. . from the Schenectady Stockade!
.
. . here’s an ad to entice us . .
. .
This is pretty exciting, but could be a little confusing to those who have not noticed that the folks putting on “VanGogh: The Immersive Experience” at the Armory Studios (f/k/a Schenectady Armory) keep saying it is “in Albany”.
There’s a lot to say about the Van Gogh sponsors Taking Away Our Name (e.g., see internet images below), and I shall do so soon in a separate posting.
Why did Gateway Plaza project administrator, and Planning Commission Chair, Mary Moore Wallinger [image from Gazette at left] decide to treat our Lady Liberty replica like the proverbial redheaded stepchild — disrespected and neglected? And, why did Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy decide to be Wallinger’s stubborn enabler, authorizing the continued shabby treatment of the Statue in exile at Erie Blvd. and Union Street? We’ve been asking such questions since March of 2018 (see, e.g., “Bring Lady Liberty Home“), when it became clear that Wallinger and McCarthy did not plan to fulfill the promise made in the approved Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, that Lady Liberty would be returned to her home of 67 years at Liberty-Gateway Park after its construction was completed.
. .Lady Liberty replica still seen in exile (Jan. 19, 2021), alongside a huge, unsightly utility pole, etc., and with scarred and marred retaining wall in the background.
. . despite a far better spot available at the Gateway Plaza central sculpture base . . 
Admirably-persistent letter writer Lance R. Jackson, of Glenville, appeared again yesterday in the Gazette in a Letter to the Editor headlined “Restore statue to rightful location in Gateway Park” (June 11, 2021). Octogenarian Jackson wrote:
The mayor and City Council owe us a clear and concise explanation as to why they are not restoring our Lady to Gateway Park or telling us that they are honoring our request and providing a reasonable restoration timeline.
- See Letters and editorial content supporting Lady Liberty’s return home at “Letters for the Lady.”
- Share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/StepchildLiberty
It seems pretty clear that we are not going to get the requested explanation from Lady Liberty’s City Hall “step-parents”, nor the related question of how much discretion the Mayor or project administrator has to change a fully-planned and approved project when there is no safety or financial emergency that might justify a change in a significant feature of the plan.
A Stepchild Statue? In August 2019, our Liberty replica was deposited in a most unsuitable location, without being cleaned or repaired while held by the City for safekeeping for two years, and was returned without its original plaque or other marker designating its meaning and its donation by local Boy Scouts in 1950. The superior treatment given by over one hundred municipalities to the remaining Boy Scouts of America replicas of Lady Liberty is depicted in my posting “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s Liberty replica?” (Feb. 11, 2020). How bad is this location? Here’s what the Gazette Editorial Board said two days after the installation at Union and Erie (“Lady Liberty’s new home: Try again:“):
Mayor Gary McCarthy — without input from the public or the collective City Council — appears to have unilaterally decided to dump it on one of the city’s most cluttered street corners — uncleaned and unimproved — where it’s difficult to see clearly from either side of the five-lane road, against a thick, ugly metal power pole and utility boxes, and in the shadow of an unsightly train bridge at the end of a parking lot.
Here are three additional indications of the continued shabby, “unwanted-stepchild” treatment of Lady Liberty at Her location in exile [click on a photo for a larger image]:
. . 
First, The Tardy Repair. A snowplow damaged the mason block retainer wall at the base of Lady Liberty on December 23 or 24, 2020. (images above) To the left is a December 30 photo of the initial “fix” by City workers: An unsafe and unsightly piling of the loose masonry alongside the sidewalk of what Mayor McCarthy called “an extremely high-visibility intersection”. It then took the City another eighteen weeks to finish what was in reality a very minor masonry project. See images immediately below. (In the meantime, the safety cones were frequently scattered and the author of this posting occasionally brought them back to the spot to give the public at least a little warning of the hazard.)
. . 
NOTE: The tardy “quickie” repair apparently only happened when it did because a City crew was just across Union Street, tidying up after a period-style light pole was taken down by a vehicle out of control. Given the speed and recklessness of many drivers at this intersection, the wipe out could have just as easily happened to Lady Liberty, who is situated merely a few yards from the roadway.
Second, the Big Ugly Utility Pole. Lady Liberty does not deserve to stand cheek-to-jowl next to a “thick, ugly metal power pole” (complete with a “smart” surveillance camera) — especially, when the pole makes the statue virtually invisible to vehicles coming weston Union Street. That opinion was strengthened significantly eleven months ago, when I noticed that similar ugly power poles at State St. and Erie, just two blocks away, had been replaced with far more stately black, decorative poles:
Moreover, in case you think State and Erie got special treatment as Downtown’s prime intersection, take a look at what is standing at Liberty Street and Erie Boulevard, one short block from, and within sight of, Lady Liberty:
. . SE corner . . 
And, royally adorning Burger King on the NW corner of Liberty and State Streets:
. . 
Third, Weeds not Flowers. While crossing Erie Boulevard this week, going from Lady Liberty to the SE corner, with a parking lot and Stockade Welcome Column, I brightened up to see a lovely flower bed:
. . even nicer two days later . .
The sight of the lovely flower bed, made me turn around to see if I had missed a similar display at Lady Liberty. From across the street, I could not see any blooms. So, I crossed back to check out the flora around the Statue. This is what I found:
. . 
Yep, weeds on the Erie Blvd. side (R) and weeds on the Union Street side of the Lady.
On this lovely June Saturday afternoon, I’m going to close this posting, feeling confident that my “step-child statue” argument will make at least a few people at City Hall embarrassed, maybe even enough to finally do something about the integrity of our planning process, and the importance of public sentiment, in the cause of the enlightened spirit of Lady Liberty. Her Schenectady replica belongs in the corner where it stood for 67 years, where it would now overlook the Pride Memorial, another symbol of equality and welcome for all.
update: The Lady’s daylilies (June 25, 2021). This past week, I saw that Lady Liberty’s perennial visitors (which were actually on the site in greater abundance prior to the arrival of the Statue; e.g., 2017 Google Street View), orange daylilies, have started to brighten Her location in exile, and I twice took photos. Orange daylilies have always been a favorite of mine, but the array at Erie Boulevard and Union Street could not distract me from all the other ugly elements at the site.
. . 
Daylilies are, of course, not lilies, and some call them “outhouse lilies” and “roadside lilies.” Given the City’s treatment of our Liberty Replica, it is probably a good thing that a flower that takes minimal (some say virtually no) maintenance or additional expense has established itself on the site. Much of the site is still without a flowerbed like the one across the street. The only excuse that I can think of for this shabby situation is that the Mayor is finally going to send Lady Liberty home [as again advocated by “Mr. Schenectady Vets” Jim Wilson, in a Gazette LTE, 27Jun2021], and so did not want to expend additional funds at the ugly corner. However, I’m not holding my breath.
followup (une 30, 2021): My suspicious mind got me wondering whether the daylilies (along with the hydrangeas along the RR wall) were on the site before Lady Liberty ended up at the corner of Erie Blvd. and Union St. Thanks to the Google Street-view timeline, I was able to answer the question. Yes, there were effusive stands of dayliliies at the site, with hydrangeas, too, before the arrival of Lady Liberty. Some of the Google street views seem to show more daylilies than have survived there. The image at the right is from 2017. (There were also four, not two, healthy evergreen trees between Lady Liberty’s location and the parking lot.) So, we can thank Mother Nature, and not the Mayor or his co-conspirators for the bit of beauty growing naturally near our Lady Liberty replica.
UNLIGHTED LADY
As we pointed out in a posting in March 2020, Lady Liberty in Exile has no lighting of any sort to illuminate Her, while the empty sculpture base at Gateway-Liberty Park is well-lighted from dusk to dawn everyday:
Similarly, Edison and Steinmetz get the treatment of a respected monument, well-lit at its corner of S. Liberty St. and Erie Boulevard, four blocks south of the Lady Liberty in Exile (and, with benches for visitors):
This disparate treatment is ironic, given that the sculptor of the original Statue of Liberty called it “Liberty Enlightens the World.”
update (August 24, 2021): Two years after being dumped at its new location, the Replica of Lady LIberty sits in an overgrowth of weeds that symbolize neglect and disrespect of City Hall and especially Mayor McCarthy.
New signs were installed last week at Union Street intersections in the Stockade (two examples above) to keep vehicles from parking on the fancy brick “bump-outs” constructed more than two months ago. The “No Standing Here To Corner” signs confirm arguments made in our prior posting “our curb-less curb extensions” (July 7, 2020). The post explains why “bump-outs” without curbs fail to achieve the safety goals attributed to the traffic mitigation device called curb-extensions.
Instead, the so-called “bump-outs” of inlaid brick, which were created at the behest of Stockade Association leaders, are at best expensive and ineffective, and at worse likely to cause a false sense of security for pedestrians and others expecting safety improvements on our streets. In a nutshell: Without curbs setting them off from the street, brick bump-outs are not extensions of the sidewalk, they are part of the roadway, where vehicles are likely to park, blocking sight-lines, and over which vehicles are likely to travel, especially when making a tight turn. [see examples in collage below taken Aug. 20, 2020] Moreover, because without bricks they do not reduce the size of the roadway at the intersections, they are unlikely to achieve the other major goal of such traffic mitigation devices: reduction of the speed of vehicles.
. .
The “No Standing Here To Corner” signs installed last week by the City at each of the Stockade bump-outs (click on collage below this paragraph) are a tacit admission that drivers have been, and are likely to continue, parking on the curbless brick bump-outs. Our prior post pointed out that such signs were a lot less expensive and a lot more effective than the fancy brick pavement now adorning the Stockade’s Union Street corners. As installed, the bump-outs do little or nothing to assure the goal of more “daylight” and better visibility at the intersections, as they cannot ensure that vehicles are parked sufficiently far back from the intersection.
A New York State guideline on traffic calming and safety points out that vehicles can be expected to drive around, and not to park on, actual curb-extensions. When necessary, however, emergency vehicles are capable of driving over a curb to make a turn — far more easily than driving over a parked car that is in the way.
Despite the signs, many persons waiting on those bricks to cross the street, whether on foot, in a wheelchair, or on a bicycle, may not realize that they are waiting in the road, with less protection than if they were back on a sidewalk and behind a curb.
follow-up (Jan. 14, 2021): (1) No Longer a Pretty Face. Only six months after their installation, I’m afraid that dirt and grime (from tires and snowbanks) have eliminated the “pretty face” aspect of the bump-outs, which had at least pleased neighbors unworried about safety factors. [Photo to right taken Jan. 14, 2021, at Union and S. Church St.] (2) Pandemic Package Delivery: The great increase in vehicles bringing packages to Stockade buildings due to “pandemic” online shopping (including groceries), or fulfilling “take-out orders” from food vendors, has meant that far too often the curbless corner fancy bricks have a delivery vehicle of some sort parked on them while one or more deliveries is being made. With the cars of at-home workers taking up parking spaces normally empty during the day, the “bump-outs” are often the only “available” place to leave a delivery vehicle.
ADDITIONAL COST. In addition to the original high cost of installing the “pink street tattoos” at 12 Stockade corners, the City has now paid to install one or two of the new signs at each “bump-out”. The signs, of course, only help solve the parking on the bricks issue. They do not narrow the street to calm traffic, nor shorten the crosswalks for pedestrians or prevent tight turns, which properly constructed curb-extensions are meant to do.
Clearly, the signs by themselves will not stop drivers parking too close to the intersections.
WHY NO CURBS. The only “explanation” I have received for the lack of curbs came on August 19 from Stockade Association president Susanne Unger. Suzy wrote:
I was given to understand [from City Engineer Chris Wallin] that they had to be flush because the handicapped ramps had already been installed.
I’m still hoping that someone on City Council and/or in the media will take enough interest in these issues to find out the cost of the useless bump-outs, and the added No-Standing to Corner signs, and discover how the decision was made to leave out curbs, and later not to fix the bump-outs to bring them up to the definition of a curb-extension.
The Stockade Streetscape Plan, which was the source and instigation for installing bump-outs on Union Street, told us that “bump-outs, if designed properly, will be one of the most effective means of providing pedestrian safety.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Streetscape Plan asserts often that “The City will not approve a bump-out that cannot be designed for both safety and function.” That promise was not kept.
Silhouette Lady visited Lady Liberty on the first Anniversary of its Exile by Mayor McCarthy to Erie Boulevard and Union Street. Silhouette Lady symbolizes the absence of Lady Liberty from Liberty Park, and demands the return to that Park, as promised in the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan. [See the Map at bottom of this posting for the two locations (Exile & Home).]
. .
HONEST GOVERNMENT and HONORING OUR HISTORY REQUIRE the RETURN of LADY LIBERTY to LIBERTY-GATEWAY PARK
On Friday, August 28, 2019, only a few passersby noticed that Schenectady’s Lady Liberty Replica was perched on a small pedestal at the southeast corner of Erie Boulevard and Union Street. It is a homely spot, with several poles and utility boxes blocking the view of the statue, no foot traffic, and a daunting intersection for pedestrians to cross. Over this past year, there has been no placement of a plaque or educational signage, no significant site improvement, and no lighting installed for safety or illumination at the statue. It has frequently been the site of debris and litter, pranks and other annoyances, with a backdrop of tagging and graffiti. As expected, there have been virtually no visitors. [Photos to right and immediately below taken near sunset on August 24, 2020; see below for photo of our preferred spot taken that same evening.]
We must demand better treatment of Lady Liberty’s statue and better governmental processes at City Hall. The location issue can be remedied by the Mayor with no interruption of the important work being done on Black Lives Matter, the Pandemic, and related fiscal issues. However, after all the machinations of Gary McCarthy and Mary Wallinger, the Honesty and Trust issue will take significantly more time to fix.
Why bother protesting? The location in Exile:
Disrespects a national symbol and beloved local icon, as well as the Boy Scouts who donated the statue in 1950, and who for many decades joined annually with veterans and the public at Liberty Park, re-dedicating themselves to the spirit of Lady Liberty. [At right, photo of the absent, original plaque that went into storage in August 2017.]. . share this post with this short URL: tinyurl.com/OneYearTooMany
Out of respect for good government, public opinion, and Lady Liberty, Schenectady must do better than this:
A better, and in fact most appropriate, spot is available in Liberty Park at Gateway Plaza: The vacant Central Sculpture base situated in virtually the same location where Lady Liberty stood for 67 years.
. . . . as seen Aug. 24, 2020, near sunset.
. . . . unlike the Mayor’s chosen Exile Location, the sculpture base is already well-lit each evening.
. . click this thumbnail collage for more images: 
For a full discussion of the issues and history of the dispute over the location of our Lady Liberty Replica, including quotations, links, images, the frustrating FOIL response (purportedly, the decision to ignore the Implementation Plan was never discussed in writing at City Hall), and more, see “Lady Liberty is Timeless (March 26, 2018) and “McCarthy disses Lady Liberty (and all of us) again” (August 28, 2019).
Our prior photo-advocacy helps tell the story through words and images (click on a thumbnail for larger versions):
. . 
. . 
BTW: DEDICATION DAY: A DIFFERENT MAYOR SAW THE STATUE DIFFERENTLY:
- The procrastination and stubbornness of our current Mayor and his carefree attitude toward Lady Liberty, her proponents, and the Planning and legislative process, is in stark contrast to the importance of the Statue to the City at the time of its Dedication. The front page of the Schenectady Gazette on November 9, 1950 gave great prominence to the story, with an article and photo above the fold. The article states that 2500 scouts and scouters marched in a parade to the Park, with a crowd of 3,500 persons overflowing the small park for the dedication ceremony. Then Mayor Owen M. Begley called it a “beautiful, beautiful gift,” commenting that the replica here will be a great emblem in Schenectady of our great heritage of liberty.
follow-up (excerpted from our posting on the anniversary of the Lady’s 2nd year in exile):
Also, see, “Letters for the Lady” for the many letters to the editor and opinion pieces arguing for the return of Lady Liberty to Liberty Park. (Both James Wilson [to the Left] and Lance Jackson have written several times to the Gazette on behalf of Lady Liberty, as has the Gazette editorial board.) And, see “Lady Liberty is Timeless” to understand how Mayor McCarthy and Mary Wallinger created this avoidable crisis in civic and aesthetic crisis in Schenectady.
John Coluccio & curb
Intro: It’s been a month since I wrote Schenectady Signal Control Superintendent John Coluccio, asking whether the new Stockade “bump-outs” will protect pedestrians despite having no curbs. A week later, I again wrote Mr. Coluccio, cc’ing City Commissioner of Services Paul LaFond and Stockade Association leaders, among others, asking if there are any Rules of the Road concerning whether or when vehicles may drive over or park on such bump-outs. Because I have received no reply from the City, and no substantive response from the Stockade Association, I’ve had to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. Below are my findings.
. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/curblessbumpouts
ORIGINAL POSTING [updates at bottom of page]
With NO CURBS or SIGNS to PREVENT PARKING on the bump-outs, the Stockade versions are significantly less likely to provide the hoped-for improvement in visibility of and by pedestrians, and may give a false sense of safety (especially to children). Although the bricks are prettier than asphalt, without curbs around the bump-outs, they are still part of the roadway for use by vehicles.
WITHOUT CURBS, Union Street is not actually narrowed in the Stockade, and vehicles (including bicycles) are likely to drive over them, especially when a larger vehicle is making a turn into a street where another vehicle is stopped.
The safety goal of having a shorter crosswalk to traverse with the bump-out is compromised when a pedestrian or wheelchair occupant is waiting for traffic on a curbless bump-out, as curbs offer an element of safety to those waiting to cross, and also require vehicles to make a wider turn. To the extent that a real curb-extension prevents parking close to the crosswalk or intersection, they allow drivers to see waiting pedestrians. That benefit is lost if vehicles are parked on a curbless bump-out. Curbs let all know that the “bump-out” is part of the sidewalk, not part of the roadway.
.
New York State and Federal design guidelines for curb extensions make clear that they do not mix well with storm drains, and must be located with them in mind. Nonetheless, most of the Stockade bump-outs incorporate existing storms drains. Since the City and Stockade Association have not revealed their design strategy to us, the most likely conclusion is that there are no curbs because curbs would block water from reaching the storm drains and working around them is just too expensive.
The failure to design the Stockade bump-outs around the existing storm drains, or to slightly relocate the existing storm drains to accommodate the bump-outs, is especially surprising, given the fact that the blocks in question underwent so much excavation, refilling, and resurfacing over the past year.“The proposed design concepts and considerations have generally accounted for the needs of all users, but the details must be confirmed through the design and engineering process”
CONCLUSIONS
These are Not Curb-Extensions. The Stockade does not have bump-outs/curb-extensions at its Union Street intersections. It has very expensive brick designs installed at those corners, with no comparable expectation of driver compliance with the goal of less speed when going through the intersection or making turns, nor of parking further back from the intersections and crosswalks than has become traditional in the neighborhood, to enhance pedestrian safety through “daylighting“.
COSTS. Even without hand-laid brick, bump-outs are not cheap. The Federal Highway Administration pedestrian safety guide states that: “Curb extensions cost from $2,000 to $20,000 per corner, depending on design and site conditions. Drainage is usually the most significant determinant of costs. If the curb extension area is large and special pavement and street furnishings and planting are included, costs would also be higher.”
Were curbs abandoned by City designers due to the extra cost of working around water drainage problems? If so, were responsible officials and neighborhood representatives told that safety goals were being greatly compromised? [see Follow-Up immediately below]
FOLLOW-UP (October 12, 2022): It wasn’t until last month that I discovered that the City Engineer, Chris Wallin, asked the City Council in April 2020 for a $200,000 Change Order specifically to add the Union Streeet Stockade bumpouts to a prior contract for repaving Union Street. [click on the image to the right to see Mr. Wallin’s presentation to the Council asking for the Change Order.] Mr. Wallin told the Council that the change would implement as much as possible of the Stockade Streetscape Plan within the prior pavng contract. Without explanation, Mr. Wallin said that “flush pedestrian refuge areas” would be installed, that would have a “narrowing effect” on the road “corridor”. Mr. Wallin did not explain that:
No Rules of the Road. No wonder neither the City nor SA Board has given us Rules of the Road for curbless bump-outs. “Curbless bump-outs” is an oxymoron. They are non-existent creatures unknown to motor vehicle departments and roadway design teams. Therefore, to salvage at least a bit of the original neighborhood safety goals, signage and education are needed explaining that the bump-outs may not be parked on or driven over.
IMHO:
Very Expensive and Hard to Maintain. The inlaid brick designs are: 1] Not historically correct in a neighborhood that had cobblestones, not brick, streets; 2] Too similar to bricks used nearby for crosswalks (i.e., entering the Stockade at Erie Blvd. and at State and So. Ferry St.) that are meant to be driven over, and have been shown to quickly loose their aesthetic appeal; 3] Known to be difficult and expensive to maintain, especially under winter conditions, and thus given up by other cities.
BAD DEAL for the STOCKADE: For the past few years, Stockade Association leaders have been pulling their punches or acting like cheerleaders when dealing with City Hall. Some observers have felt their goal in not rocking the boat was to achieve acceptance and payment for the Streetscape Plan, especially the bump-outs and other traffic calming measures. If that was their goal, too much was given away in Association effectiveness and self-esteem given the bumpy results.
There must be a lot of lessons to be learned here. And, there should be accountability for the poor results.
=======
follow-up (August 19, 2020): No one at City Hall nor on the Stockade Association Board has yet replied to my questions about the rationale and efficacy of curbless bumpouts. I took the two photos in this collage on August 15, 2020, and added some editorial comments.
additional follow-up (September 9, 2020): The City has erected “No Standing Here to Corner” signs to compensate in part for the lack of curbs. As I have pointed out, such signs are a lot less expensive and a lot more effective for improving sightlines that are curbless extensions. Of course, drivers are still parking on the “bump-outs”. See https://tinyurl.com/HereToCorner
SAD FOLLOW-UP NOTE (October 3, 2021): I had hoped the Stockade curblessness was an embarrassing error (caused by poor scheduling and an unwillingess to redo handicap access ramps) that would never be repeated. Sadly, neither my cogent arguments below nor commonsense prevailed. The City has finalized a state-funded downtown pedestrian safety plan that continues so-called bump-outs on a dozen corners that are totally without vertical elements like curbs or bollards to set them off from the roadway. See “Troublesome pedestrian safety plan was finalized in July“.
=======
PUBLIC COMMENTS and REPLIES re BUMBPOUTS: from Stockade Streetscape Plan, Appendix F, Final Public Workshop – April 22, 2019 Meeting Comments & Online Comments:
. . Below is the Email message sent by David Giacalone to the Historic Stockade Yahoo Listserv on June 23, 2020. It continues the tale told in our prior posting “was the Pump Station another Rendering Ruse” (May 7, 2020). .
(1) CHA provide a new full rendering depicting the current proposed location of the new station, new fence, and nearby trees(2) Any Construction be paused that would prevent “bumping” back the New Pump Station, farther from the River, so that we and future generations will be able to view the picturesque historic façade of the Old Pump House from west of the new pump station.(3) A new site plan be presented to the Council and Stockade community that allows the Old Pump House, as in the October 2017 Plan, to be seen from west of the New Pump StationAnother issue that needs consideration is whether 25 years of working with the City has made CHA’s relationship too cozy with City officials. Ignoring Council resolutions and offering less-than-useful-and-frank “briefings” should not be tolerated in a contractor making millions of dollars.
- We did not move the new building farther than the 30 ft agreement
- But: The Clarifying Resolution does not contain the word “building” and explicitly states that the overflow “shall be minimized to no wider than 30 feet, including needed landscaping and buffering for a new pump station.”
- The overflow was ”roughly 28 foot average on that structure.”
- But: Average Encroachment is not a concept found in or suggested by Res. 2017-179, and adopting that standard suggests Miller & Lafond knew they could not meet the “no wider than 30 feet” requirement.
- The Agreement and Guidance only concerned above-ground, green space
- But: There is no distinction in the Resolution between above and below ground encroachment, nor mention of green space, or use by the public.
NOTE BENE: There may be valid reasons why the facility needed to be moved to the west and north. But, the failure of the Pump Station managers to notify the Council and public of the changes prior to implementing the May 2019 Plan, deprived us all of the chance to test those reasons and seek alternatives that would preserve the elements of the October 2017 Plan that protected Park aesthetics, while fulfilling the CIty’s engineering goals. There was plenty of time to achieve that balance before our current spring construction season.
- An Obstructed View of an Historic Resource is considered an adverse impact which must be removed or mitigated under our Environmental Review law.
- Miller makes the (flippant) observation that you can see more of the Old Pump House than when the two Stations were closer together (yes, if you stand, or float by, directly in front of the increased space between the Old and New Stations).
- The New Rendering is Irrelevant to the issues raised.
- Miller was asked for a new rendering analogous to the set of Oct. 2017 renderings (example above), which showed the positioning of the two pump stations, and location of the new fence, along with preservation of the Grand Old Maple Tree.
The unhelpful New Rendering, seen below, only shows the New Pump Station in its latest form, giving us the presumed answer to the unasked question of whether the outer design (appearance) had changed. No one said it had changed in any significant way.
5] THE FATE of the CENTURY-OLD SILVER MAPLE TREE WAS KNOWN in EARLY 2018 and NEVER REVEALED to the public in the two years before it was chopped down.
RESOLVED, without a full public hearing on such design, the City Council shall approve no contract for the construction of a new pump station, and no construction shall be approved if the design requires taking a portion of parkland extending more than 30 ft. to the west of the current pumping station fence into Riverside Park.”
============
. . share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/PSBriefing
.
Summary of Pump Station Briefing. (pdf file; email to City Council from David Giacalone, June 21, 2020)
above & below: RENDERINGS of new North Ferry St. Pump Station at Schenectady’s Riverside Park, submitted to the public October 2017. (The grand, hundred-year-old tree marked with a white asterisk by the editor, is preserved in the renderings. Also, the façade of the Old Pump House is visible from the West Lawn.)
ACTUAL
View from the East, December 20, 2021: The façade of the New Pump House has been moved much closer to the River, blocking the formerly expansive view of the West Lawn from east of the Old Pump House.
View from West, Dec. 17, 2021: New Pump Station constructed farther to the north and west than originally depicted. obstructing view of Old Pump House and taking up (“alienating”) more of the West Lawn.
– June 2017
– April 2020
. . 
. . above: Grand Old Tree [L] April 11, 2020; [R] April 22, 2020 . .
– July 28, 2020
. . above: the reinforcement and framing for the underground portion of the New Pump Station make it obvious that the new building will stand significantly north of the Old Pump House, blocking the view of it from the west portion of the Park and when approaching from the west on the Mohawk River . .
. . and see the followup (June 23, 2020): “Conclusions from the June 1st Pump Station Briefing” . .
. . share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/RenderingRuse
INTRODUCTION: The grand old tree that graced the West Lawn of Riverside Park for over a century was chopped down last week on Earth Day 2020, April 22. (Marked with a white asterisk in the two renderings above; 2017 photo on the right.) It was still healthy, with a diameter of 60 inches. Many Stockade residents and Riverside Park lovers where surprised, shocked, saddened. We were sure that significant tree would be preserved in the multi-million dollar pump station project being staged currently at the Park. We did know that a few “lesser” trees along the pump station’s original fence did need to come down to fit a new pump station on the lot of the old pump house. As would be expected, those lesser trees do not appear in the 2017 renderings, which are meant to show what a site will look like after the proposed construction is completed.
. . “surprise” May 2019 Plan . We sought explanations. In an email on April 27, 2020, to Stockade Association President Suzanne Unger, we were given “answers” by the CHA Project Engineer for the New North Ferry Street Pump Station project, Mike Miller. Mr Miller answered questions from Stockade resident Emmanuel Maillet, whose backyard borders on that part of the Park. Miller wrote that the conclusion the Grand Old Tree needed to be removed was made at the time the City asked the engineers to put the new pump station on the old lot, rather than their proposal to put it on the Park’s beautiful West Lawn. Miller added that its removal was included in the “final plans” they developed in May 2019 (click on image at head of this paragraph):
[Q] When did it first become clear that the [huge old tree in Riverside Park] had to go? [A] Removal of the tree was first determined to be necessary when the City was requested to build the new facility adjacent to the existing pump house. Provisions for removal of the tree were included in final plans that were developed for the Project, dated 5/14/19.
But the City’s request to move the needed pump station was made months before the above renderings showing the Grand Tree were presented in October 2017 to the City and the public. Those renderings did not reflect the actual (and apparently anticipated) fate of the beloved tree, but the public was not told and did not know that.
More to the point, no one in the Stockade community, including the Board of the Stockade Association, had ever heard of a 3rd/Final Pump Station Plan. [As of May 15, 2020, you will still not find it on the Association’s Pump Station Documents Page.] The May 2019 plat shows the Pump Station moved perhaps 20 feet to the north and west of the October 2017 version, thus purportedly necessitating the removal of the Grand Old Tree and completely blocking view of the Old Pump House from the west. The “secret” May 2019 plan, which we never knew about, did indeed indicate the Tree’s removal (as I have noted in red on the image to the right of this paragraph, which compares the May 2019 plan to the last public plan in October 2017; click on the collage for a larger version).
The Tree Removals Plan submitted by the City for the initial Environmental Assessment in Nov. 2018 (at 62), showed five trees being removed, but did not include the Grand Old Tree as one of them (click on the annotated thumbnail image to the left). In the May 9, 2019 revised Environmental Report (at 31), the removal of five trees was again indicated on the submission (with no blue ink to show a change), but the large tree that had already been removed to the east of the Old Pump House was no longer on the plat. Thus, the “five trees” for removal now included the Grand Old Tree, but the text was not changed to show it was actually a 6th tree that would be removed for this Project. See the annotated screenshot immediately below.
Blocked View of the Old Pump House Façade
. . the secret May 2019 plan would block views of the Old Pump House façade from the west, by placing the front face of the New Station closer to the River than the Old Pump House . .
Another very important change in the May 2019 Plan is the moving of the new station to the north (closer to the River) so that it significantly blocks the view of the picturesque and beloved Old Pump House from the west. (The image to the right shows the last public renderings from October 2017, with the new station set back to keep the façade of the Old Pump House and a west-facing arched window in view from the west.) In an environmental impact assessment, obstructing the view of a Historic Resource or District is deemed an adverse impact that must be removed or mitigated. [see NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Visual Impact Assessment Policy (2000)] We were never told about, and so were not able to contest, what would be an irreversible loss if the May 2019 Plan is followed. But, who knew such a plan existed?
The following statement from the April 2020 Stockade Spy (at 2) presents comments of Mike Miller to the Stockade Association and does not mention a May 2019 Final Plan:
According to Mike Miller from CHA Inc, the proposed design for the pump station (e.g., building footprint or elevation) has not changed since it was presented for public input in fall of 2017. The layout for the pump station requires that the average encroachment into the park (along the west parcel line) be less than 30 -feet, per the parkland alienation legislative language. Based on the survey for the existing pump station parcel, the current layout results in an average encroachment beyond the pump station lot of just under 28-feet. The north fence line along the river will be relocated closer to the pump station, resulting in more accessible park land which can be utilized by the public. This results in negligible loss of lands for public use within Riverside Park.
After seeing the May 14, 2019 “final” Plan sent by Mr. Miller to SA President Suzanne Unger, I have to conclude that his statement to the Spy for the April edition seems to be crafted to be reassuring and to deter probing questions, but in doing so was highly misleading. Mr. Miller’s standard that the “average encroachment into the park be less than 30 feet,” misstates the City Council’s clarifying resolution, which clearly states that “any overflow into Riverside Park will be minimized to no wider than 30 feet, including needed landscaping and buffering for a new pump station.” It goes on the resolve that:
“without a full public hearing on such design, the City Council shall approve no contract for the construction of a new pump station, and no construction shall be approved if the design requires taking a portion of parkland extending more than 30 ft. to the west of the current pumping station fence into Riverside Park.”.
Riggi: Hold your feet to the fire.
“I do not and I’m sure that is something I would not forget..
In addition, bolstering our expectation that the tree would be preserved, a plat of the project site submitted to the City in July 2017 showed the Grand Old Tree outside of the portion of parkland the City wanted to alienate to accommodate the new pump station. Click on the annotated detail to the right.
.
YES, ANOTHER RENDERING RUSE. Taking all of the above into consideration, and receiving no contrary claims from proponents of the new pump station, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the City Council, Stockade, and general public are the victims of a Rendering Ruse. “What’s that?”, you ask. This is my definition:
Rendering Ruse: The use of architectural renderings or engineering drawings that are submitted during a planning process, to gain favor for a project, that show important elements (whether treasured, beloved, historic, popular, etc.), and the viewshed or visibility of such elements, being preserved in the finalized project, that are nonetheless gone when the project is completed.
The compromise leading to the June 12, 2017 Clarifying Resolution was praised by the pleasantly surprised Gazette Editorial Board (June 16, 2017). The editorial nonetheless cautions:
“opponents will still need to maintain the pressure to ensure the city keeps its pledges, including speaking out at the promised public hearing on any new design proposal.”
Clearly, we were not sufficiently vigilant, and were too trusting of a City Hall that has in no way earned that trust when it come to preservation in the face of “progress.”
. . click the collage thumbnails below to see more of the Grand Old Tree and its fate . .
. . 
(update: May 15, 2020): WHAT’s the STOCKADE ASSOCIATION DOING about this? The members of the Stockade Association [“SA”] are rarely asked their opinion on any topic. Instead, the SA Board normally acts on its own, without a significant attempt to ascertain what its members and others in the Stockade neighborhood and community would like to see done.*/ My subjective opinion, admittedly seen from the outside, is that the primary objective of the Association’s Board and Officers most often seems to be not upsetting City Hall, which has frequently been referred to as “Our Partner in Progress” by the Spy, SA’s official newsletter.
*/ Thus, e.g., Board members waited months before being embarrassed into notifying the neighborhood and fighting placement of a Pump Station on the West Lawn, which would have greatly harmed the Park; it was almost too late, but the SA and community acted with one, effective voice once finally roused (proving that strong advocacy can indeed work). In prior years, without first canvassing its members, (1) the then-sitting Board told City Hall that there was no opposition to a 300-foot dock at Riverside Park (although, once allowed to voice their opinion, the neighborhood voted two to one against a dock); (2) Refused to even put the Casino application on the SA meeting agenda (although the Stockade election district had voted less than a year before against having any commercial casinos upstate). Indeed, before there even was a Casino Application from Schenectady, the sitting SA President (an appointee and supporter of Schenectady’s Mayor) told the Gazette a casino would be a very good thing and she could see no negatives for the Stockade; (3) Welcomed giant boulders at the end of each street along the Park; And, (4) were the only neighborhood association to support John Polimeni’s disastrous Sidewalk Assessment District Plan.
Here, the Board did not first engage the community in a conversation when faced with some serious questions from a number of residents about how the Grand Old Tree could be removed despite the renderings displayed in the last public plan, and why the Board failed to know about the May 2019 Plan, despite dozens of communications between the project leaders and SA officers. Instead, it composed and sent a Letter to the Mayor and City Council, dated May 8, 2020, which was sent by email to SA members but not to the far larger Listserve of Stockade residents and supporters, where the questions about the Earth Day tree removal and the secret surprise Plan had been raised. The Letter from the Board to City Hall:
called the communications problems “a snag”noted that not telling the Association about the changes until last month was “a missed opportunity”: “If we had been told a year ago, we could have prepared residents for this change, pointed out to them that trees would be lost and given them some time to process the information.”
Of course, significant changes to an approved plan should be made public to give City Council, nearby residents, and other interested persons the opportunity to review them, raise concerns, and offer alternatives, and not so their “representatives” on the Board can prepare them emotionally for the negative effects. The “opportunity missed” by the Pumping Station engineers and proponents was the chance to respond a year ago to questions about the changes, and if facts and reasoning supported the changes, to thereby quell dissent.
update (May 30, 2020): Justifications given by a contractor for a significant change need to be evaluated and tested. For example, earlier this week, CHA engineer Miller told Emmanuel Maillet that the new pump station had to be located further north and west than in the October 2017 Plan, because the contractor could not get permission to stage construction along a strip of land belonging to the first house to the south of the lot., 125 No. Ferry Street. The owner of that house wrote a letter to the Gazette Editor, published on July 6, 2017, strongly opposed to the new location on the old pump station lot. Her unwillingness to cooperate should have been known long before May 2019. A number of observers believe that there were other options readily available at the site for staging that portion of the construction. Such options could have been considered, along with any added cost in dollars and time, in an attempt to mitigate the adverse impact of the May 2019 change in location. If the Council acts quickly, and finds insufficient justification for the changes in the May 2019 plan, it may not be too late to revert to the approved October 2017 Plan.The proprietor of this website wrote an email to Stockade Association President Suzanne Unger on the day their Letter to City Hall was written, May 8th, only having seen it because an SA member immediately forwarded the Letter to the Stockade Yahoo Listserve. It has been a full week (Friday, evening, May 15, 2020), and SA President Unger has not responded in any way to my email and questions. (update: still no reply as of June 8, 2020) As the person who wrote the first draft of the Clarifying Resolution, and for many other reasons, I believe the May 2019 Plan violated that Resolution. I won’t go through my points again here, but urge you to read my email to Suzy Unger, if interested.
Pulling off a Rendering Ruse is clearly easier to do when the neighborhood association chartered to “preserve, promote and improve” the district and neighborhood (and represent it to local government) treats the City rather than the neighborhood as its Partner.
OTHER RENDERING RUSES? One factor favoring the Ruse conclusion here is that it seems to be part of a series of “rendering ruses” (misleading renderings) and similar bait-in-switch episodes in the recent history of Schenectady planning, development, and preservation. Were they intentionally deceptive or inadvertently (negligently) misleading? You’ll have to draw your own conclusions.
But, first, what is a rendering and what do I mean by a ruse?
Architectural rendering, architectural illustration, or architectural visualization is the art of creating two-dimensional images or animations showing the attributes of a proposed architectural design. (Wikipedia)
“Architectural rendering allows an architect to create two-dimensional animations or images with the main goal of showcasing all attributes that should be included in the final design.” (EasyRender.com)
A rendering can be used to communicate a project’s design to the end user. “Buy in” from users, whether employees, customers, or members of the general public, is frequently an important component of a successful project. Renderings can be shown to users during the design process to solicit their feedback, or at the end of the design process to educate users on how a new space will look or function. (SOA-Inc.com)
ruse: n. “a wily subterfuge” (Merriam-Webster)
Putting something the public (and City Council) wants preserved into a submitted rendering can avoid controversy that would be expected by the developer or City if the element were depicted as removed or destroyed in the construction of a project. Such a controversy might force project proponents to admit the loss of the treasured object, jeopardizing its approval, or delay the project for negotiations that might result in more expenses or much bitterness.
Here are some of the candidates for the Rendering Ruse category that have been documented at this website.
. . 
. . a Wegmans, Not a Casino . .
. . share this post with this URL: https://tinyurl.com/DreamingWegmans
Spending more time at home during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it’s difficult not to reflect on lost opportunities here in my adopted City. In a better world, a better City, our “leaders” and “planners” could have done so much better for the people of Schenectady. Imagine, a real supermarket near Downtown (with free shuttle buses) — maybe even a Wegmans, an essential business beloved by millions, not a parasite that fleeces grandma to lower property taxes, constantly seeks gaming tax reductions, feeds us half-truths, hides bad news, and bewitches our toady politicians, etc. etc.
And, I bet we’d still have public access to the Riverbank, and more green-space, even if we add an Aquatic Center, which would actually serve local residents and attract outsiders.
Before the Casino and Galesi demanded the removal of guaranteed public access to the riverbank (and the Mayor and Gillen said “okay”, with Council sheep going along), they showed the image on the right of the Mohawk Harbor and its riverbank, not the inaccessible rip-rap monstrosity we have been stuck with.
Also, without a casino, more people would want to live there and be a base for real retail at the Harbor. Before Casino Frenzy gripped them, the Galesi Group proposed two River-House-sized apartment buildings for the site.No, I don’t have a fever. But, I do have a dream. And, I want to remind our City and County leaders how much better it could have been, when they brag about “bringing” us a casino. Don’t forget: McCarthy left millions on the table.
follow-up (June 1, 2020): As I wrote today at my Facebook page, Mohamed Hafez again reminds us that Mayor Gary McCarthy’s biggest accomplishment was a losing bet, poorly played.
. . 
. . above (Friday evening, March 20, 2020): [L] Lady Liberty replica in the dark, in Exile at Erie Blvd. and Union Street; [R] well-lighted and empty central sculpture base at Lady Liberty’s real Home, Liberty-Gateway Park ..
As disrespectful as Lady Liberty’s current location is during the daytime (photo to the right), Her condition at night is even more deplorable. The answer is not to figure out lighting for that dismal spot that somehow plays down the inappropriate utility poles and boxes, and lamp posts of all kinds, and the nearby underpass, embankment-retaining wall, and parking lot. The answer is to move the replica statue to its original and intended location at Liberty Park in Gateway Plaza. The Central Sculpture base at Gateway-Liberty Plaza is a grand spot virtually identical with Her original location, visible from the major roadways and comfortably situated in the Park, with plenty of room for visitors standing or sitting, and with lighting that will illuminate the statue daily from sunset through the night.
. . For the Full Story, with a description, photos and links, of how Lady Liberty was Exiled by Mayor McCarthy, at the request of Mary Moore Wallinger, and contrary to the fully approved Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan (2013), go to our posting: https://tinyurl.com/DissedLady
below: Lady Liberty seen in 2016 at Her real Schenectady Home, Liberty Park, where she was intended to return after the reconfiguration and expansion of the Park into Gateway Plaza. [more images here]
One very cost-effective way for our leaders to raise the spirits of the Schenectady Community as we face all the worries of the COVID-19 crisis, would be to have the Lady Liberty replica returned to Liberty Park, to demonstrate that the City of Schenectady honors its history and its promises, and listens to its people.
SUMMARY: As has happened often in the last half dozen years, State, City and County officials in charge of development and planning appear to be putting the interests of the owners and developers of Mohawk Harbor and the Rivers Casino before sound planning principles and strategies and, more important, before the interests of the general public in Schenectady City and County. The ten million dollars available through Schenectady DRI [Downtown Revitalization Initiative] grant should be focused on further improving the handful of blocks that residents traditionally consider to be our Downtown, with more of the things that will enhance living, working, visiting, learning, playing, socializing, shopping and just strolling there. Schenectady DRI should refine our already revived Real Downtown, and not construct a fiction that stretches “Downtown” to Mohawk Harbor and invents a demand to walk to and spend money there.
. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/RealSchdyDowntown . .
After the following updates, you will find the Original Posting, which has images and discussion, including walking tours up Jay St. and Erie Blvd. to the Harbor.
UPDATE (July 29, 2020): As previewed in the Gazette, on Thursday, July 30, 2020, at 6 PM. the Schenectady DRI Local Planning Committee held its first meeting since February. Go to the Schenectady DRI webpage for a link to the meeting. As reporter Pete DeMola wrote:
“But the pandemic immediately evaporated millions in tax revenue for the city and attendees will now have to grapple with an dramatically altered economic landscape and weigh if projects considered high priorities before the pandemic should now be reconsidered.”
See “Decision-makers begin to winnow-down Schenectady’s $10m grant wishlist” (Daily Gazette, by Pete DeMola, July 31, 2020). From my perspective, the Leadership Planning Committee seemed to pay very little attention to how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact downtown businesses and visitors. And, the Committee did not appear to be prepared for the July 30 meeting. For example, a considerable amount of time was spent discussing the Highbridge proposal for an apartment mixed-use building on Lower State Street that would have a ramp and about 300 parking spaces. Despite this focus, no one bothered to find out whether a parking fee would be charged for the 150 public spaces.
Reporter DeMola noted favorable attention to two rather lightweight proposals, that might be meant to appease public voices while saving the big bucks for the favored developers:
“LPC members broadly agreed that lighting concepts along bridges and other visible landmarks, including the First United Methodist Church on State Street, were worth an ongoing look, as well as signage to direct people to attractions downtown and at Mohawk Harbor. . . .
“Lighting concepts and public art installations, including a statue of George Westinghouse, also appeared to receive a positive reception.
“Creating funky and buzzworthy places with art, said Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation Executive Director Jim Salengo, ‘is a good part of embracing all good things happening downtown’.”
Thank you, Daily Gazette, for publishing my letter to the editor, “City must protect its ‘real downtown'”, August 6, 2020, C6 (click on image for a larger version):
Especially in light of unfolding Pandemic complications, I hope members of the Leadership Committee are thoughtfully considering these issues raised in this posting, and that concerned citizens will voice their opinions.
ORIGINAL POSTING
. . Above: The map returned when I asked Google Maps for the walking directions from “Downtown Schenectady” to Mohawk Harbor . .
. . 
. . above: views east (R) and west from State and Jay Streets
Jay Street Pedestrian Mall
When was the last time you were enjoying a visit to Downtown Schenectady, on the Proctors Block, at the Jay Street Pedestrian Mall, or even Mill Lane’s Frog Alley, and suggested, “Let’s walk down to Mohawk Harbor”? Did you add, “We could walk back here to our car, with shopping bags and a full tummy.”? Did your companion enthusiastically reply, “Sure, it’s only a little over a mile, and it’s a charming walk”?
If such a conversation would seem as odd to you as it does to me, you might be surprised to know that the Schenectady Application for a DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) grant begins:
DRI Schenectady links the Proctors Block and Lower State Street via a rejuvenated Erie Boulevard as well as other connections to Mohawk Harbor which will be adding attractions and more visitors.
Moreover, in a section titled New Retail and Entertainment Development at Mohawk Harbor, the Schenectady DRI Application also stresses (at 29; underscoring added):
DRI Schenectady is very focused on increasing visitations to Mohawk Harbor, already the leading tourist destination in the Capital Region. With support of DRI funding, the team behind development of the existing Harbor site – the Galesi Group, Metroplex and Rivers Casino & Resort are planning the next phase of the development project. The concept is a 100,000 square foot development to be located between the existing casino and marina on land that borders the riverfront. The development would feature a mix of retail and entertainment tenants. The project is research and data driven.
over a mile on foot from Proctors
After two decades of actual revitalization of our “real” Downtown, and with fill-in and refinement projects readily apparent and proposed for that part of our City, Metroplex and City Hall seem again to be abandoning sound planning principles and denying human nature to come to the aid of what I call the Galesi-Casino Gang.
Successful downtowns in small and medium-size cities are compact, with much to do and attract the eye within “walking distance”. As a Brookings Institute study states (at 13), “Walkable urbanism starts with urban entertainment venues and retail that are within walking distance of one another.” As a Wisconsin University article puts it: Communities with successful downtowns “have an expansive list of attractions and amenities that serve as pedestrian traffic generators. All are within walking distance of each other, creating tight and effective traffic generating zones.” They are, of course, echoing the advice of the legendary Jane Jacobs in her article “Downtown is for People.”
Despite this common sense approach to a successful Downtown, DRI Schenectady somehow equates “revitalization” of downtown with improved connection to Mohawk Harbor, while ignoring the Stockade neighborhood (and its Riverside Park, which already offers access for pedestrians to the Mohawk River and attractive green space). Instead, DRI Schenectady touts proposals to “Take advantage of existing opportunities to increase connectivity (Jay Connector, ALCO Tunnel)”. However, whether using Jay Street, the ALCO Tunnel, or the upgraded “Erie Corridor”, Mohawk Harbor is more than a mile away, with much of that distance having no shade and few “attractions”. [see the two Slideshows below of the Jay St. and Erie Blvd. routes] Sprinkling in “public art” and adding LED lights along the way won’t significantly change the appeal of such a long walk.
[Note: this posting was written prior to the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic and its many effects on commerce, retail, restaurants, indoor and outdoor entertainment, etc., all of which further threaten the vitality of our core Downtown district.]
Mohawk Harbor is not “walking distance” from our newly revitalized Downtown!
No amount of wishful thinking will make Mohawk Harbor walking distance from our real Downtown for the vast majority of residents or tourists. For urban planning purposes, “Walkable” does not mean “capable of being walked”. As the expert author of the Brookings study linked above puts it: “Since the rise of cities 8,000 years ago, humans have only wanted to walk about 1500 feet [0.28 mi.]”, unless they are going to or from an alternative form of transportation (or engaging in an actual exercise routine).
“There is substantial variability in the distance and duration of walking trips by purpose and population subgroups.” . . . . “The shortest distances and durations were observed for trips for meals. . . Shopping and dog-walking trips were only slightly longer in distance than trips for meals.”
For comparison to the 1.2-mile walk to Mohawk Harbor from Proctors, consider that Frog Alley Brewing, at the evolving Mill Lane Artisan District on Lower State Street, is 0.3 miles from Proctors, and Gateway/Liberty Plaza is 0.4 miles from Proctors; Katie O’Byrnes on Erie Blvd (and Wall Street) is 0.2 miles; Yoga Bliss, south of State Street at 140 Erie Blvd. is 0.3 miles away; Great Flats Brewery on Lafayette at Franklin Street is less than 0.3.
. . Katie O’Byrnes, just north of State St., seen the day the Train Station got its new golden dome . .
What About the Stockade? For some reason, the Stockade Historic District is not part of the “DRI Schenectady DRI Boundary”. [map above] The Van Dyck Lounge with Mad Jack’s Brewery on Union Street near N. College is 0.4 miles from Proctors. Riverside Park, at the other extreme of the Stockade, which does offer a true, up-close riverbank experience and open green space, is 0.7 miles from Proctors, and only 0.2 miles up Washington Avenue from Gateway/Liberty Plaza, and about 3/10th of a mile from Mill Lane.Do the people of Schenectady really want to send business and foot-traffic from the Downtown core to Mohawk Harbor? By focusing on “increasing visitation to Mohawk Harbor”, the officials leading our local Government’s planning, development and policy efforts won’t simply be wasting dollars that could have genuinely improved our Downtown. They will be helping to generate the feared Substitution Effect: Substituting spending in and near a casino and surrounding development, for the leisure time and money that would have been spent by residents at other local establishments.
Can existing (surviving) downtown businesses — eateries, retail merchandise shops, specialty boutiques, art galleries, etc. — withstand losing any significant amount of business to Mohawk Harbor? [For a smile, see Good for the Plywood Business, a poster from the successful campaign No Casino in Downtown Hamilton]
. . click on the Schdy DRI Feb. Power Point for many of the finalist proposals . .
A DEMAND for MORE RETAIL at MOHAWK HARBOR?
Our DRI Leaders state there is a great excess demand for retail that justifies spending taxpayer funds to funnel people to the privately-owned Mohawk Harbor. They also note that Mohawk Harbor is already a “leading destination”, according to DRI leaders, in their Schenectady DRI Application:
The harbor is now home to Rivers Casino & Resort, two new hotels, a marina, over 200 new apartments, new condominiums, tech office buildings as well as greenspace and bike trails. The Harbor has clearly become a leading destination – an entertainment and tech center that is one of the largest and most successful waterfront developments in Upstate New York.
Indeed, we are constantly told of the tens of thousand of people who go to Mohawk Harbor and the Casino and Hotel. At the end of the Jan. 27, 2020 City Council Meeting, Council member Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas told us (at 54:20 of the OSM video linked above) that Rivers hosted over 200 conferences, meetings and special events in 2019, “bringing over 20,000 people to Schenectady County”; that Landing Hotel is ranked 7th in Capital Region for overnight stays; that Rivers was the first upstate casino to host sports wagering (bringing in a new demographic group to the County); plus, the Casino holds its annual summer Harbor Jam series with live performances and large crowds at the Marina.
Yes, all those people are indeed coming to Mohawk Harbor (of course, many of those visitors already live in the City or County of Schenectady). But, the numbers do not appear to be creating a major demand for retail at Mohawk Harbor. Rivers Casino opened three years ago, followed about 2.5 years ago by its Landing Hotel, the Marina and Amphitheater, and River House (which has over 200 apartments). It also has a free trolley service from Downtown (heavily-subsidized by Metroplex and CDTA); a CYCLE! bike-share station; the ALCO Heritage Bike and Pedestrian Trail; and the advantage of the constant promotion of the Casino, its Convention Center and Hotel by the well-and-publicly–funded Discover Schenectady. Nonetheless, the very visible and tangible evidence does not support the claim of a great excess of retail demand at Mohawk Harbor. There is, instead, a great excess of empty retail space.
The evidence strongly indicates that the folks who are in, or wish to be in, a retail business have not seen the potential for success at Mohawk Harbor, despite the efforts and promises of the Galesi Group, Rush Street Gaming, and Metroplex, and a large quantity of free media that repeats Galesi and Casino promises like scripture. The evidence is not just the empty spots and filler signs on the giant pylon that Galesi Group demanded be placed on Erie Boulevard for Mohawk Harbor to advertise its retail tenants (photo at left, taken Feb. 28, 2020). It is the actual list of arguably “retail” establishments at Mohawk Harbor that belies the claims of Schenectady DRI, despite the site being a “leading destination” in the Capital Region. Outside of the Casino itself, with its eateries, and the Dunkin’ Donuts and Capitol Bank over by the Rotary, this is the full list of “retail” at Mohawk Harbor: as of the first week of March 2020, three years after the Casino opened:
Instead of bustling retail outlets in the “125,000 square feet of harborside retail/dining,” promised at the Mohawk Harbor website, and in Planning and Council meetings, we have an unbroken array of empty storefront windows like we have not seen since the worst days of downtown Schenectady. (Actually, the percentage of empty storefronts in downtown Schenectady was never this bad.) Only the dumpster-style bright yellow bollards that are ubiquitous around the Casino [180 of them], present a design scheme as predominant at Mohawk Harbor as its blue and white Retail Space Available signs. Click on the following collage, which shows Harbor retail as of the end of February 2020.
. . east of the Shaker & Vine Restaurant there is no retail, either on the harbor front [above] or along Harbor Way [below], but only those blue signs and the stretches of banner paper hiding the empty storefronts . .
Also, I was surprised to learn this week, that the only non-food retail establishment inside the Casino, Splash Spa, closed in December 2018. In addition, not only has no spa or other retail establishment taken its place, the Casino’s Landing Hotel is also without a salon spa. Apparently, neither the Casino’s annual Luck Is a Lady event, nor other events aimed at women, has created a demand for time at the Spa before or after visiting the Casino, its Convention Center, or restaurants.
. . DRI should consider helping to fill the empty storefronts on the 200 Block of State St., truly in the heart of Downtown Schenectady ..
. . 
. . 
. above: [L & M] 236 State St.; [R] 200 State St. .
SKEPTICAL about DEMAND for PEDESTRIAN CONNECTORS
. . the Jay Street Pedestrian Mall looks and feels like a “downtown block”. .
A recent photoshoot stroll up both Jay Street and Erie Boulevard north of Liberty Street leaves me very skeptical that there exists any significant demand from the public to walk the mile from our Real Downtown to Mohawk Harbor. More important, perhaps, there appears to be no amount of sprucing up (façade improvement, arrays of LED bulbs, a sprinkling of “public art”), or the other options suggested to and by DRI Schenectady, that would create that demand. There may be places along the non-downtown sections of Jay Street and Erie Boulevard that could be stand-alone destinations for a meal, or a history lesson, for those driving, biking, or coming from a walking distance, but that is a separate issue from (1) how to “revitalize” downtown, and (2) funneling visitors to Mohawk Harbor to help the bottom-line of our largest developer and its casino tenant.
Jay Street to Little Italy to ALCO Tunnel
Is there likely to be a demand to walk from our real downtown, up Jay Street and then through a lighted and refurbished ALCO Tunnel on the way to Mohawk Harbor? A stroll up Jay Street from its Pedestrian Mall to the abandoned ALCO Tunnel did not leave me convinced. What do you think?
The ALCO Tunnel is 0.5 miles up Jay Street from Proctors Theater (a ten or eleven-minute walk). As a “connector”, the ALCO Tunnel would bring you out near the 1400 block of Erie Blvd. (across from Madison Street), at the former location of the Grossman’s Bargain Outlet and the upcoming home of an AllTown Market. They are located an additional 0.5 miles from Mohawk Harbor Way (eleven minutes more). See image of Google Street Maps on the right of this blurb.update (March 20, 2020): Cornells, the larger of the two Italian restaurants in Schenectady’s already-disappointing Little Italy, “closed for good” this week, with the NY Pause declared by Gov. Cuomo due to the COVID-19 crisis the last straw. Per an article in the Gazette, “We just couldn’t afford to keep it open,” said co-owner Connie Hume on Wednesday. [And see, Times Union and WRGB News6 coverage.]
follow-up: As explained in the Gazette, Cornell’s was reopened on January 28, 2022 under new ownership. With the purchase of Cornell’s by Maria Perreca Papa, of MORE Perreca’s restaurant two doors away, Little Italy’s two restaurants now have the same owner. The food should be tasty, but vigorous price competition is not expected.
ERIE BOULEVARD NORTH OF LIBERTY STREET
. . above: elements of the “upgraded” Erie Blvd. touted by DRI: new sidewalks and crosswalks (some with talking-nagging walk signals); (too) many lamp-posts; and scrawny (often dead or dying) trees. .
the walk from Proctors to Mohawk Harbor, using Erie Boulevard
The Schenectady DRI Application gives this description of its vision for the Erie Boulevard connection to Mohawk Harbor [at 26; underscoring added]:
Erie Boulevard Updates
Erie Boulevard features new sidewalks, trees, LED lights, a new roundabout in front of Mohawk Harbor and many other upgrades. A new train station helps define the Erie corridor as a growing commercial area. Schenectady is grateful for the leadership of Governor Cuomo and NYS DOT in making the new train station a reality. As Erie is the main connecting road between Downtown and Mohawk Harbor, further upgrades need to happen as part of DRI Schenectady.
[The AMTRAK RAIL BRIDGE “Trestle”] There is a large Amtrak rail bridge that crosses Erie Boulevard and serves as a visual barrier between Downtown and the Harbor. Within the next few months Amtrak, NYSDOT and the City of Schenectady will be working together to light up this bridge creating a visual linkage where a barrier now exists. In addition, a new $4 million Alltown Market will begin construction on Erie providing healthy food choices to local residents. [Ed. Note: It will be a gas station and an upscale convenience store with tables. Update: see collage of the nearly-completed Alltown project after the next Slideshow.] This new market will be built on the site of a long vacant lumber yard.
Since its inception, Metroplex has successful[ly] administered a façade matching grant program. The program provides a 50/50 match to businesses that invest in improving their buildings with a special focus on the façade. To date, over 100 facades have been improved. If DRI Schenectady is funded Metroplex will place a special focus on completing facades along the Erie Boulevard corridor helping to improve the visual appeal and commercial viability of this corridor. The goal would be to complete 10 facades at a cost of $750,000 in matching funds.
[Editor’s Trestle-Bridge Dissent: It is hard to agree with the DRI notion that the Amtrak Trestle bridge over Erie Blvd., just north of Union Street, “serves as a visual barrier between Downtown and the Harbor“. The bridge itself is, in my opinion, about the only element of visual interest as you walk or drive from Liberty Street up Erie Blvd. The trestle camouflages the blandness of Erie Boulevard heading toward the Harbor. Immediately below is a view of the trestle when coming up Erie Blvd. [R], and the “streetscape” that you see when leaving the underpass — which basically would be the view without the trestle as you pass Union Street.
. . 
The problem is not that the trestle-bridge is a visual barrier. The trestle’s underpass is an aesthetic and safety barrier that few people would use if it can be avoided. The walls of the underpass are so dirty and ugly, and its sidewalks so narrow and unkempt (with leaves, debris and snow virtually never removed along the walls, and pigeon droppings), as speeding traffic swoops past the pedestrian. The failure to address these issues already, given the millions spent to upgrade the Boulevard, strongly suggests the lack of interest by residents or tourists in walking up Erie Boulevard any serious distance. Even if totally spruced up, of course, it cannot “funnel” people who do not want to walk the distance to Mohawk Harbor from Downtown. It might, however, make it more pleasant to get to Mike’s for a hotdog or bagel, Stewart’s for some ice cream (if it remains after the Alltown Market convenience store opens on the next block), or Morrette’s for a steak sandwich.
follow-up (Sept. 14, 2020): To celebrate the re-opening of Rivers Casino after its COVID-19 closing, the City has “accented blue LED lights” on the Erie Boulevard RR trestle. See screen shot below from the Gazette. This is the kind of lighting we are told will draw people to walk up Erie Boulevard. I bet they did not bother to scrub/scrape the various encrustations off the sidewalk.
Erie Boulevard, north of the busy State State intersection and the Schenectady Train Station at Liberty Street, seems far from a natural connector or bridge for pedestrians to Mohawk Harbor. Check out this Slideshow tour, and see what you think.
. . this Slideshow has photos from a walk north on Erie from Liberty to Rush St.
.
update (July 29, 2020): The following collage has photos taken July 24, 2020 of the nearly-completed ALLTOWN FRESH Market, on Erie Blvd. at Jefferson Street. It strains credulity for DRI or Metroplex to suggest that a convenience store (no matter how fresh its offerings) and multi-pump gas station will increase the demand for walking from downtown to Mohawk Harbor, or give tourists an impressive impression of Schenectady. As you can see, its overall effect is more Suburban than classic Revived Downtown. A major opportunity was lost at this site for the development of a true attraction or unique resource for the enjoyment of residents and visitors.
. . . IMHO: The new Rotary Centennial Clock (image at the right from Gazette, July 24, 2020)), like its neighbor ALLTOWN Market, lacks much visitor appeal, even if its (potentially annoying) seasonal music is somehow coordinated with choruses from the nearby talking pedestrian crossing devices. I hope the Mayor does a better job of keeping this clock telling the correct time.
This set of square tiles contains photos from my return stroll from the Rotary back to Liberty Street on February 28, 2020. It seems to be a long and uninteresting walk, because it is. Click on a tile for a larger, full version of the photo. Go left to right to follow the route.
.
follow-up (Aug. 6, 2020): A lot of the “buzz’ at the DRI Local Planning Committee meeting on July 30, 2020, seemed to suggest that putting “canopy lighting” over the blocks north of Liberty Street, on Jay St. and Erie Boulevard, would add “excitement” (that was the Mayor’s word for it) along those stretches of sidewalk that would attract people to walk to Mohawk Harbor. That seems like, at best, wishful thinking, and perhaps a lame effort to brainwash the public. The current example of such Canopy Lighting is over the Jay Street Pedestrian Mall, which at least has buildings on each side from which lighting could be attached. See the next photo. It is hard to image how such lighting will make currently homely and uninteresting stretches an attractive lure to walk past non-attractions. The same can surely be said for “public art installations” along the way.
. . . . . . . .
GREEN-SPACE at MOHAWK HARBOR
. . remaining Harbor “green space” (Feb. 2020)
. . above: Google Satellite View of Mohawk Harbor, showing remaining green-space in the northeast section of the project.
. . below: DRI description of Mohawk Harbor Entertainment Development.
. . see p. 75 of the February DRI Power Point Presentation . .
Because the Casino Applicant demanded so much ground-level parking, Mohawk Harbor has far less green space than one would have expected at Schenectady’s only remaining location for waterfront development. The Casino also got concessions allowing bigger footprints for its buildings in exchange for adding amenities for the public. (The bike-ped trail mandated in our Code is indeed an amenity, but instead of fully providing funding for it, the developer allowed the State and County taxpayer to pay 85 or 90% of the cost.)
The authors of the Schenectady DRI Application seem to be proud of the Harbor’s green-space. Yet, they propose to allow and subsidize a giant Entertainment and Retail complex, 100,000 sq ft., that would take over much, if not most, of the remaining Mohawk Harbor green-space. To permanently remove such a large portion of the open space at Mohawk Harbor for a use that has no water-front value, and no unique contribution to the City, County, or Region, seems unwise. We should also ask whether, like the Harbor Center buildings and River House, Metroplex plans to give a total property tax exemption, or other property tax breaks (such as a PILOT) on the new entertainment-retail complex.
Choosing the Galesi-Casino Harbor Entertainment Development proposal is inappropriate, for at least three other reasons of policy and equity:
1] The Galesi Group and Rush Street Gaming greatly reduced the amount of green-space at the Harbor, diminishing its attractiveness, and restricting the ability of the public to enjoy a riverbank experience: They did that damage by insisting that City Council remove from the then-existing Waterfront District Zoning Code, the requirement that any developer at the old ALCO plant location: File a permanent easement “for the purpose of assuring public access to and public enjoyment of the waterfront,” with the owner responsible for upkeep. [see screen image of former code provision on the right].
Did that change matter for the aesthetics and enjoyment of the waterfront? The first image below is the rendering submitted by the Rivers Casino applicants following the Waterfront District C-3 Code at the time of the application:
We did not receive an attractive, gently sloping, landscaped riverbank, suitable for picnics, frolicking and play, strolling, sitting and reclining, romance, etc.. Instead, Galesi Group, the Casino, Metroplex, our Planning Commission and Office, and Mayor McCarthy, removed the public access requirement, and ignored the Zoning Code mandates to preserve as much as possible of the natural features of the riverbank, and to place the Trail as close as reasonably possible to the riverbank. As a result, they allowed this to happen to our only potential spot for additional riverfront public access and enjoyment:
. . 
In addition, City Hall and Metroplex allowed the developer to locate the bike-ped path closer to that steep riprap bank than was allowed under even the amended Code the Galesi Group and Casino dictated to City Council. Thus, Sec. 264-14(E)(4)(b) states: “There shall be an additional two feet of graded area on either side of the trail and an additional ten-foot buffer between the trail and the river.” (See our post, “Restore riverfront public access at Mohawk Harbor” (Aug. 10, 2015). The detail to the right, from documents submitted by the developer and casino in the planning process, clearly shows an added 10-foot-wide and landscaped buffer area on the riverside of the bike-ped trail. The public was deprived of that required “amenity”, allowing an attractive and comfortable viewing area, with no discussion or explanation during the permitting process and construction.
. . . 
As is also apparent from the results (see, e.g., images to the left), the Planning staff and Commission made woefully inadequate efforts to ensure that the Developer satisfy the §264-14(E)(4)(a) standard that the trail “shall endeavor to be located reasonably adjacent to the undeveloped shoreline wherever practicable.” They also failed the goal of §264-14(A)(2)(h), “To preserve, to the maximum extent practicable, the vegetation and natural features along the Mohawk River”. As a consequence of the developer’s demands and willfulness, and the indifference of Metroplex and our Planning Office, the aesthetic, recreational, and safety benefits to the public envisioned in the City’s waterfront zoning regulations for Schenectady’s last developable waterfront property, have been lost forever.
The answer, from my perspective, is that the Mayor and Metroplex, and City Council, gave in to every demand of Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group, and failed to follow industry practice (and common sense) by demanding extra payments and protections for Schenectady and its citizens, when they approved the casino license Application and major zoning code changes. Despite all that Rush Street gives and offers to other host cities, they let the Casino Gang treat Schenectady like a Second-rate City. (See our posting, “Rush Streets giveaways“
2] After supporting removal of the public access guarantee to the waterfront, Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen of Metroplex came up with the misleading argument that having a Large Vessel Dock would assure “total public access to the riverfront.” [2018 rendering below] Based on that bogus, and easily rebutted claim, City Hall and Metroplex originally proposed such a project for Schenectady DRI. However, other State funding has been secured for the project outside of DRI, meaning that $2 million of public funds from another source will be used to build a 680-foot long, 12-ft. wide, large vessel dock (with no railing, of course) along Mohawk Harbor. It will surely benefit Mohawk Harbor and owners of large vessel boats. For a partial list of the reasons why it is unlikely that a significant portion of the public will be able to enjoy the safe and secure use of such a dock, see our post “The large vessel dock at Mohawk Harbor” (July 24, 2018).
3] While seeking Schenectady DRI and other subsidies for a large entertainment center, Rush Street Gaming’s Pittsburgh Casino announced last October, that for the tenth straight year, it was contributing $7.5 million (in two $3.525 million donations each year, over and above taxes due) for Pittsburgh’s existing, grand sports and entertainment center, PPG Paints Arena, to help cover its original construction costs. The donations will continue for 25 more years. (Note: In case you wonder, Rush Street pays higher gaming tax rates on slots and table games in Pennsylvania than it does in New York on its Schenectady Casino revenues.) When it comes to making gifts and donations, Rush Street Gaming treats Schenectady like the proverbial redheaded stepchild. When, however, it comes to asking for and accepting money, Schenectady’s generous Mayor and Metroplex Chair seem to be Rush Street’s Daddy Warbucks.
Capital Region AQUATIC CENTER . . 
If some of Mohawk Harbor’s remaining green-space is to be sacrificed, it should be for a project that offers unique services to the people of our community and the Capital Region, as well as attracting and serving visitors. If it also provides water-related activities, that would be a plus. Using those criteria, the DRI proposal at Mohawk Harbor that suits the public interest far better than a Mohawk Harbor Entertainment Complex is the CAPITAL REGION AQUATIC CENTER, even though it will not be located at the core of our downtown. [see page 66 of the February DRI Power Point Presentation] Also see, “Aquatic center proposed on Schenectady waterfront gains $250K grant” (Daily Gazette, John Cropley, March 3, 2020). The Gazette article reports that:
The Capital Region Aquatic Center’s . . . would feature four pools for training, competition and diverse swim programs such as learn-to-swim, exercise and rehabilitation.
Plans also include spectator seating, classroom areas, meeting rooms, aquatic-focused exercise and weight room, studio/multi-purpose area, pro shop, concessions area and locker rooms.. .
In another boost, the Wright Family Foundation of Schenectady announced a $3 million grant in October.
Read about the Aquatic Center’s history and mission, here.
Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy posting. Your (civil) comments are welcome. If you agree, please let the DRI Local Planning Committee, the Mayor and City Council, and the media, know. I plan to add updates and follow-up thoughts to this post.
. . share this post with this short URL: 
https://tinyurl.com/RealSchdyDowntown . .
. . Many thanks to Google Maps for assisting in making this posting . .
update: Sunday, March 8, 2020: See the Gazette article by Pete DiMola, “As priority projects come into focus, Schenectady DRI panelists could have conflicts of interest“. There’s a lot to consider in the piece. This excerpt gives a taste of the complexities:
But roughly a quarter of the 16-member panel tapped with making the final decisions represent organizations who are not only jostling for funding, but are also actively pitching projects themselves.
They include the city, Proctors, Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation, Rivers Casino & Resort and Schenectady Country Metroplex Development Authority.
Driving pedestrian traffic between downtown and Mohawk Harbor is the centerpiece of the effort.
David Buicko, CEO and president of the Galesi Group, which developed Mohawk Harbor and Rivers Casino & Resort, is co-chair of the panel.
Also, see Saturday’s Guest Column by former Union College President, and Mayoral candidate, Roger H. Hull, “Don’t emulate Washington on ethics transparency,” which also raises conflict of issues statements, especially re the leaders of Galesi Group and Proctors being on the Local Planning Committee. Dr. Hull ends the column with these observations:
Yet, even if they recuse themselves, the process would be tainted, since it would be easy to game the system. It would be best for them to resign, if their organizations are possible recipients of the grant.
A lack of transparency and conflicts of interest are troubling issues—or at least they should be. In the past, they were, but not today.
In the age of Trump, those issues are, seemingly, of no concern to most people.
In Schenectady, ethics and legal norms should be retained.
We would all benefit, and we might even serve as a much-needed model for Washington.
BLATANT CONFLICTS. Dave Buicko is CEO of the Galesi Group, which developed and owns Mohawk Harbor, and was the main spokesperson pushing the Casino application forward in 2014 and thereafter related Zoning changes and site plans, etc. As stressed above, the primary focus of DRI Schenectady is “increasing visitations to Mohawk Harbor“. Nonetheless, Mr. Buicko was made co-Chair of the DRI Planning Committee. And, Mayor McCarthy (who is seeking funding on behalf of the City), is the other co-chair. Mr McCarthy told the Gazette that he wants the Committee’s recommendations for projects that will receive grants to be bundled into a single vote. Doing that, of course, will mean that the final vote will allow Committee members with conflicts of interest, even if they have previously recused themselves on particular proposals, to vote for them as part of a “bundle” of projects.
If ever there were a situation ripe for “horse trading”, it is DRI Schenectady. Too many committee members (click on above image) are directly involved with proposals, and too many others are beholden to, or seeking favors from, the City, Metroplex, Rivers Casino, the Galesi Group and Proctors, to believe that an objective assessment of the public interest will drive the outcome.
How else but from the now-habitual McCarthy-Metroplex “done deal” perspective, with McCarthy and Gillen “snowmen” selected for panels, can the public understand how the primary goal of DRI Schenectady could be driving customers away from our core downtown to Mohawk Harbor, a private development situated over a mile from the Real Downtown Schenectady?
HOW FAR FROM DOWNTOWN? The initial brochure of the Galesi Group for its Mohawk Harbor development proclaimed it was “in the heart of downtown Schenectady.” Since then, they have been a bit more accurate. Galesi Group President David Buiko (co-chair of Schenectady DRI), told Spectrum News in 2016 that “you’re really less than a mile from downtown Schenectady.” And, the River House apartments amenities page points out there is “FREE Trolley Service To Downtown Schenectady” — just in case you don’t feel like walking that far.
follow-up (August 6, 2020): FULL SLATE DRI VOTING PROTECTS CONFLICTS. The screen shot below was taken during the DRI planning committee meeting last week. It looks like the Mayor is getting his way — committee members will be voting on the entire Slate of proposed projects, up or down. That means that members with undeniable conflicts of interest get to vote for their own projects within the slate, with no way to recuse themselves.
There are far too many examples of misleading, half-true, or simply erroneous claims surrounding Mohawk Harbor and the Casino for me to supply them in this posting. Browsing this weblog will give the reader a good taste (well, actually, a bad taste for our City Hall). But, here are three quick but relevant examples: (1) A few years ago, the initial online brochure for Mohawk Harbor stated that it was located “in the heart of downtown Schenectady.” (2) At one time it was claimed that Rivers Casino is located “across the street” from the new Train Station. And, (3) Dave Buicko (rather than the Planning Office staff) was allowed to present the large packet of amendments to the City’s Waterfront District zoning Code in 2015. The Galesi Group CEO told the Planning Commission and City Council that the amendments were mainly minor and technical, despite among other things, removing guaranteed public access to the waterfront, permitting 80-foot rather than 7-foot signs, allowing 19,000 rather than 250 square feet of signage, and completely removing the Casino from the Signage portion requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. (See our descrption of the Planning Commission Special Meeting that approved the Amendments: “Schenectady’s Waterfront Zoning: A rubber stamp in a company town?” (Jan. 29, 2015). With “alternate facts” like these coming from City Hall and its favorite “partners”, who needs actual facts when doling out $10 million taxpayer dollars?follow-up (March 21, 2020): Thank you, Daily Gazette for publishing my Letter to the Editor today, “Invest state funds in our ‘real’ downtown” (at D2):
See our posting “Can the sidewalk plan be repaired?” for a summary of the situation as of Jan. 29, 2020.
The City of Schenectady government slipped and fell hard on its collective butt in orchestrating completion of the first block of sidewalks under its Sidewalk Assessment District Plan. Of course, it is the Petitioners on Ardsley Rd., and eventually Schenectady taxpayers, who will feel the pain. The new Ardsley Rd. sidewalks on the block from Union St. to Rugby Rd. are apparently fine, but the failure to inform the Homeowners of the surprisingly high cost may doom the entire Sidewalk Program, which relies on property owners convincing their neighbors to participate with predictions of big savings.
. . share this post with the short URL: https://tinyurl.com/SidewalkFiasco
The Sidewalk Plan was controversial for being adopted by City Council without needed details and explanation (see Gazette article, March 13, 2019; click to see the disappointing Explanation of the Plan provided to the Council and the public by sponsor John Polimeni). Nevertheless, there was nothing inevitable about the “slip ‘n’ fall” calamity that happened on the way to replacing and billing for the new sidewalks on Ardsley Road. See our discussion here for full details; and “City hits speed bump with sidewalk program” (Daily Gazette, by Pete DeMola, Jan. 3, 2020); “Foss: City’s new sidewalk program a disappointment” (Sunday Gazette, by Sara Foss, Jan. 5, 2020).
Even after the Sidewalk Plan was prematurely brought up for a vote and adopted by the City Counsel in a 4-3 vote in March 2019 (with Vince Riggi, Leesa Perazzo, and Marion Porterfield voting No ), there were many points at which the outcome of the first completed block — an approved Contractor Bid with Ardsley Rd. Homeowner Costs 84% higher than Plan sponsor John Polimeni’s estimates, and initial Annual Bills calculated at an even higher rate, with no prior warning to Homeowners — could and should have been avoided.
On the other hand, the excessive cost to the Ardsley Rd. homeowners, and failure to keep them informed, was not an accident, either. It was due to deliberate choices made by the two City officials most actively engaged in the Sidewalk District Assessment Plan: Council member John Polimeni and City Engineer Chris Wallin, along with secondary negligent oversight by the remaining Council members.
Part of the problem might have been that Prof. Polimeni believed, as he told a Gazette reporter last March, that “the process would be ‘relatively easy’ despite the numerous city agencies involved”, and “It’s not your typical runaround sometimes you get.” Nonetheless, relatively easy or not:
Ardsley Road Contractor Bid
84% HIGHER. When the single bid for Ardsley Road came in with prices to the Homeowner 84% higher than the Polimeni estimates given in the Plan Statement earlier in the year, the cost overage was
PREMATURE COMMITTEE VOTE: When Mr. Wallin presented the Contractor Bid for approval and award of the Contract (at City Council Committee Meeting for Sept. 3, 2019), neither he nor Mr. Polimeni alerted Council members, and the viewing public, that the Homeowners had not yet seen the dollar figures, much less been given the chance to withdraw their Petition. And,
NOT “ALMOST EXACT”. Mr. Wallin specifically told City Council members prior to asking for the Committee approval of the Bid, that that the Bid “comes in almost exactly at our construction estimate, based on our historic experience.” Intentionally or not, Wallin seems to have confused the historic cost of $80 per square yd. that was used in Polimeni’s Estimates, with the Bid price of $81.71 per linear foot, which resulted in a cost 84% higher than the Polimeni Estimates. Or, as he has done before, Mr. Wallin said the Party line to support a favorable vote.
SURPRISE BILLS. When they received their bills in late December from the City for the first of ten annual Sidewalk Payments, the Ardsley homeowners had still not been shown the approved Contractor Bid Sheet, and were given no explanation for the amount they were charged, which was about $100 per ft., another 25% higher than the Contrator Bid “Total Resident Cost” of $81.71 per foot of sidewalk.
. . Ardsley Rd. Homeowners generally like the new sidewalks, but they cannot forget how poorly they were treated during this “pilot” block project . .
Why would City Hall treat the Homeowners on the Ardsley Road Petition so shabbily? It is difficult to believe that John Polimeni and Chris Wallin are too ignorant of fair play and good government processes to accidentally keep the Residents and the Council informed. If nothing else, Mr. Polimeni was being asked for the bid/cost information before and after the sidewalks were completed. Wallin said he wanted to beat the winter weather, but that assumes there was some great disadvantage to waiting until Spring. The only reason that makes sense to me is that Polimeni (and probably his Party leaders) wanted the block to be a milestone to point to in the Election.
follow-up (Jan. 11, 2020): CITY COUNCIL ADDRESSES THE ARDSLEY BILLS
. 
. 
As you may know, given the name of this weblog and its content, the proprietor believes Schenectady has been suffering the ill effects of having Snowmen at its Gates since the tragic night of the February 8, 1690 Massacre, when the appointed sentries were having a drink at the Mill Lane pub, and only two snowmen were “guarding” the Stockade gate.*/ Naturally, the Stockade and its Gate, along with the guards, were meant to protect the residents of Schenectady.
Harkening to that history, we fervently believe our current Mayor-for-Life Gary McCarthy, in addition to supporting the new craft brewery at Mill Lane, vastly prefers appointing and re-appointing “snowmen” — silent, deaf, and weaponless citizens, who melt if subjected to heat — to Schenectady’s Boards and Commissions, and naming managers to important City jobs with similar attributes. The result is “enforcement” of Schenectady’s laws and regulations that appears to serve the Mayor’s favorite causes, people and enterprises, rather than serving the public interest. See, our Snowmen Effect Category of posts, and “McCarthy only wants snowmen on his Planning Commission“.
*/ By the way, the Stockade gates had been left wide open on the night of the 1690 Massacre, inviting attack, because the mostly-Dutch villagers did not like having a newly-appointed Englishman in charge. So, they ignored his orders to remove the high snow blocking the entryway. As a result, Indian scouts reported back to their French commanders that the Schenectady gate was wide open, while Albany was well-guarded, making Schenectady the better choice for attack.
We are also quite keen on irony and twists of humor here at Snowmen at the Gates. So, this week, it was with a gleam in our eyes that we spotted Frozen‘s famous snowman Olaf “guarding” City Hall. More precisely, an ice sculpture of Olaf by Charlie Jones, of “The Ice Man Custom Ice Sculptures“, was on duty near the main entry stairway on Jay Street, a leftover feature of last Saturday’s City Hall-iday“.
Adding another element of either irony or reality to our Snowmen at the Gates theme, the top of Olaf’s head was leaning against the base of the sculpture when I arrived. Whether the victim of vandals, Mayoral edict, or strong sunshine, we do not know. While taking pictures, I decided to move the head over a bit to permit the character’s name to be read again by passersby.
. . . The Ice Man’s finished product
. 
. . above: always-scary Erie Blvd. at Union St 10 AM: [L] sw corner unshoveled with giant snow mound blocking access to pedestrian signal; [R] se corner, ditto. As of 5:15 PM, conditions were unchanged.
The sidewalks from College St. to Erie Blvd. were also unshovelled. The south side borders a City parking lot.
Jan. 13, 2019
I would not have been walking around Downtown Schenectady at about 9 AM today (Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019), if I did not have a medical appointment at Liberty and Lafayette Streets. A similar appointment after a snowstorm early this year yielded a dreary walk hobbled by intersection after intersection inhospitable to pedestrians. [click on collage thumbnail to the left] Sadly, despite million$ spent to be a $mart City, all the same problems were on display today. See examples above and below.
. . Click on a photo for a larger version . .
Here are two of the corners at City Hall at 10 AM:
. . in front of Pho Queen at Liberty and State
.. crosswalk at Liberty and Clinton
Post Office at Liberty and Jay Streets . . 
. . below: Seward & Tubman got plowed in at the Library:
What about Erie Boulevard and State Street, our busiest intersection? Well:
. .
The sidewalks along our new Train Station were equally forgotten:
. . 
SW Erie at Liberty
And, if you want to park along State Street or Liberty or other places with the Pay Parking Kiosks, you could walk quite a way to find entrance to a sidewalk, and still need very high boots to make a payment (and then walk back to place your receipt in your car, etc.)
. .
This Sideshow has all of the above photos, and more.
.
As the City tells us of the wonders and benefits of being a Smart City, with services assumed to be provided more efficiently, let’s talk about the need for Boots on the Ground to make our Downtown safely and conveniently walkable.
follow-up (Dec. 5, 2019): As of the end of the afternoon yesterday, Tuesday, December 4, 2019, most of the trouble spots at corners described above had been addressed by the City (or others), although the Seward-Tubman statues were still plowed in. However, around 5 PM, there were at least three places that I saw in a quick walk around the block needing further snow removal in the Stockade near Washington Ave., Union Street, and Front and N. Church Streets.
Here’s my email message late last night to a few City Officials and the press, along with attached photo collages (click on a collage for a larger version):
Begin forwarded message:From: David Giacalone <dgiacalone@nycap.rr.com>Subject: more Stockade snow removal neededDate: December 4, 2019 at 11:35:05 PM ESTTo: Paul Lafond <plafond@schenectadyny.gov>, Ed Kosiur <ekosiur@schenectadyny.gov>, Vincent Riggi <v_riggi@verizon.net>, asutherland@schenectadyny.govCc: Pete DeMola <pdemola@dailygazette.net>, “Nelson, Paul” <pnelson@timesunion.com>, Sara Foss <sfoss@dailygazette.net>
The photos below were taken late Wednesday afternoon, December 4, after snow removal trucks and crew worked along Washington Avenue and Front Street in the Stockade.
Please send the crews back to finish the job. As further shown in the collages below, the locations involved include:1] Cucumber Alley. The Dec. 2-3 snow was plowed only halfway into the Alley, and pushed into a snowbank left at the spot where plower stopped. There is no access for vehicles or pedestrians to the River end half of the Alley, and two feet of snow still blankets that end of the Alley on its paved sections.2] The NE corner of Union St. and Washington Ave. has been left with plowed snow blocking all pedestrian access to the street. This location is directly across from the YWCA, with its child care center.3] The corners at North Church Street where it ends at Front Street. Snow plows pushed snow onto both corners, allowing no pedestrian access to or from the sidewalks or the street.Please direct work crews back to these locations and problems.David Giacalone16 Washington Ave. Apt. 3, at Cucumber Alley
update (Dec. 12, 2019): On Wednesday, December 11, 2019, one week after the email message above (and another the morning of Dec. 11), Cucumber Alley was finally unencumbered of the snowbank blocking the second half of the Alley from vehicle and foot traffic. To wit:
Should we be optimistic about the next big snow storm?
Neither of the two other problems depicted below were remedied as of Thursday afternoon, December 12.
followup (December 30, 2019): My photoshoot on December 26 of the new mural welcoming people to the East Front Street Neighborhood (see posting at “suns along the Mohawk”) was momentarily stymied when I came upon this frozen reminder of the infamous December 1, 2019 Not-So-Smart-City snowstorm (photo on the right), and its aftermath and uproar, with its unplowed streets, plow-created obstacles, and un-shoveled sidewalks. This particular sidewalk runs along City property (the Front Street Pool lot). I ended up crossing the street and shooting from the opposite side of the underpass. Today, Dec. 27, I sent a photo and a plea for help to Paul Lafond, General Services Commissioner. Twelve minutes later, Mr. Lafond wrote back that he sent out a crew to handle the problem. I appreciate the quick reply, of course, but do not believe residents should have to report problems that City workers and City Smart Cameras must have seen for three weeks.
. . . . Yesterday afternoon (Friday, Oct. 25, 2019) , I sent an email Letter with Appendix (see below) to Schenectady City Council President Ed Kosiur, and others. My recommendation was that the Council first do its Smart City Homework before allotting another large budget item for the Mayor to use in his Smart City efforts. Unfortunately, as a Gazette article reports (online, Sat. AM, Oct. 26, 2019), the Mayor’s automatic Majority clique, led by Ed Kosiur and John Polimeni, ignored its responsibilities, and are prepared to force through more Smart City dollars at the Council Meeting on Monday, despite the efforts of Council Members Riggi, Perazzo and Porterfield. update (Oct. 29, 2019): The Mayor got $2 million more to spend on his “Smart City” project, and the people of Schenectady got left in the dark with the bill to pay. See “City Council adopts spending plan” (Gazette, by Pete DeMola).
. . .. . share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/SmartCityHomework
P.S. In a thought-provoking article that is discussed in the “Appendix” below, I was concerned to see this sentence: “These technologies range from the mundane (speed cameras) to the fantastical (“Streetlight hubs that host WiFi nodes, license plate readers, environmental sensors, and gunshot detectors)”. “The Future of Living: Smart Cities, Uneven Safeguards” (Washington Lawyer, Nov. 2018). Note that Schenectady already has that “fantastical technology”, but with no transparency, public input, or disclosure of how security, privacy, and consent are being handled.
The most critical question, however, is whether having a smart city will make us meaningfully better at solving urban problems. Data and algorithms alone don’t actually add very much on their own. No matter how much data a city has, addressing urban challenges will still require stable long-term financing, good management and effective personnel. If smart data identifies a road that needs paving, it still needs people to show up with asphalt and a steamroller.
3] 
The November 2018 edition of Washington Lawyer (the D.C. Bar magazine) also has an article that I recommend to those who want to make smart decisions about Smart Cities. It is titled “The Future of Living: Smart Cities, Uneven Safeguards” (by Sarah Kellogg). The author talked with and quotes technology, legal and privacy experts. The key points:
An expert of digital forensics and cybersecurity points out in the article that “few are even remotely aware of how intrusive these applications can be in their daily lives. . . Most people below a certain age don’t care about all the sensors in our lives. . . .The folks of a certain age tend to get the privacy dangers.”
“A major issue is Consent. Consent to be monitored may not be a legal requisite, but consent should be obtained from individuals whose data has been collected and massaged to allow the identification of individuals (especially if the buyer of the information can cross-reference it to other data bases), before a municipality shares/sells it to outset entities.”
Followup (October 21, 2021): Two years later, I see no signs of completed Homework assignments. Nor, incomplete ones. There are, of course, more signs that we should be worried and demand protection and transparency. The use of Parking Passport software and 5-G and “free” WiFi expansion greatly widens the scope of Smart City data collection. Meanwhile, Mayor Gary McCarthy has again stated his intent to monetize the stream of data. See City to expand free Wi-Fi: Schenectady network adds more neighborhoods .
I was unsuccessful finding on the City website the permissions required to use the Free WiFi. However, I bet it is similar to what one must give up to use the Parking Passport system:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.passportparking.mobile&hl=en_US
PERMISSIONS
This app has access to:
Storage
Location
Wi-Fi connection information
Photos/Media/Files
Other
PRIVACY POLICY
https://www.passportinc.com/privacy-policy/
This afternoon (Sunday, October 13), there was a Meet and Greet for Omar McGill at Mangino’s Gourmet Market and Restaurant (754 1/2 Eastern Avenue). Omar is running against veteran Democrat Peggy Smith for the open District 1 seat on the Schenectady County Legislature. He is on the Working Family Party’s line on the November 5 ballot. In addition to Rick Mangino and Bonnie Goodwin at Mangino’s, the event was co-sponsored by Mary Moore Wallinger, a landscape architect and Chair of the City of Schenectady Planning Commission, and Hon. Dorcey Applyrs, member of the City of Albany Common Council.
As I’ve written elsewhere (for example, click on thumbnail to the left from Omar’s Facebook platform page), although a lifelong Democrat, I believe Omar McGill is the clear choice for our County Legislature. We need a representative who listens to the people and not just Democratic party leaders — and who demands explanations, facts, open consideration of alternatives, and more if necessary before deciding to support or oppose a legislative resolution. (Although Omar and Marion Porterfield, the Democratic City Council member who is his campaign manager, insist on having a positive campaign, I personally do not believe that stating the record of the opponent and explaining what Omar would do differently is a negative campaign.)
. . above: [L to R]: Noble and Dorcey Applyrs, Mary Moore Wallinger, Omar McGill; below: Our Community’s Future:
. . 
You will find an 11-minute video with remarks by Mary, Dorcey and Omar McGill’s at the Meet & Greet posted at his Facebook page. In the columns below are random photos that I took of the thoughtful and amiable folks who came to meet Omar today at Mangino’s. Click on an image for a full, larger version.
.
. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/OMcGill-Manginos
Several varieties of pizza and soft ice cream were consumed with gusto. The beautiful Mangino’s has much more on its menu. Thanks to the sponsors!
. . 
. . above: [R] digital sign at Union St. and Baker Ave.; [L] digital billboard along Rt. 7 between Albany St. and Watt St.
Thank you, Schenectady Daily Gazette, for publishing the Guest Column “City needs smarter digital sign regulation” (October 7, 2019, C6), by David Giacalone [editor of this website]. We have been discussing this topic for several years, in posts containing commentary, images, and excerpts from expert sources, such as:
“Proctors Marquee Billboard” (August 16, 2019, with updates). It is unlawful under the Schenectady Zoning Code to use “off-premise” advertising — ads for businesses that are not located at the site of the sign. Proctors has ignored this rule at a very prominent Schenectady location.. . share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/EMBregs
follow-up (Dec. 1, 2019): See the Sunday Gazette Editorial, “City right to get on regulations of electronic billboard signs” (Dec. 1, 2019).
. . 
And see, the news article, “Schenectady may weigh changes to electronic billboards” (Gazette, by Pete DeMola, Nov. 29, 2019).
No, Mr. Mayor, the spot you chose for our Statue of Liberty Replica is not growing on us. It seems just as outlandish and disrespectful as when you plopped her there at the end of August.
Below is the view of Lady Liberty heading north on Erie Boulevard approaching Union Street.
Meanwhile, a perfectly appropriate and quite popular spot is still available just a few blocks away at Liberty-Gateway Plaza, where in 2013 you, Mary Wallinger, and our City Council promised She would be returned. Once again, we ask you to Put Her Back, as promised, as planned, as preferred by the public.
It is no surprise to anyone with eyes, good taste, and a working brain. And, it probably isn’t news to Gary McCarthy, who might be relishing the anguish he is causing residents of Schenectady by demonstrating his arrogance and power.
Since Friday, August 28, 2019, the City has been abuzz with negative reactions to the new location given to our Statue of Liberty replica statue by Mayor McCarthy, near the railroad underpass on the southeast corner of Erie Boulevard at Union Street. People have been reaching out with email and phone calls, and crossing the street to voice an opinion:
The New Location is an outlandish choice, an insult to the Lady and to Schenectady. (see our prior posting with more photos and discussion of the Mayor’s Choice, and this link to pdf file of heavily-redacted email, which is the City’s “response” to my FOIL request for documents relating to the choice of location for Lady Liberty ). On the right above is a colorized screenshot of the final results of a Daily Gazette poll placed online from Saturday through Tuesday. Gary McCarthy’s choice could only attract 61 votes, despite all his political suasion, and the favorable poll position and wording. The choice of the Original Location received 130 votes in the poll, 45% of the total.
On August 30th, the Gazette Editorial Board published “Editorial: Lady Liberty’s New Home – try again: Historic statue needs a more appropriate location than busy street corner”. After noting the disappointment of one viewer who gasped, “Oh God, you can hardly see it”, the editorial stated:
Instead, the final placement seems almost like a dismissive afterthought, that in order to shut up the people who were demanding its return, they just stuck it anywhere, hoping that those who cared about its placement would finally drop it and move on.
Well, the only thing that should move on is the statue itself.
Like other observers, the Gazette editors noticed right away the many problems:
. . . Mayor Gary McCarthy — without input from the public or the collective City Council — appears to have unilaterally decided to dump it on one of the city’s most cluttered street corners — uncleaned and unimproved — where it’s difficult to see clearly from either side of the five-lane road, against a thick, ugly metal power pole and utility boxes, and in the shadow of an unsightly train bridge at the end of a parking lot.
In summary, the Gazette opined:
Anything’s got to be better than the manner in which this location was selected and where the statue ended up.
Lady Liberty deserves better.
Of course, here at Snowmen At the Gates, we insist She Deserves the Best: Her Original and Only appropriate Home, Liberty-Gateway Park.
what can you still do? Contact the Mayor and City Council directly:
Mayor Gary McCarthy – gmccarthy@schenectadyny.gov – who has not offered any justification for changing (ignoring) an important element of a very important and approved Plan.
And, Mary Moore Wallinger, mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com, who changed her mind after designing Gateway Plaza and writing the Implementation Plan and now says Lady Liberty “does not fit in” with Wallinger Plaza’s contemporary theme.
. . worse and worse (Feb. 10, 2021): Wall damaged by plow left unattended since Christmas.
. . and see: “Will civic pride save Schenectady’s liberty replica” (Feb. 11, 2021), comparing our Lady in Exile’s location and condition with the respectful situations in all the other BSA replica towns in Upstate New York.
Original Posting.
. . 
Our “Smart City” Mayor, Gary R. McCarthy, has made another very unwise decision. Six years after the City Council and Mayor approved the official Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan to return Lady Liberty to Her Original Home; two years after our Lady Liberty replica statue was removed for safe-keeping during the reconstruction of Her Liberty Park; and 17 months after the Mayor was first publicly asked to explain the failure to return the Statue, Mayor McCarthy announced today that the Lady had been placed at her new permanent location: The southeast corner of Erie Boulevard and Union Street, with a railroad overpass and retaining wall, and parking lot as Her backdrop. See Pete DeMola’s Gazette article this afternoon, here [screenshot image]; and a TU article [screenshot image] by Paul Nelson (both online August 28, 2019).
The Mayor’s statement today again gave no reason for not following the approved Implementation Plan for Gateway Plaza, and failed to identify his so-called “design team”, which understandably wants to remain anonymous. As reported in the Times Union:
“Upon completion of the newly redesigned Gateway Plaza and after careful consideration and discussion with our design team, it became clear that we would need to seek a new location for the statue,” Mayor Gary McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday. “This is an extremely high-visibility intersection with approximately 30,000 daily travelers on Erie Boulevard.”
Note: Only one person, Mary Moore Wallinger (image at right), has tried to explain the exile of Lady Liberty from Her Park. See our posting “Wallinger’s Excuses“, which discusses the reasons given by Ms. Wallinger since March 2018 for her conclusion that Lady Liberty “no longer fits” with the Plaza. Mary Wallinger was the original designer of Gateway Plaza, and is also the Chair of the Schenectady Planning Commission. Mayor McCarthy has bent over backwards to make her wish come true of keeping Lady Liberty away from Liberty-Gateway Plaza. Since her role has become public, Ms Wallinger has been quick to point out that it is “the Mayor’s decision”, not hers, whether to return the Statue to its home.
- (August 29, 2019) My Freedom of Information Request to the City, dated June 11, 2019, asked for documents relating to the decision to return Lady Liberty or place Her elsewhere. This morning, I finally received a pdf file of heavily-redacted email from Corporation Counsel’s FOIL office, with the explanation that:
Records have been redacted pursuant to FOIL Public Officers Law Article 6 §87(2)(g)(iii) “Agency records”. States, an agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not final agency policy or determinations. If you would like to appeal your request, you may do so in writing Mayor Gary McCarthy, City Hall 105 Jay Street, Schenectady, NY 12305. Your written appeal will need to be within 30 days..Of course, nothing requires the redacting of this information. The Mayor has never told us why Lady Liberty needs to be exiled from Liberty Park, and his FOIL office (Corporation Counsel) has decided to hide whatever those reasons and reasoning might be. Somehow, an appeal to the Mayor sounds futile..* At the foot of this posting, I have a few comments and screenshots from the pdf FOIL packet. You will note that none of the “careful consideration and discussion with our design team” mentioned by the Mayor made it into any legible portion of any document (e.g., email, memorandum, phone call memo, etc.)..
peek-a-boo statue
Indeed, this is such a “high visibility” intersection, that several people have already told me they passed right by without seeing Lady Liberty today. I was one of those who did not notice The Lady, as I drove west on Union late this morning heading to the Stockade. Drivers coming west on Union and going straight or turning right will almost certainly fail to see the Statue without an effort to do so. That fat pole itself blocks the view, but so will vehicles turning left and waiting with you for the light to change.
The idea of the beloved green Statue distracting the already driven-to-distraction motorists and pedestrians at that intersection is downright scary. Whether taking the time to look for Lady Liberty, or being surprised by Her in the middle of a turn, or texting a friend that you just saw the Statue, the City’s creation of such a remarkable distraction is exactly what we do not need at Erie Blvd. and Union Street.
It is most certainly not a pedestrian-friendly intersection, as drivers are immediately allowed to start turning when pedestrians get the Walk signal at that long crosswalk. Ironically, just yesterday (Aug. 27), two left-turning vehicles came speeding in front of me, as I tried to cross with the Walk Signal in that very crosswalk. I jumped back and signaled the third driver, in a large black SUV, to stop. She did, but angrily (and ignorantly), yelled at me: “I have a green light!” I hope Lady Liberty is not too squeamish as she gazes out at the intersection.
. . quite a view for, and of, Lady Liberty . .
. . by the way: the straw is very slippery; better stay off it. .
I’ve been trying to keep this posting relatively light, to stifle my great disappointment over the crassness, arrogance, and pettiness of the process that ignored the approved Plan and the public’s preferences, only to result in this disagreeable location for our Statue of the Lady who brings Enlightenment.
Her Real Home. In case you need a reminder, this is where Lady Liberty reigned and inspired for 67 years, before she was moved “for her protection” during reconstruction of Liberty Park; photos taken September 2016:
Beyond the Mayor, the irresponsible and/or cowardly posture of City Council members other than Vince Riggi on this issue makes very little sense politically, but should be a big concern in a City that is about to “celebrate” four more years of Mayor Gary McCarthy. I hope the electorate will have some serious questions for those seeking reelection this year (Kosiur, Polemeni, Perazzo), about their independence from the Mayor, and their commitment to transparency and integrity.
THE SORRY TALE of the EXILED LADY. If you look down the Right Margin on our Homepage, you will see many postings concerned with Lady Liberty, Liberty Park and Gateway Plaza, that are part of this too-long story. A good place to find important images and documents and coverage of the tale, including links to additional webposts, is the posting “Lady Liberty is Timeless.” To the immediate right is a thumbnail of an Advocacy Poster I presented in March of 2018 that helps explain why we felt betrayed.
. . Above and Below: a very wide intersection for a small statue and Big Symbol . .
BTW: Below is my view of Lady Liberty from the front of the line, waiting in my car for the light to change, heading west on Union Street; I had to roll up a foot or two to see Her at all (taken Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019):
. . Share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/DissedLady
follow-up (April 1, 2020): Seven months after Lady Liberty was planted at Her location-in-exile, it seems there have been no attempts to spruce up her seedy surroundings. On the 1st of April, 2020, I stopped by on my daily walk, and saw the following unmitigated, still-rusting eyesore, about 10 yards behind the Statue:
And see The Lady in the Dark, Not in Her Park.
(April 15, 2020): See two more signs of disrespect, mirroring our Mayor’s treatment of the Lady Liberty replica:
follow-up (Sept. 10, 2019): Meanwhile, City Council President Ed Kosiur told me after the Council meeting on September 9, 2019, that he only learned about the new location when I posted about it at my website. Kosiur also said, as an excuse for not demanding the Mayor return Lady Liberty to Liberty Park, that its return was never actually mentioned in the Plan, but was shown only in images. I assured Ed he was wrong, and wondered who gave him that misinformation (got no answer). He asked that I show him treatment of Lady Liberty in the Gateway Plaza Plan. Back at home that evening, in response to Ed’s request, I looked through the Implementation Plan to find proof that the return of Lady Liberty was indeed included explicitly in the Plan (and not merely shown in a rendition or on the cover). Click on the thumbnail of a portion of p. 37 to the right above. I also and sent Ed several other screen shots from the Plan.
In the email to Ed Kosiur, I also noted that “relocating” the replica statue within the completed Plaza had a $20,000 line item in the expense table that was presented in the Implementation Plan. Click on thumbnail to the left, item marked with a red asterisk. The related Plan item can be seen in the following Master Design sketch from the Final Gateway Plaza Plan: “Relocated Statue of Liberty Replica” is shown near State Street and the BusPlus structure as item #6 of the Legend.
Mr. Kosiur never responded to nor even acknowledged the September 9th email, nor a reminder email that included the same information, sent September 22, 2019.
*Click here for the FOIL packet re the Location of Lady Liberty. Here’s what I learned from the FOIL Packet:
Advertising space on the Proctors State Street marquee must be especially coveted this month, with Hamilton: The Musical, opening for a 13-day run on August 14, and crowds of theater-goers and media reps expected. (see Gazette coverage). Of course, we shouldn’t expect Proctors to take advantage of that demand and display signs for other enterprises, because “Off-premises signs” — signs for businesses not offering services or products on the lot where the sign is located — are specifically prohibited under Schenectady’s zoning ordinance for signage. [§264-62(G)]
When Proctors was granted its Special Use Permit to install 5 digital signs in September 2013, it was specifically reminded that it could not display paid advertising for off-premises businesses. Here’s an excerpt from the Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 2013, when the SUP was approved:
Public Comments: A member of the public asked if there would be paid advertising on the sign. The applicant responded that while the sign might mention event sponsors, there would be no paid advertising. City staff noted that paid advertising would constitute an off-premise sign, which is not allowed under the city sign ordinance.
The screenshot to the right shows the relevant sections of Schenectady’s Signage Code, Prohibited Signs and Definitions. By the way, no new billboards are allowed in Schenectady, unless the requested permit fits a restrictive definition as being “a relocation of two billboards existing prior to the effective date of this chapter.”I was at State and Jay the morning after Hamilton opened for other purposes, but when looking at the Proctors Marquee I could not help but notice that it often had what can only be called ads for off-premise businesses. And, those ads tended to stay on the LCD screen the full 8 seconds required under the City Code for electronic message boards. The collage shows at least seven such off-premise signs that I saw in the brief time I was on the block (click on it for a larger version).
In typical Applicant-fashion, Proctors representative told the Planning Commission it would not have such ads, while signaling its likely argument if caught doing so – saying that “the sign might mention event sponsors.” I do recall in other years seeing companies such as the Times Union and MVP mentioned as sponsors. But, the signs now showing at Proctors are not that subtle.
Readers of this space know: (1) I get irked when important local persons and institutions act like scofflaws and the City’s rule-enforcers turn a blind eye to their favorite persons and entities. And, (2) I have long been concerned about the way Proctors went about getting its Special Use Permit for its marquee signs. [See, e.g.,our discussion here] I hope the appropriate people will quickly take action to correct this situation.
When City Hall chose to subject the public to the hazards of digital signs at the busiest block in the City, to please a local favorite institution, I do not think it did so to help the other companies now taking up space on Proctors marquee. If, however, that little bit of “business friendly” governance was intentional, there is still time to correct the situation. Proctors and Philip Morris are local cultural icons, but that should not give them immunity from playing within the rules.
follow-up (Sept. 1, 2019): A pleasant stroll on the Proctors block yesterday (Saturday, Aug. 31) was interrupted when I saw a Heineken bottle displayed across the Proctors marquee. I took out my little Fuji camera and snapped shots of off-premise ads until the Heineken ad returned. There were 19 such ads over about 15 minutes. Here is a compilation. I have just left a complaint at the City’s Citizen’s Request Tracker, noting the violation of Zoning Code §264-62(G) and providing this collage.
. . share this post with this URL: https://tinyurl.com/ProctorsBillboard
follow-up (September 24, 2019): On September 18, 2019, Christine Primiano, the City’s Chief Planning officer, wrote me to say:
It’s our understanding that Proctor’s is in compliance now.”
Proctors is working on redesigning these currently. Thank you..
From: David Giacalone <dgiacalone@nycap.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Proctors Marquee is still a billboard
Date: September 24, 2019 at 4:12:44 PM EDT
To: Leesa Perazzo <LPerazzo@schenectadyny.gov>
Cc: Mary Moore Wallinger <mmwallinger@landartstudiony.com>, Christine Primiano <cprimiano@schenectadyny.gov>
Thanks, Leesa,
I am concerned that we will end up with what is really an off-premise ad —still prominently mentioning a seller of goods or services — that happens to mention the arts or Proctors. That is very different from an image meant to promote a Proctors show with a tiny “sponsored by” acknowledgement in the corner.
I hope that the Planning Office will insist that the intent and spirit of the No Off-Premise Ad Ban must be honored, even by Proctors.
Thanks for following-up on this.
David
WHY SHOULD WE CARE? Many of my fellow Schenectady residents will surely react to my complaint about the Proctors Billboard by thinking something like: “Proctors is so wonderful, let them do what they want to do. And, leave them alone, David!”
snowmen at the gates 
