NYCkayaker Expanding the NYC Water Access Universe.
Thu Nov 30 17:05:11 EST 2006
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Robert Huszar wrote:
> Hi Nancy,
> Okay, maybe I even owe you eleven or twelve cents. So they kinda had an
> interim plan for Pier 26. But "kinda" is the operative word. And any way you
> slice it, we are -- since you can't count Pier 40 as a public launch site --
> still reduced to one access point for the west side of Manhattan. So it's an
> interim plan that really hasn't covered things. And, yes, I hear you, that
> maybe someday we will have 4 access points, but as with Pier 26, it may take
> years instead of the 6 to 8 months originally talked about. So that is still
> ineffecient planning as far as I am concerned.
> And as far as the HRPT's funding problems, you know what, I only know that
> they were in a big hurry to get everyone out and it's going to take a long
> time until we get that site back. If you hired a contractor to repair your
> roof, and he tore the roof off and then said, I don't have the time or the
> money to build you a new one. You would not care that he was broke because
> his wife divorced him, you would only be concerned with getting a roof back
> on your house before winter set in. The Trusts management problems -- or
> lack of management -- don't concern me. What concerns me is that there
> problems have totally devastated large portions of the paddling community.
> The Trusts intentions might be absolutely wonderful; so far, their results
> are not. River access is at an all time low. Nobody really likes the new boat
> house. And there are many, many displaces paddlers out there.
> Who knows, I may even owe you a few more coins. But I'm still mad and feel
> no reason to take it any longer. Count me in on your group.
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> here's the change for your quarter, bob. i think you may owe me a dime
>> i agree its time to start barraging the new administration. what are the
>> main issues we want to push from the get-go? i'd start wth direct water
>> access and the size of the community who wants, needs, cherishes, and will
>> help manage and protect it.
>> i have a few comments on some of your points (surprise!!): â¢pier 26 did
>> have an interim plan: both the dtbh and river project were given temporary
>> space at pier 40. â¢they did shut everyone down somewhat prematurely
>> vis-a-vis the actual construction, but construction is going on and has
>> been for months, in the form of demolition. â¢as far as no money for the
>> construction, its a common misconception that the park was granted the
>> amount of $ they needed to build the park in one of thos big lottery-size
>> checks. thats just not the way it works. in reality they have to raise $
>> from the city and the state and elsewhere as they go. there is and has
>> never been $ for things they havent started. in fact, much of the city and
>> state $, if they get it and dont actually use it within a certain time
>> frame, they lose and cannot get back. its a balancing act in a way--they
>> need to secure funds (and matching funds, etc) from administrations which
>> change, and just the right amount for what they can do as far as
>> construction (which is not an exact science by any means as no one knows
>> what they'll find when they take the deck off a pier or find tangled con ed
>> lines, etc) to see that they have enough but not too much. this is and has
>> been an ongoing process. they will get the $ for pier 26. do you have any
>> idea of how long the delay in disbursing the LMDC $ was? really really
>> long. the trust fought for it and got it, but several months after the
>> original date that it was supposed to be handed out. â¢pier 96: i totally
>> agree. (i have used the shower once) the trust screwed up here big-time.
>> they had all those years of meetings and then didnt use the information
>> they should have gathered from this community. â¢we need to demand direct
>> contact with the architects for the pier 26 facility. too mich (all?) was
>> lost in translation for 66 and 96 (not sure about 84). â¢pier 63: truth be
>> told it probably can actually accomodate the current paddlers. it will be
>> tight but it can be done. i've spent a lot of time at pier 96 and you could
>> fit at least twice as many boats in there as the dtbh has (various reasons
>> for this i wont go into) that said, it will not grow with the community.
>> â¢as far as the size of this community the trust did not make an effort to
>> count us. they get #s from the dtbh every year, because the dtbh publishes
>> their #s. how many paddlers do you see on a given beautiful summer day on
>> the hudson? how visible are we on a day to day basis? when our turf was
>> threatened we organized and now they now how strong our numbers actually
>> are. in this case i feel like the onus is partly on the community. â¢pier
>> 40: who would win in a race between a glacier and cold molasses? as of now
>> the proposals have just (last week) come in. in other words they wont be
>> starting construction anytime soon. how long ago was a developper for pier
>> 57 chosen? anyone seen a hammer or a crane over there? i dont know what
>> their construction schedule will look like (no one does, no developper has
>> been chosen, nor the proposals evaluated yet) but i imagine piers 25 and 26
>> will be well on their way, if not finished, by the time pier 40 gets going.
>> as far as interim use there, pier 40 is one of the most important
>> revenue-generating parts of the park. you can rest assured they wont shut
>> the whole thing down all at once. minimum the parking lot and (new) ball
>> fields will be operational for as long as possible with as few possible
>> interruptions as they can do. going forward, i will try to find out what
>> the interim use plans for pier 40 are. â¢pier 66 and pier 84 are between
>> the battery and 59th street and they will both be open as PUBLIC LAUNCHES
>> next summer. plus we may have the barge back by then. long before pier 40
>> closes. and pier 40 is not technically a public launch, anyway (no formal
>> designation) although by permit the dtbh dock there must allow public
>> launching and landing.
>> bob, i respect and share your attitude of taking matters into our own hands
>> and controlling our own destiny. but let's try to be consistant. we need to
>> make sure they hear us and not wait for them to ask what we think. we need
>> to be organized and coherent and consistant in our message, not to mention
>> constructive in our dialog.
>> i hate when i come off as defending the trust. but i do feel like i need to
>> share some stuff i've learned over the past few years about the way they
>> (are required to) operate. and i feel like we do need to take some
>> responsibility for our own situation, rather than waiting for someone else
>> to address and take care of our needs.
>> again, when we organized over the barge issue we seemed to have some effect
>> (not sure if we'll get everything we want but they sat up and noticed).
>> lets keep the momentum, figure out productive suggestions to bring to the
>> table, and bring them.
>> i plan to suggest to the advisory council a working group for pier 26
>> (maybe 25 and 26). what such a group can do is make a motion for the
>> council to make a formal recommendation to the trust about a particular
>> issue. thats what the council is for, as it was established to be in
>> opposition to the trust, meaning not that it is meant to be adversarial,
>> but it is supposed to provide the community's view on issues within the
>> park, and to advise the trust on what the community wants and needs. if
>> people are interested in being part of this (in action, not just in name)
>> please let me know back-channel.
>> bob, i've signed you up already!
>> -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com To: NBrous@AOL.com Cc:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org; NYCKayaker@rockandwater.net Sent: Thu, 30
>> Nov 2006 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Expanding the NYC Water Access Universe.
>> Well, if Nancy and Daniel put in their two cents, allow me to throw in a
>> Let's start with this: Eliot Spitzer is the new governor-elect and,
>> hopefully, that means that the pork-barrel cronyism of George "Yeah, I'm a
>> Paddler" Pataki is finally done. Let's get real. We have seen the
>> efficiency of the Pataki team:
>> Pier 26 (The Downtown Boathouse) closed prematurely without a good interim
>> plan, because THEY NEEDED TO START CONSTRUCTION. A year later, there's been
>> no construction and HRPT announces there's no money for construction. Yeah
>> -- that's planning. Where did HRPT go to management school, the MTA????
>> Pier 96 built by "Gee-whiz" designers who valued look over function, and
>> completely ignored the input of six years worth of community meetings that
>> were fairly well attended by our kayaking community. Result: A boat house
>> and launch site that no one is really happy with and doesn't serve the
>> needs of the community. But, hey, it looks good and has showers. Anyone
>> actually use those showers???
>> Now Pier 63 is closed. But never fear, the HRPT has a new boathouse that's
>> going to open in the spring -- yeah, just like Pier 23 -- the only problem
>> is that it won't accommodate a quarter of the paddlers already using the
>> barge. The HRPT's reaction: they're shocked! They had no idea there were
>> that many paddlers. IMAGINE THAT!!! Sounds like someone wasn't doing their
>> planning. Or maybe, someone had "you know what" stuffed in their ears
>> during the last few years of community meetings. Or worse, maybe they just
>> ignored all the comments they received at all those community meetings.
>> After all, they are the governor-appointed experts, surly they know better
>> what a community needs then the community itself.
>> Also, consider this, if the Trust moves ahead with the revamping of pier 40
>> -- again without an interim plan -- there will be no river access or egress
>> from the Battery to 59th Street. In the old days, before the Park was
>> built, you could find multiple -- albeit slightly tricky -- places to take
>> out amongst the deteriorating piers. Thanks to the modernization and
>> transformation of the old waterfront, all the local, "unofficial" exit
>> points have been cemented away and replaced with 8 to 10 foot, unscalable
>> seawalls. So official access points are now more important then ever.
>> Solution: Call, write, fax Eliot Spitzer (contact info below) and tell him
>> you are fed up with bureaucrats who don't do their job and don't listen to
>> the community they are suppose to represent. Tell him we want this park to
>> be built, and it seems the only way to get it properly built, is to remove
>> the current HRPT management. Tell him, we want a user-friendly,
>> waterfront-accessible, community park; not some bureaucrat's sterile,
>> can't-touch-anything, design competition.
>> Tell him: Day One -- Everything Changes.
>> Bob Huszar
>> The Honorable Eliot Spitzer 120 Broadway New York City, NY 10271 (212)
>> 212-416-8942 (Fax) email@example.com
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, NBrous@AOL.com wrote:
>> > great thoughts!
>> > oddly, NY Kayk Polo has had people join us from all over the world. >
>> they google kayak polo in nyc and find us. we've gotten members this > way
>> (including 2 new recent transplants from italy and one from > beijing by
>> way of london).
>> > the dtbh also gets lots and lost of tourists from their website--even >
>> entire tour groups!
>> > i think, as you say, this is beyond the HRPT--theyre not much in the >
>> marketing business. but perhaps some of the other relevant > organixations:
>> hrwa, nyo, mkc, nykp, the guild, etc, and some of our > individual paddlers
>> who write for such magazines should start some > grassroots spreading of
>> the word. i've seen a few articles over the > years about paddling in
>> manhattan, particularly those about > circumnavigations, statue trips, etc.
>> > if we want to make an impression on the HRPT, NYC Parks, and more >
>> importantly, the new waterfront concerns now in the planning phases, > lets
>> do a sort of a press kit. we should gather all the articles and > news
>> stories and video (check out tim gamble on japanese tv, for > instance!)
>> and present our "body of work" to the agencies who are > right now
>> considering the prosepct of water access on the east river > and in the
>> rest of the NYC area where potential public launch sites > are being
>> reviewed for funding/development.
>> > thats just another 2ÃÂ¢. . .
>> > -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: >
>> email@example.com Sent: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 5:06 PM > Subject:
>> [pier63holdtrips] Expanding the NYC Water Access Universe.
>> > Hey guys and gals,
>> > I've been doing a lot of traveling and work lately so I apologize > about
>> being a little mute about all the various kayak access issues > with the
>> HRPT. However the idea struck me today that why is it that > only NYC area
>> paddlers should be concerned with this. To me, at least, > NYC would appear
>> to be a "Kayaking Destination."
>> > If I was a seakayaker in Michigan or surfskier in Kauai or kayak polo >
>> player in London, I might like to know that I could get on the water >
>> easily when I visit NY. Maybe if I knew that I couldn't get convenient >
>> access, I might not book that hotel or go to that restaurant or visit > NY
>> at all.
>> > We, the hundreds of local kayakers, like to think of this river and >
>> these waters as our own, but perhaps it really belongs to the tens if > not
>> hundreds of thousands of global kayakers of all stripes that want > to
>> enjoy the waters of one of the greatest cities in the world.
>> > If the HRPT understood that the water not just the waterfront of New >
>> York could be as much of a tourist destination as the beach is to > Miami
>> or the mountains are to Denver, then perhaps they'd adjust their >
>> priorities. How many people would be rethinking their vacations if > there
>> was a chain-link fence between the sand and the water down at > southbeach?
>> > I think we need to start approaching this latest challenge not so much >
>> as a local issue but a global one. Paddling.net, ACA, BCU, > seakayakermag
>> etc. all should know about this. We should also suggest > that the HRPT
>> partner with these and any other pertinent organizations > to promote "NYC
>> > That's my $0.02, anyways.....
>> > ________________________________________________________________________
>> > Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and >
>> security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from >
>> across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
>> Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
>> tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
>> free AOL Mail and more.
More information about the NYCKayaker