meeting Author: Ned Depew [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:41:28 09/07/05 Wed The Waterfront Commitee meeting was interesting but not terribly informative - other than giving more information than most people either wanted or needed about the progress of the dredging and reclamation of the park extension along the water. FYI, it's going along well, and is almost done. The key discussion - of the LWRP - was put off yet again, on the grounds that the Committee doesn't want to waste time going forward on it until the expiration of the final gasp of time for SLC to appeal Randy Daniels' ruling on their plan. Of course, SLC publicly declared that they "are not going to appeal," and they told their stockholders in their most recent newsletter that they had "written off" the investment they had made in trying to get the Greenport Proposal accepted. It would be tough for them to reverse such public postures now - but I guess it's possible. At any rate, one concession from the Committee - in the person of C. Butterworth - was that they will authorize Schuster and Associates to provide an electronic copy of the latest draft of the LWRP to the Hudson City Clerk, and that the City Clerk will make it accessible to citizens via a link from the City web site. It should be up within the next week - so anyone who is interested will be able to read, consider and comment on it. Meanwhile, the SBC is also going ahead with its plans to do the research and development work necessary - from their point of view - to prepare to help shape the LWRP into something that serves the needs and desires of all the citizens of Hudson (except Gene - who still desires the SLC project to be built). You can get involved in the SBC through Susan Falzon - who is the acting information person - at falzon@mhcable.com, or write them at 110 Front Street, Hudson, NY 12534. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Putting words where there were none, tell the truth.... Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:14:44 09/07/05 Wed Ned, I take exception to you saying that I am the sole supporter of the SLC project. If you were at the Chatham Fair this past week you would know there are a multitude of people who would like the SLC project to move forward. So put you ear to the ground and listen to what the people outside of your world are saying for a change. In that way you will have the true and complete story not some half baked scheme by the people who you seem to idolize as the saviors of our Planet.

[> [> Subject: I apologize, Gene, sort of, Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:47:49 09/07/05 Wed I was exaggerating for emphasis - and also because, although others might "like the SLC project to move foreward," pretty much everyone but you seems to know that SLC has withdrawn their proposal and that their chance to appeal Secretary Daniels' finding has long ago expired. If SLC wants to do something on their Greenport property, they'll have to start all over from scratch, with a new plan - knowing the obstacles they face with use of the waterfront and the fact that their mining permit would have to be reissued - given that the ALJ's ruled that it could not be "grandfathered." As I said elsewhere, you (and others?) might "like to see it," but to hold out hope that you will see it is simply living in denial of reality. Whether there are in fact others who join you in that fantasy land I am not sure - but I hope you aren't taking collective delusion as any sort of affirmation.

[> [> [> Subject: Re: I apologize, Gene, sort of, Is that sort of like being a little bit pregnant? Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:57:29 09/08/05 Thu There is always tomorrow, if we survive to see it, too. You are saying things can't change? Everthing is cast in stone, ah, cement?