Environment

Take Action: Demand Positive Declaration and 90-Day Scoping for Terra-Gen Battery Project at Ulster Town Board Meeting on July 24

by

On July 2 Terra-Gen presented its proposal for a 250 MW battery energy storage facility at the former John A. Coleman Catholic School site, located at 430 Hurley Ave in the Town of Hurley. The proposed location borders the Town of Hurley, the City of Kingston, and lies adjacent to a Potential Environmental Justice Area (PEJA). This project has raised concerns about environmental risks and land use compatibility.

What was promoted as a “community meeting” turned out to be a one-way Zoom presentation, where only Terra-Gen and its consultants were allowed to speak. The public could submit written questions interpreted by the consultants, but many questions went unasked during the session, and there was no opportunity for open dialogue. While Terra-Gen has promised future meetings, with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) currently underway, meaningful public engagement for a project of this size and nature should only begin after a Positive Declaration. 

During their zoom presentation, Terra-Gen said the facility can power 250,000 homes for just four hours when fully charged. The project’s consultants said that the risks were “apples to oranges” compared to other similar projects and that this facility is safe. That might be true, but we’re not taking their word for it.  The proposed site is directly surrounded by residential neighborhoods and lies close to vulnerable populations. This is not an industrial zone – it’s a community where people live, raise families, and expect a safe and stable environment. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) carry real risks, including fire, explosion, and toxic chemical release. These are not theoretical dangers. Placing this type of infrastructure so close to homes and the nearby Esopus Creek could lead to negative environmental and public health impacts

When asked about potential impacts to the Esopus Creek and local water quality – particularly if firefighting water runoff could harm the ecosystem – Terra-Gen representatives deferred to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and the EPA, providing no specific answers. That kind of uncertainty alone justifies a positive declaration and the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and scoping process under SEQRA.

There’s no doubt we need more renewable energy projects – and reliable ways to store that energy – if we’re going to ever successfully move away from fossil fuels. But even green projects must be done responsibly. Moving too quickly or cutting corners can lead to serious risks, especially with large-scale battery storage systems. Proper environmental review ensures that these projects are safe, well-sited, and truly beneficial to both the community and the environment.

TAKE ACTION (Visit the Facebook Event)

Under SEQR, once a lead agency is established through the coordinated review process (which can take up to 30 days), that agency then has 20 days to determine whether the proposed project may have any significant adverse environmental impacts. If the project is classified as a Type I action—as is the case with a 250MW battery storage facility—and even one potentially significant impact is identified, the lead agency must issue a Positive Declaration. This triggers the need for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ensuring that environmental risks such as fire hazards, chemical use, and community impacts are thoroughly studied. Public scoping is also required, allowing the public and involved agencies to help identify key concerns early in the review process and ensure a focused, transparent environmental analysis.

As of now, the Town of Ulster has not issued a SEQRA determination. This makes the July 24 Town Board meeting a pivotal moment for the public to urge the Town Board to take the necessary steps to ensure this project receives the full scrutiny it warrants:

  • Issue a Positive Declaration under SEQRA
  • Provide a 90-day public comment period
  • Hold at least two public scoping meetings

We urge the public to show up and demand a process that prioritizes public participation and community input every step of the way.

Vote YES! on the Community Preservation Fund Proposition on the Back of Your Ballot

by

This election season City of Kingston voters will have four ballot measures to consider. One is for establishing a Community Preservation Fund!

Sounds good but what is it?
Following on the success of models in Red Hook, New Paltz, Marbletown, and Gardiner, this fund will be used for the preservation of open space, lands of exceptional scenic value, marshes and wetland, undeveloped shorelines, public access to preserved lands, hiking trails, and historic places and properties. Land may only be acquired from willing sellers and cannot be otherwise taken. 

How will it be funded?
With a real estate transfer tax on high-end real estate transactions. Most Kingston residents will never see this tax. Kingston renters and homeowners will NOT be affected by the tax. This tax is only for purchasers of Kingston real estate. The tax would be 1.25% on only that portion of a real estate sale above the Ulster County median sale price, or $123,500.

Who will oversee it?
The fund will be overseen by a citizen advisory board with seven members appointed by the Kingston Common Council. A majority of the members appointed shall have demonstrated experience with conservation or land preservation activities. No member of the Common Council shall serve on the board.

For more background on Community Preservation Funds, see Geddy Sveikauskas’s in-depth article on the subject from July 22, 2019 in the Hudson Valley One. 

Community preservation

For more details about the Kingston Fund, visit Campaign for Kingston Community Preservation Fund: preservekingston.vote.



Development and Environment go Hand-in-Hand

by

Local marketing and public relations consultant Raleigh Green’s recent commentary “Housing vs. Environmentalists” (August 21, 2024) starts with several wrongheaded assumptions that demand correction. In contrast to Green’s conjecture, development and environmental protection aren’t incompatible; Ulster County and New York State do provide explicit guidelines for developers; and the affordable housing crunch isn’t a result of environmental policies.                                                                             

For starters, Green relies upon a tired old dichotomy that pits development against the environment. Few in politics believe that sustainable development is equivalent to being anti-development. As a consultant for developers, Mr. Green should know well established zoning and planning trends have produced longstanding guidelines with incentives for Smart Growth. The most successful and responsible developers apply this approach. 

Green falsely asserts that no one knows where building is supposed to happen in Ulster County despite the fact that the Ulster County Open Space Plan has been readily available to the public since 2007.  Moreover, all successive policy adoptions have tracked this plan in identifying priority and growth conservation areas.  In fact, following the guidance from the Open Space Plan, municipalities have had the opportunity to change their zoning to limit development in outlying areas and strategically promote it where infrastructure already exists. The Open Space plan makes clear to planners and policy makers where development should occur. In short, municipalities have changed zoning plans to encourage this mindful approach.

Nor is Ulster County’s lack of affordable housing a result of a purported tension between development and the environment. Instead, the lack of affordable housing is a consequence of a complex set of factors including a failed political will to implement plans for over two decades. In 2005, the Ulster County Housing Strategies Plan clearly mandated the development of affordable and mid-income housing. Without committed political support, affordable housing projects stalled. Increasingly, the community and policymakers have recognized a need for decisive action, making a renewed and concerted effort to plan and implement affordable housing. For instance, the Ulster County planning office has developed a Housing Smart Communities initiative that encourages communities to change their zoning codes to support  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The governor has generated financial support for homeowners who are willing to build ADUs in communities that have adopted this zoning strategy. Zoning changes that accommodate ADU’s relieve short-term housing pressure. 

Green falsely states that town zoning effectively bans any form of building. The zoning law emerges directly from a community’s comprehensive plan.  Those laws help to organize how land is developed within a municipality, providing rules and principles for land use. The very essence of zoning is not to ban building but to guide it and protect investments by assuring that developers comply with the law. 

The City of Kingston just revamped its zoning code in significant ways to redress the housing crisis and provide clarity about development. The new Kingston code allows for more types of housing within a walkable distance while incorporating standards that encourage diversity. 

Green further contends that Ulster County is unclear about protected lands.  Yet local and state laws explicitly provide guidelines and standards for protecting wetlands, water resources, historic sites, and endangered species and their habitats, as part of “critical environmental areas.” Any capable development team can utilize The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), to save time and money by an initial site assessment, which is required prior to a full submission to planning boards. Furthermore, these environmental laws are not unique to Ulster County: They are universal in New York State. 

Ulster County has plenty of space for development that fulfills housing needs, protects the environment, and enables Mr. Green’s clients to make profits. The county’s open space plan plainly identified “priority growth areas” that could accommodate a significant amount of housing, while also reducing the carbon footprint that sprawls into open spaces with no infrastructure. The consonant goal is to protect land rich in natural resources while creating more complete and equitable communities. The most successful developments harmoniously achieve both goals. 

Economic data tells us that new luxury housing development in our rural open spaces does not bring revenue to local governments. Instead, tax rolls are actually highly burdened by sprawl.  Housing, developed away from community centers, adds substantial fiscal burdens to municipal budgets, including public infrastructure, road maintenance, and emergency services costs. Those expenses far outstrip the taxes residents in developments pay. These municipal losses don’t include the tax breaks often given to developers to encourage their projects. On the other hand, development in areas with existing infrastructure is both fiscally responsible, more environmentally sustainable, and profitable.

When communities develop in priority growth areas, they efficiently utilize the infrastructure already paid for by the public. With transportation networks in place, workers and families find affordable housing with easier access to work and schools and seniors are able to age in place with greater services available to them. This is not social engineering – it’s democracy. When communities rather than private developers decide for themselves how to address citizens’ needs in a way that reflects their values, they exercise self-government. By working within the policy guidelines of documents like the Open Space Plan and the county’s housing initiatives, municipalities can engage with developers in ways that harness the public good for development. The path to cooperation and coordination is one that requires developers and their paid consultants to be transparent, cultivate trust, and develop a consensus rather than to dictate plans and to pursue backroom deals. No one advocates a hardline against development; rather, citizens want Smart Growth. 

Mr. Green may ask where his clients may find and build housing with existing infrastructure? Only a failure of imagination can lead to such a question. In Kingston, we have existing infrastructure in need of development in Midtown and the Rondout. In the Town of Ulster, the Hudson Valley Mall awaits development from someone with vision. These are just a few examples. 

Mr. Green criticized the Woodstock Land Conservancy (WLC), implying that the organization was obstructionist to developers and to those advocating for affordable housing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Green is no neutral observer who simply seeks answers from WLC. The Kingston Wire neglects to mention that Mr. Green is a paid consultant for developers.  As an ethical matter, both Kingston Wire and Mr. Green should be open about his affiliation with developers. Transparency would bolster the journalistic integrity of the Kingston Wire and provide readers with a better context in which to evaluate Mr. Green’s argument. The WLC plays a valuable role in our community and has consistently stood shoulder to shoulder with citizens against projects that threatened our municipal drinking water source (Niagara Bottling’s effort to bottle and sell Kingston’s municipal water source) and air quality (Glidepath’s peaker plant project 600 hundred feet from a residential area in the Town of Ulster). WLC has also championed affordable housing. 

Like so many other actors on the political landscape, Mr. Green creates division by perpetuating an outdated narrative about the tensions between the environment and development. The two are not opposed – they’re congruous. Now more than ever we need developers, consultants, elected officials and policymakers who understand that we need effective investments that promote equitable economic and sustainable growth. Development is not an either/or proposition when it comes to sustainability, inclusion, and investment. Developers and consultants can make a good living while respecting the community’s zoning and environmental regulations. Contrary to what Mr. Green believes, we all know that communities need developers to achieve affordable housing goals. But, no one advocates for rudimental, undifferentiated development. Instead, smart development helps everyone.

KingstonCitizens.org
Rebecca Martin, Lynn Eckert, Sarah Wenk, Marissa Marvelli, Tanya Garment, Giovanna Righini

TownOfUlsterCitizens.org
Laura Hartmann

PROMISES WITH NO DATA: The Mayor of Kingston Comments on the Kingstonian PILOT

by

Photo credit: Paul Kirby, The Daily Freeman

By Editorial Board

The Mayor of Kingston sent out a press release today, one day before the Kingston Common Council’s Finance and Audit Committee is set to review the Kingstonian PILOT request of 25 years at 100% tax exempt in exchange for an air conditioned / heated parking garage that will primarily serve luxury housing tenants and boutique hotel guests.  This is certainly not the first attempt by the Mayor to try to influence the legislative branch in their decision-making at a time when they should have autonomy.  

Below is a breakdown of the Mayor’s communication, paragraph by paragraph, that includes some of what was omitted, misleading or missing from his statement.  

“The Kingstonian project is of great importance to our City – not only will it bring desperately needed housing stock to our community, along with much-needed parking, the hotel and retail spaces will bring visitors and tax revenue. The developers have committed to paying a living wage for all new jobs created to operate the apartments, hotel and garage complex, and the public plaza will be a welcomed addition to Uptown. A PILOT for this project will have no negative tax implications, only positive!”
–  Mayor Noble

The Kingstonian luxury housing project offers apartments where the rents would be market rate (+) and unattainable to most of the Kingston community.  In the PILOT application, the Kingstonian applicant is only asked to provide a living wage for a single adult. They state that 84% of their jobs would pay $20.73 per hour, which is not nearly enough for that single person if they were raising a child in the community.   Such a worker will not earn enough to live in the Kingstonian luxury apartments and will most certainly have a hard time finding an apartment at an affordable monthly rent with a $20.73 per hour wage. It may end up being a second job for that single person who might end up living outside of the Kingston community due to the lack of affordable rentals in a county that has nearly a 0% vacancy rate.  

Read more…

City Government is not a Mayor’s Oyster: The Restructuring of DPW, Parks & Recreation and Nepotism.

by

By Rebecca Martin

On January 25th, Kevin Gilfeather announced his retirement as Superintendent of Kingston’s Parks & Recreation Department after 23 ½ years in the position.  Just six days later, Mayor Steve Noble, who for many years worked under Gilfeather as one of two environmental educators, submitted the following communication to the President of the Common Council with the hope of getting special business added to its February agenda. It read:

Dear President Shaut, 

With the impending retirement of Kevin Gilfeather, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, I have been working with my staff to develop a long-term plan that supports the continued operations of our incredible parks and programming and identifies opportunities for improvement. As part of this process, I have been in discussion with not only the leadership of Parks and Recreation, but also of the Department of Public Works. While each Department serves critical and unique functions, I believe wholeheartedly that these departments can and should work closer together for the benefit of our community. By collaborating together, we have the opportunity to improve our system so that the services to our community and taxpayers are delivered in an economical, efficient and sustainable manner. I am respectfully requesting that this matter be referred to both the Finance and Laws and Rules Committees. I will be in attendance at both of these meetings to present my proposal and answer any questions the Council may have. Additional documents supporting this proposal will be sent under separate cover, prior to these meetings, so that the Council members may familiarize themselves.  

Mayors and citizens alike can submit communications, by letter or email, to the Common Council requesting that it take up a certain issue. From stop signs to Department requests, the Council President will assign the matter to whichever Council Committee she deems appropriate.  In Kingston, these communications are made publicly available as hyperlinks in the online agenda for the Council’s regular monthly meeting. This helps the public to anticipate forthcoming issues that may be taken up by the Common Council. 

In this case, the Mayor’s communication arrived without any detail as to what he had in mind, only the promise that “additional documents supporting this proposal will be sent under separate cover, prior to these meetings, so that the Council members may familiarize themselves” and a request to be added to both the Finance and Laws & Rules Committee agendas. 

Then, late in the afternoon of the following day,  the Mayor got more specific in a press release, announcing his plans to “integrate leadership teams” of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and Parks & Recreation Department by creating two new positions and expanding the role of the current Superintendent of DPW.  Serving as the new Deputy Superintendent of Environmental Services would be his wife, Julie Noble, who would be “provisionally selected” until she sits for a New York State civil service examination. According to a recent news article,  Julie Noble’s new salary would rise by as much as $23,000. The Mayor’s plan also calls for the creation of a new Recreation Director position, which would be filled by his former Confidential Secretary.  (Please see clarification below)

The Mayor’s announcement occurred before the Council knew the details of his proposal. His press release was likely news to most of them, as it was to the public. 

The Mayor’s rush to accomplish his desired Department restructuring creates a messy situation for everyone. It might very well jeopardize a possibly sensible idea. Examining its merit is the responsibility of the Common Council, beginning with its Laws & Rules Committee and later, the Finance Committee. According to Kingston’s Charter, reorganizing Departments calls for a local law process.  

The most perplexing part of this whole thing is the Mayor’s intention to fill the new positions with a family member and a friend—the very definition of nepotism. The Deputy Superintendent of Environmental Services, a position intended for Julie Noble, would report to the Superintendent of Public Works, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor without any protections in place for his own job. If he takes issue with the Mayor’s wife down the road, who is more likely to have the Mayor’s ear?  Needless to say, this structure creates a conflict of interest and could violate the City of Kingston’s ethics law (see 49-3 Standards of Conduct).

We reached out to Council President Shaut today to ask if the Council had received any more information outside of the posted agenda packet from last evening’s Council meeting on the Mayor’s proposal and whether or not the item would be sent to two Council Committees at once. 

“The Mayor has not submitted any more detail to the Council at this time. The Mayor did request the communication to be sent to both the Finance Committee and Laws & Rules Committee for February,”  wrote Shaut.  “Originally, I did assign it to both Committees for the month; however, after learning more about his request and the fact that it does need to be a local law process,  I have determined it would be inappropriate to discuss at Finance before it is vetted by Laws & Rules.”  

Shaut also included her response to the Mayor’s communication.  “After gathering more information on the specific process that will need to take place with the Council regarding your communication of a collaboration between DPW and Parks & Rec, I am taking off the communication to the Finance & Audit Committee for the month of February. According to our Charter, restructuring departments can only happen through a local law by the Common Council. The appropriate Committee to address your proposal first would be Laws & Rules. The Finance Committee’s decisions will happen only once, and if, the Local Law is shaped.”  

The Council President’s clarity in these communications helps to outline the proper process that should be followed. 

City government is not a Mayor’s oyster. It belongs to the public, and a good government has a strong system of checks and balances to protect the public interest.  In this case, the merging of Departments, the immediate creation and filling of new positions, and the reorganization of current DPW staff should be placed on hold until after the Common Council has had the opportunity to weigh the Mayor’s proposal and hear from the public.

Clarification:  Although the executive branch has not provided more detail about plans to restructure the DPW and Parks & Recreation, we have learned in the meantime that Lynsey Timbrouck who would be hired as the Director of Recreation took the civil service exam in 2018, prior to any knowledge of Gilfeather’s plans to retire. On the exam, she scored a 90, making her 2nd on the list.

VIDEO: SEQR 101 Public Educational Forum

by

By Rebecca Martin

On Tuesday, May 21, KingstonCitizens.org in partnership with the Kingston Tenants Union hosted a public educational forum on SEQR 101.  Video from our event was created by The Kingston News brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org.

The event’s AGENDA is available with valuable links to resources on page two.

Thanks to Jennifer O’Donnell for bringing her knowledge and experience on the subject to our community.

Read more…

VIDEO/GOOGLE DOC: Public Comment Workshop for the Five Year CDBG Consolidated Strategy Plan

by

“Why does the city suggest that SEQR is viewed as a barrier when it’s a passive voice? By whom is it viewed as a barrier? The language should be more specific if that is the case….The environmental reviews are a part of doing business. A municipality should be careful about characterizing it negatively in a report as it is something that protects the environment, economic and social factors in our community.”  –  a comment from the public during the recent workshop re: the five year CDBG Consolidated Strategic Plan

By Rebecca Martin

Last week, KingstonCitizens.org in partnership with the Kingston Tenants Union and the Kingston Land Trust hosted a public comment workshop event for the Five-Year CDGB Consolidated Plan, Fair Housing Plan, and Annual Action Plan Federal Fiscal (2019).  With about 20 citizens in attendance, the group outlined 57 new comments that we’ll be submitting (along with more we hope) when the public comment closes on May 15th.

The City of Kingston extended the public comment deadline for 10 days (to May 15th) on the afternoon of our workshop. This will allow the public more time to look over and to comment on the plan.  It’s so important for the public to do so, as it is only created just once every five years.

Read more…

Request that UCRRA Postpone Their Decision to Discontinue Single Stream Recycling.

by

“Right now … once it gets to [single-stream] stage, it’s worthless. So that’s just the unfortunate reality — that we’ve taken that vision … and screwed it up.”
– David Gordon, UCRRA Board Member

By Rebecca Martin

Last week, both elected officials and the public learned from an article in the local paper that the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) “announced plans to stop single-stream, or commingled, recyclables in 2019 and proposed doubling the fees for single-stream loads until the new policy was in place.”  Kingston Mayor Steve Noble took swift action with a letter in response that provided specific actions for the public to take.

There are two important upcoming meetings in May for the public. The first, the Ulster County Legislature’s Energy and Environment Committee will meet on Thursday, May 3rd at 5:30pm (at UCRRA located at 999 Flatbush Road in Kingston, NY) and, more importantly in order for your voice to be heard, a public hearing is set for May 23rd  (VIEW our facebook event) with a potential vote to follow that would establish both new policy and a higher fee for our current commingled system imposed upon Kingston.

WHAT IS UCRRA? 

In 1986, the Ulster County Legislature obtained authorization from the State Legislature for the creation of the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (the “Agency”), a public benefit corporation which was formed for the purpose of developing, financing, and implementing a comprehensive Countywide solid waste management program. In the mid-1980’s, after new initiatives to close non-complying exiting landfills were undertaken by the NYSDEC and strict requirements for the siting, construction, and operation of new disposal facilities were enacted, many communities found it beyond their financial and managerial capability to continue to dispose of waste in traditional ways. Consequently, many of the local municipalities in Ulster County requested that the Ulster County government assume the responsibility for solid waste management, and the Agency was created by the New York State Legislature pursuant to Chapter 936 of the Public Authorities Law approved December of 1986. The Agency’s organizational structure consists of a five-member Board of Directors (appointed by the Ulster County Legislature); an Executive Director; Agency Counsel; and thirty administrative and operations personnel.

The Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency (UCRRA) currently owns and operates two transfer stations. The first is located at 999 Flatbush Road in the Town of Kingston and the other on Clearwater Road in the Town of New Paltz. The property for the New Paltz Transfer Station is leased from the town.

DUAL STREAM AND SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING

Dual stream recycling keeps paper in one container and other recyclables—such as plastic and metal—in another. Proponents of duel-stream recycling say that contaminants are eliminated from paper products by separating them, costing less in processing and allowing more of the end product to be re-used.

With single stream (or co-mingled) recycling, rather than sorting paper from other recyclables—such as metal and glass—residents place everything into the recycling cart together. Proponents of single-stream recycling say that it makes recycling easier to do. And when recycling is easier, more people may participate—raising recycling rates and increasing the amount of material that’s diverted from the landfill.

Single stream is Kingston’s current system, and we made a large investment in order to do so between 2011 and 2013. Some of our readers may remember when Kingston made that transition. It required large purchases such as new collection trucks and garbage/recycling bins.

THE COSTS

Along with the transition of trucks and bins, based on numbers from 2010, Kingston pays $71 per ton to ship our garbage up-river some 250 miles. That number is most certainly higher now, and may even be closer to $100 per ton today.  It is clear that keeping materials that can be recycled out of the trash stream is a big savings to both the budget and the environment.

As for recycling costs, according to a recent Daily Freeman article, “Kingston pays $20 per ton for commingled loads…” and from what I understand, our city also pays its fair share in offsetting the cost of recycled paper products that are contaminated.

Single stream recycling is not a new concept in Ulster County. Although Kingston is the only municipality who does so through UCRRA, other communities in Ulster County engage in single stream recycling through private haulers without any trouble.

Recent articles shared state that China is not accepting our recycled materials, a major link in the chain. According to some, without a buyer, our bailed recycled materials will sit in storage before eventually going into the landfill. Is that the case for private haulers in Ulster County who accept single-stream, too? Why then does a city like Seattle for instance, managing far more recycling than UCRRA does, continue to run it’s large, successful single-stream recycling program with a buyer for their recycled products?

THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE.

The Ulster County Legislature appoints the five-member body to constitute the UCRRA Board and has both a Recycling Oversight Committee (where UCRRA Board member and Kingston resident Charlie Landi is appointed as liaison) and an Energy and Environment Committee that “set policy and review contracts pertaining to but not limited to the activities of the Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency”.

Although the announcement came out of the blue in Kingston, members of the UCRRA board say that Kingston’s single-stream recycling has been a problem for many years.  Did the legislature, who oversees UCRRA, know this or were they caught off guard, too?

KINGSTON’S REPRESENTATIVE ON UCRRA’S BOARD. 

Kingston’s representative on UCRRA’s board is former Ward 3 Alderman Charlie Landi who once stated that bottling Kingston’s municipal water would make good economic sense for Kingston.

Also on the board is the former Town of Ulster supervisor Fred Wadnola. It has been told that Wadnola negotiated a water deal with the City of Kingston decades ago for the town during his term.  As I understand it, the deal with its high rate has been trying for the town, and is one that the current town administration has been trying to find a way out of or at the very least renegotiate since at least leading up to the proposed Niagra Bottling Proposal in 2014.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? 

Given the magnitude of what the UCRRA board is proposing here by eliminating single-stream and it’s poor handling of the communications here in my opinion.  Kingston should have the time that it needs to ‘sort through’ the problem.

SIGN

KingstonCitizens.org’s Petition, requesting the board postpone the vote and to create additional public hearings.

ATTEND

The upcoming Public Hearing on May 23rd (click on the link to be taken to our Facebook event for more information) to speak to the UCRRA Board’s proposed changes.

1)  POSTPONE VOTE. The Ulster County Resource and Recovery Agency postpone its vote on the proposal for a minimum of 60 days to allow the Agency time to review the consequences of ending the acceptance of single-stream recycling on December 31st, 2018. Furthermore, to not consider fee increases to go into effect until at least January 1, 2019 to allow participating municipalities time to budget appropriately or consider alternative options.

2)  ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING. The Agency hold a second public hearing in Kingston to allow the public and all officials additional time to review the proposal and to understand how it would impact our community.

3) PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PUBLIC AND IMPACTED MUNICIPALITIES. The Agency research regional collection sites for single-stream recycling and provide a report to the public on its findings.

 

 

VIDEO: “On Climate Change, Energy and Infrastructure” with Kate Hudson of Waterkeeper.

by

“It’s difficult to overstate the seriousness of the environmental threats coming from this administration. We have never had a head of the EPA so hostile towards the mission of the agency, and never had a President so unwilling to make decisions based on science and law.”
– Kate Hudson, Waterkeeper Alliance

KingstonCitizens.org’s recent community educational forum “PART II:  On Climate Change, Energy and Infrastructure” was at capacity.  Our special guest Kate Hudson of Waterkeeper helped participants understand better what was a stake today and what citizens can do.

VIEW video from the event.

Please be sure to visit our upcoming SCHEDULE to learn more about future community educational forums.

Special thanks to Kate Hudson for her generosity in sharing her knowledge as our guest panelist; Peter and Julie at Church des Artists for their space, kindness, and for making this video; and, to all of our KingstonCitizens.org volunteers for their assistance.

###

Resources:
VIEW:  KingstonCitizens.org’s “Trump Administration Initiatives and NYS Local/State Policy and Laws”

8:46 – 11:25
Introduction: On KingstonCitizens.org’s Community Educational Forum Series

Read more…

KingstonCitizens.org Host Eight-Part Educational Forum Series in 2017

by

By Rebecca Martin

In November of last year, when Donald Trump became our president-elect, most of the world felt as if it had shifted in an unprecedented way.  Whether citizens supported Trump or did not, there was a common feeling of either joyous or defeated disbelief.

It wasn’t long after that a list of Trump’s initiatives appeared for his first 100 days in office.  With the support of a Republican majority in Congress, Trump’s initiatives suddenly seemed plausible. I saw this as an opportunity to look more closely at the checks and balances that exist in local, state and federal government.

We jumped quickly into action, creating a google document (so that citizens could collaborate) that outlines Trump’s initiatives so to better explore their context and, to identify local and New York State policies and laws that could help guide us through this new administration.   We hosted very small meetings with a couple dozen citizens to start this important work and realized shortly after that it needed to continue and be open to more citizen’s input.

VIEW:  “Trump’s Initiatives: Local/State Policy and Laws”

The result is an educational series that will span 2017. Citizens can expect an array of subjects with expert panelists, a question and answer period,  an interactive work session on KingstonCitizens.org’s document “Trump Initiatives and NYS Local/State Policy and Laws” and short tutorials to help navigate the City of Kingston’s municipal website.

Thanks to Peter Wetzler and Julie Hedrick of Church Des Artistes who have donated their beautiful space so that we are comfortable and supported in our efforts each month.

Please review the list of topics, dates, and details below.   We are currently booking more guests and will make those announcements as they are confirmed.  For now, put all of the following dates in your calendar!

We look forward to meeting more of our neighbors, making new connections and becoming more educated on a whole host of complicated topics.

Knowledge is power.

###

KingstonCitizens.org presents
“Community Educational Forums: An Eight-Part Series”
at Church Des Artistes
79 Wurts Street
Historic Rondout section of Kingston, NY
1:00 pm – 4:00 pm.

Over the course of the series in 2017, citizens can expect an array of subjects with expert panelists, a question and answer period,  an interactive work session on KingstonCitizens.org’s document “Trump Initiatives and NYS Local/State Policy and Laws” and short tutorials to help navigate the City of Kingston’s municipal website.

Moderated by KingstonCitizens.org Co-Founder Rebecca Martin.

Participants are encouraged to bring a dessert to share. Coffee and tea provided.  We encourage citizens to bring along their personal computer laptop if they have one. All dates and topics subject to change.

Read more…

Public Educational Forum “The Proposed Pilgrim Pipeline: What Ulster County Citizens Need To Know” on January 28, 2017

by

Jon Bowermaster will be in attendance to speak and to show his film “A Pipeline Runs Through It’ to be presented at the beginning of the event.

By Rebecca Martin

KingstonCitizens.org to host a public educational forum and discussion called “The Proposed Pilgrim Pipeline: What Ulster County Citizens Need To Know and How Local Action Makes Global Impacts” on Saturday, January 28, 2017, at Kingston City Hall Council Chambers located at 420 Broadway, in Kingston NY from 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm.  Guest panelists include Jeremy Cherson of Riverkeeper, Sue Rosenberg of Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipeline/CAPP-NY, Jen Metzger of Citizens For Local Power and a Rosendale Town Councilwoman and Andy Bicking of Scenic Hudson. The short film “Hudson River at Risk 6: A Pipeline Runs Through It” will be presented by Writer, filmmaker and adventurer and six-time grantee of the National Geographic Expeditions Council Jon Bowermaster.

The event is brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org. Co-sponsored by Riverkeeper, Citizens for Local Power, Scenic Hudson, CAPP-NY, the Local Economies Project and the Hudson Valley Farm Hub, Kingston Land Trust, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Woodstock Land Conservancy, Earth Guardians NY, Citizen Action NY and Sustainable Hudson Valley. With support from the City of Kingston, the Kingston Conservation Advisory Council, Town of Rosendale, Ulster County Executive Mike Hein, Ulster County Legislature and 103rd District Assemblyman Kevin Cahill.

 

VIEW Event on Facebook for up-to-date information on this important local event.

 

Kingston, NY – Pilgrim Pipeline Holdings, LLC has proposed to construct two parallel pipelines that would run along the NYS Thruway and through private property—one pipeline carrying Bakken crude oil south from Albany, NY, to a refinery in Linden, NJ, and the other carrying refined products north. The 170+ miles of pipelines, together with nearly 13 miles of lateral pipelines, would impact 31 communities in Albany, Rensselaer, Greene, Ulster, Orange, and Rockland counties, as well as 30+ communities in New Jersey. The carrying capacity of each pipeline would be 200,000 barrels (or 8.4 million gallons) per day, which would more than double the number of trains carrying volatile Bakken crude to the Port of Albany at the peak of Bakken crude production in 2014.  The increase in crude-by-rail volume means that the project will also impact many communities north and west of Albany through which the CSX and Canadian Pacific rail lines run.

Read more…

VIDEO: Memorializing Resolution Passes Through Kingston Common Council Opposing Anchorage Proposal.

by

14462795_594425230740146_8155486721092856250_n

By Rebecca Martin

VIEW:  Kingston Common Council’s Memorizing Resolution:  “Resolution 214 of 2016: Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Kingston New York, Approving a Memoralizing Resolution Opposing the Adoption of the U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Rule 2016-0132.”

###

Tonight, the Kingston Common Council passed a memorializing resolution “opposing the adoption of the U.S. Coast Guard Proposed Rule” for the Anchorage project with a vote of 7 – 1 (Ward 7 Alderwoman Maryann Mills being the solo ‘no’ vote, stating she had more questions. At this time, she seemed to be supportive of the Shipping Corporations request to create 43 berths in 10 locations, opening up 2400 acres to new anchorages in some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the river.  42 of the 43 berths are proposed to be “long term” which means that barges could anchor there for days. This is not as the vessel operators like to say as being “nothing new”.  This would represent a huge increase in the anchoring of commercial vessels in the Hudson between the GW Bridge and Albany, turning our river into a parking lot for large barges and vessels while they wait for dock space to open up in Albany.)  Ward 4 Alderwoman Nina Dawson was absent this evening.

READ:  “Citing navigational safety, Kingston alderwoman won’t oppose Hudson River Anchorages.”  (Daily Freeman)

The U.S.  Coast Guard is taking comments until Dec. 6 on its WEBSITE. With the passing of resolution 214 of 2016, the Kingston Common Council will now be in a position to submit theirs, and join Kingston Mayor Steve Noble who earlier in the year, on August 22, 2016, submitted comments ending with “The City (of Kingston) has spent decades revitalizing its waterfront. Many organizations have worked to clean up the Hudson, to protect its habitats and make it attractive to recreation and tourism. For safety sake, transient vessel berthing is acceptable. Long-term use is not.”

VIEW 26:46 – 29:00:  Ward 7 Alderwoman Maryann Mills defend her position in support of the proposed Anchorage project during the Kingston Common Council Caucus on 10/3/16.  It begins at 26:46 and ends at 29:00.  (Video brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org by Clark Richters of the Kingston News.)

VIEW 40:46 – 44:09:  The passing of the memorializing resolution video is below. It begins at 40:46 and ends at 44:09.  (Video brought to you by KingstonCitizens.org by Clark Richters of the Kingston News.)

Ward 1 Alderwoman Lynn Eckert prior to the vote states that, “We are obligated to protect the public good. There are too many people who rely on a healthy, ecologically sound Hudson River.”

Speaking With One Voice On The Proposed Anchorage Project.

by

14054995_577054425810560_2905414698790969449_n

 

By Rebecca Martin

** Public comment has been extended to December 6th. Our post reflects this change. 

VIEW: Commercial Shipping Organizations Proposal

It is always great when we have the opportunity to sit down with Riverkeeper’s Kate Hudson who is the Director of Cross Watershed Initiatives there.  Her clarity on all of the issues she is charged with, and in this case the proposed anchorage project on the Hudson River, is a big help to citizens all throughout the Hudson Valley Region.

One of our big take-aways was to come to understand where we are today on the crude oil transport front. Having more anchorages means that empty barges traveling up from NYC can cut their travel time in half to park until a berth opens up in the port of Albany where shipments of crude oil arrive. There is much activity in North Dakota, and crude oil is transported on ‘bomb trains’ to Albany. Shipping companies are waiting (perhaps ‘frothing’ is a better term) to transport it back down the Hudson River to NYC so it can be sent out and processed in NJ and PA. This will become more of a problem for us in the Hudson Valley.

Why?

Last year, “With the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama ended 40 years of U.S. crude oil export limits by signing off on a repeal passed by Congress earlier in the day….The restrictions lift immediately under a provision in the spending and tax package that the president signed into law. Congressional leaders earlier in the week reached an agreement to end the trade restrictions, established during U.S. oil shortages in the 1970s, as part of a grand bargain that includes tax breaks for renewable-energy companies and refiners….Repeal of the crude-export restrictions reverses four decades of a policy that has defined the nation’s relations with the rest of the world. Without the trade limits, the U.S. — now the world’s largest oil and gas producer — is free to export its crude, as it already does with refined products including gasoline. The U.S. Senate passed the bill with a vote of 65-33 after the House approved the measure 316-113 hours earlier.”

Read more…

On Process and Transparency: The Proposed Shooting Range in Midtown Kingston.

by

transparency_public_rights_to_know_copy

Editorial 

Yesterday, we learned that the proposed shooting range proposal slated for Midtown, Kingston was to be placed on the Finance Committee agenda for discussion today (Wednesday, 4/13).   If you are like us, that’s barely enough time to plan to attend for an issue that might be of interest. All of our schedules are thrown to get there within 24 hours. But this is the way our council has outwardly communicated with the public for as long as we can remember, making it very hard for citizens to engage.

At last March’s Public Safety/General Committee meeting, the shooting range proposal was also placed on the agenda. But unlike today, the agenda was never made public which means, citizens couldn’t plan to attend at all.  Dr. Adam Soyer, however, who is proposing the shooting range along with his supporters were in attendance. The discussion therefore, had only the potential of being one-sided.

Read more…

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: Why Does Passing The Water Referendum on November 3rd Matter?

by

Referendum

By Rebecca Martin

As part of our ongoing effort to educate citizens on the upcoming Water Referendum that will appear on the November 3rd  ballot,  we are happy to present this piece, “In their own words” to share insight from residents who live and work inside and out of the City of Kingston.

Our lives are intimately impacted by the decisions made by our elected and appointed officials on all fronts.  In this case, regarding water, by voting ‘YES’ to include the Common Council on all sales of water outside Kingston’s corporate limits, we have a real opportunity to assure better decisions to be made.

Please take note. The Water Sales Referendum will be on the BACK OF THE BALLOT on November 3rd.

Read more…