It is unfortunate that five County Supervisors have either misunderstood or misconstrued both the nature and the source of the very serious Hudson truck problem, along with the Waterfront process. Below are ten points which The Valley Alliance would have brought immediately to their attention, had they sought input first before firing off this misguided and misleading letter.
We call upon all five to meet with us as soon as possible to discuss the following 10 points and questions. We urge them to join us in achieving a sound result—rather than misrepresenting the process and aiding the very company, Holcim, which has been deliberately making the problem worse, just to get their way and enrich their shareholders:
1. The Valley Alliance has stated publicly and repeatedly that the truck traffic on both the State truck route and the separate problem arising from Holcim’s unpermitted Waterfront activities must come to an end. The only way to truly guarantee a good, lasting solution for the City is to (a) get the State route out of Hudson, and (b) remove the heavy industrial uses from the Waterfront.
2. The LWRP process has been under consideration since the late 1980s. During that time, there have been at least four Waterfront chairs and committees. Many of us have been attending these meetings for years, calling for a better plan. Where have these five voices been the past 23 years? People would have appreciated their help all that time, rather than this last-minute rush to a lackluster outcome.
3. Between 1998-2005, the Waterfront process was stalled and obstructed by St. Lawrence Cement, the subsidiary of Holcim which is now subjecting residents to unfair trucking impacts, because it did not suit their narrow interests at the time to have an LWRP passed. Again, where were these voices for those long years, when others were trying to move the plan along in a positive direction? Shouldn’t their concerns and frustrations be directed at the company causing the problem?
4. For decades, the State truck route has gone through Hudson, to the detriment of the City. (NOTE: The LWRP does not address the State truck route on Columbia and 3rd at all, though it should.) Where have these five voices been all those decades? Why have they, like the Mayor, never lifted a finger to get those trucks out of Hudson?
5. Some of us served on a truck route task force in the late 90s, which was shut down by the Board of Supervisors when it started making progress. None of these five assisted with that effort, nor spoke out when the County government stopped the effort to re-route trucks around the City. So again, one wonders why they are now trying to rush an important process to benefit Holcim, rather than seeking real, lasting solutions?
6. Truck traffic to the Waterfront (again, entirely separate from the State truck route) was non-existent for more than 30 years. In Summer 2005, the Holcim corporation started subjecting City residents to unfair impacts from a new, unpermitted activity. This was a change in both the use and the intensity of activity at the Waterfront. Where were the Building Inspector, the City Attorney, and these official voices when that problem arose? Why have they not acted to stop the trucks they say are damaging the City's infrastructure and putting their constituents at risk? There are ways to do so right away, without waiting for the completion of the LWRP.
7. During the recent public comment period on the draft Plan, some 850-900 people filed comments. The Valley Alliance has obtained all those comments from the City and State. No comments from any of these five appear in those records. If they were interested in moving the Plan along, shouldn't they have participated? Doesn't that lack of participation call into question the motive for this letter? The review and incorporation of public input is required by law; why would they suggest rushing past that necessary and vital step?
8. Just recently, three Council meetings were held about the LWRP. Only two of these five were seen at any of those three meetings, and only one of them offered any questions or comments (and that one person did not raise timing as an issue). Why were they absent and silent on these issues?
9. The City, State and Federal government all have required review processes for LWRPs. Like it or not, it is legally required to follow those processes carefully. Right now, the City is waiting for its Attorney and planning firm, BFJ, to wrap up their contractual obligations—which they say won't be completed until late this fall. When asked to preview the Aldermen on the final stage of her work, the City Attorney declined to do so, and fully conceded that she has an unspecified personal matter which will delay that work somewhat. So if these five want to move the process along, shouldn't they be directing their request to these well-paid consultants?
10. Even if the LWRP were passed tomorrow, the truck problems in Hudson wouldnot be resolved for a long time. Neither the South Bay route nor any of the alternatives proposed are ready or viable for such traffic, and both would be subject to permitting issues. The LWRP itself states that not enough is known about these routes, and will require further study. Have any of the five read the plan (and the public's comments) to understand these obstacles?
The quickest and most lasting solution to is get Holcim off the Waterfront, and also start lobbying the DOT to remove the separate State truck route through the City. That company was just fined some $450,000 for over 300 violations at its Catskill plant (and its Connecticut-based trucking company was just fined $8.3 million for negligence in the deaths and injuries of its workers). Are these the types of businesses we want calling the shots in Hudson? We urge these five to join us in achieving those goals—rather than grandstanding to help a foreign-owned company get its way.
