tree68 schlimm I suspect one would find an abundance of half-truths, lies and nastiness like many sites on the internet. All I suggest is if referenda are allowed in NY State, have one to allow all residents, including taxpayers, to have a voice in the outcome. When one considers that the metropolitan NYC area can outvote the rest of the state, a statewide referendum would be less than representative of the opinion of the resident stakeholders. And it would come down to who has the money to mount the necessary campaign. So far, it's been the "trail advocates." A new wrinkle has been added, no doubt to the chagrin of the "trail advocates." A group representing the Lake Clear area has come out against a trail. The reason I suggest that the "trail advocates" may not be happy with this is the timing - I'm sure they'd prefer that such opinions be voiced after the tracks are up, and before the actual trail can be built. A good many of the "trail advocates" claims in favor of building said trail have been found, if not bogus, then stretches of the truth. In one case, the number they gave as total users of a trail just happened to include attendance at two adjoining (but not connected to the trail) state parks. They spent a lot of time throwing things at the wall to see if they'd stick. Unfortunately, no one scraped them off the wall when they should have been... The comment about the unheard voices is significant - because there are folks at one extreme who think anyone crossing the "blue line" should be on foot... And, as can be seen by the Lake Clear group's distaste for a trail, those who would just as soon see the corridor return to wilderness.
schlimm I suspect one would find an abundance of half-truths, lies and nastiness like many sites on the internet. All I suggest is if referenda are allowed in NY State, have one to allow all residents, including taxpayers, to have a voice in the outcome.
When one considers that the metropolitan NYC area can outvote the rest of the state, a statewide referendum would be less than representative of the opinion of the resident stakeholders. And it would come down to who has the money to mount the necessary campaign. So far, it's been the "trail advocates."
A new wrinkle has been added, no doubt to the chagrin of the "trail advocates." A group representing the Lake Clear area has come out against a trail. The reason I suggest that the "trail advocates" may not be happy with this is the timing - I'm sure they'd prefer that such opinions be voiced after the tracks are up, and before the actual trail can be built.
A good many of the "trail advocates" claims in favor of building said trail have been found, if not bogus, then stretches of the truth. In one case, the number they gave as total users of a trail just happened to include attendance at two adjoining (but not connected to the trail) state parks.
They spent a lot of time throwing things at the wall to see if they'd stick. Unfortunately, no one scraped them off the wall when they should have been...
The comment about the unheard voices is significant - because there are folks at one extreme who think anyone crossing the "blue line" should be on foot... And, as can be seen by the Lake Clear group's distaste for a trail, those who would just as soon see the corridor return to wilderness.
Stakeholders is a buzz word with little meaning. If state money is involved, why should only locals and people with a special interest be heard?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmStakeholders is a buzz word with little meaning. If state money is involved, why should only locals and people with a special interest be heard?
If the population were more evenly spread throughout the state, it'd be no big deal. But when a significant bloc of people with absolutely no stake (or actual interest) in the outcome can affect a decision, I feel that's a little different.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 schlimm Stakeholders is a buzz word with little meaning. If state money is involved, why should only locals and people with a special interest be heard? If the population were more evenly spread throughout the state, it'd be no big deal. But when a significant bloc of people with absolutely no stake (or actual interest) in the outcome can affect a decision, I feel that's a little different.
schlimm Stakeholders is a buzz word with little meaning. If state money is involved, why should only locals and people with a special interest be heard?
Lets have the Adirondak people be the ones to vote on a rail to trail issue on a subway line in NYC. With all of NYC having only a single vote. That would make things about even - with the same level of interest for those being disenfranchised.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Who would be funding this? [No answer as of yet, BTW.] If the state, then "one man, one vote." "No taxation without representation!" If the local people want to pay for it, let the market decide and they can pay. Last I looked, the citizens of New York, Buffalo and other cities in the state have an interest by virtue of that alone. If this is ultimately state land, why should locals decide as though it were their private playground?
schlimmWho would be funding this?
Probably won't be a problem - there are many who don't want rail or trail. If they are successful in their efforts, no money will be spent at all (except to lift the rails).
The funding for the railroad corridor was established ca 1996 when Option 6 was selected - that covers ongoing maintenance and little more. The Dept of Transportation (DOT) has been contributing right along. The Dept of Environment Conservation was supposed to be contributing, but has failed to do so for a number of years.
Funding for upgrades was coming in the form of grants that dried up when the Democrats took control. The railroad can contribute toward such upgrades, but their books are just balancing and funding a multimillion dollar project is beyond their capability.
DOT means state money. You lose some local control if you accept state funding, always. It's a potential lose/lose choice.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.