Pretty impressive, Kathleen. I noticed just the other day that the City's FOIL request form basically says "we'll get back to you in 20 days, unless we need more time." A cynic might wonder if the quick reply this time has something to do with the Mayor or Corporation Counsel wanting to get you the numbers quickly because they could be used as leverage over the police union in current bargaining or jockeying for position. Whatever the reason, this is a very good FOIL precedent, making long delays less justifiable in the future, even if it remains for now a miraculous outlier in the FOIL process.
Gerry, Thank you for keeping the tone so agreeable and the discussion productive. Your approach may not be the best way to persuade concerned neighbors, who I hope you will agree have the right to meaningful participation and full information.
Actual details about the project might be more helpful (e.g., are rumors correct that the dock will be 300 feet long, although the Onrust needs 60 feet? how will the traffic and parking be handled? how will the Onrust be protected from the vandals you've been so worried about in Riverside Park?). As for a SEQR review, as you know, the law mandates a review before, not after, a decision is made, plus public participation. How will that oversight be corrected?
My mind is open, but I need a meaningful response in order to consider the overall value of this project. If you are at all interested in a civil discussion, please look me up. s/ David Giacalone (20-year Stockade resident and almost daily user of Riverside Park)
Mr Plante, Talking about something with enthusiasts is a lot different than either (1) making a definite plan and allowing the public to comment; or (2) complying with required environmental impact review under SEQR laws.
Of course, "enhance" does not mean the same thing for each us of; and "underutilize" is in the eye (or pocketbook) of the beholder. Far too often, when someone says something "doesn't need much thought" or is a No-Brainer, I worry that they don't want the scrutiny or questions that come with giving the notion adequate thought.
One way to get informed public support is to actually inform the public -- after a good faith attempt at looking at the impact of the action.
Docking the Onrust at Riverside Park might be a good idea, but I'm wondering why the City decided to make its decision without a public hearing or an environmental review of its impact on the park, the residential neighborhood that is only a few yards from the proposed dock, and the ambiance of the Historic District.
For example, I understand that the dock will be located near the dead-end turnarounds of North St. and Ingersoll Ave., and Ferry St. Each of these residential streets have only one narrow lane to accommodate traffic in both directions. And none has capacity for more tourist parking. How much additional traffic is expected? Will large school buses be using those streets to bring children to see this floating museum? What impact will the dock have on the small children's playground that exists at the end of North Street? If, as I have heard, the dock will be much longer than needed for the Onrust, and will also be available for public use, how much boat traffic is expected and what impact will that have on this small, quiet Park and the neighborhood?
Also, what security measures will be in place to keep the Onrust safe overnight from vandals and thieves?
The public and neighbors (not merely a few highly-interested parties) deserve to be given details of a proposal such as this and the opportunity to consider and comment on the proposal before a final decision is made and not -- as has apparently happened here -- after the project is given approval by the City.
p.s. As of August 3rd, scores of links to the Gazette from my weblogs will be broken. Every day, Google refers people from around the world to my sites on issues from sex offenders, police code of silence, and economic development projects, to pink flamingos and Frank Duci's grocery-list will. They will learn that we cannot count on the Gazette being available as a resource for the Schenectady angle on these topics -- and they will surely not be willing to pay your new fee of $2 to see a single article.
You're right: I'm frustrated and annoyed by this reversion to an online policy similar to one that failed prior to December 2007. The biggest problem for myself and other people with weblogs is the inability to link to your articles when discussing Schenectady news and issues. In effect, you will no longer be the "newspaper of record" online for our community -- the voice of Schenectady to the world beyond your hardcopy distribution zone. I will no longer be able to point my readers to the Gazette and they won't be able to do so at their own weblogs. When a local story of interest deserves web coverage, I'll be looking at the websites of your competitors for coverage.
Let me get this straight: Clinton's Ditch tries to unlawfully appropriate a public parking lot for its own use, and scares away persons who had been legally parked by threatening to have their vehicles towed away.
After members of the public (including myself) contact the City and the Police Department to complain and we are assured that it is indeed a public lot, Metroplex "quickly steps in" and allows the restaurant bully to pass out flyers amended to say: “Please reserve for Clinton’s Ditch.”
The welcome opening of the new VanDyck has eliminated a lot of street parking on the 200 block of Union St. The existence of a public lot on the southwest side of the dangerous intersection at Union St. and Erie Blvd. is a great benefit for those who work or live, or otherwise visit or do business, in that section of the Stockade. In fact, many of the people who found the unlawful flyers on their vehicles are employees, volunteers or clients of a nonprofit agency located on Union Street, four doors away from that public parking lot. (Many of the flyers were placed on cars at 8 AM, many hours before either the Ditch or the VanDyck opens for lunch.)
Metroplex has no business ceding a public lot to Clinton's Ditch and thereby rewarding its unfriendly and unlawful tactics. What next? Does Metroplex plan to add a sign officially reserving that public lot for Clinton's Ditch, or will it allow the restaurant to erect such a sign?
I hope City Hall will lobby Metroplex to make sure the lot remains unequivocally open to the public. And, I hope Ray Gillen is not offering parenting tips for handling unruly children.
Posted on August 5 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty impressive, Kathleen. I noticed just the other day that the City's FOIL request form basically says "we'll get back to you in 20 days, unless we need more time." A cynic might wonder if the quick reply this time has something to do with the Mayor or Corporation Counsel wanting to get you the numbers quickly because they could be used as leverage over the police union in current bargaining or jockeying for position. Whatever the reason, this is a very good FOIL precedent, making long delays less justifiable in the future, even if it remains for now a miraculous outlier in the FOIL process.
On New land-speed FOIL record