After failing miserably with his Less-Than-Fast-Ferry and losing tens of millions of tax dollars in the process, Bill Johnson was hired as a Distinguished Professor of Public Policy by RIT. Perhaps Ms. Warren believes that a similar failure on her part with the marina will yield a similar result.
Thanks for your comment and for bringing the matter of the websites to light. That's a fair point and this morning I added the links into the story.
Went to the bidders conference, Tuesday afternoon. One of the bidders asked the obvious question, "How come Pike and the City split?" Basically the City staff had this blank stare, but no information. When it came to comments about how to finish the job of opening the marina to the river, The city staff was again not helpful in their comments, "We would rather leave it to you the contractors to figure/decide how to best do the job." This leaves the contractors on the hook, if something goes wrong, even if Pike realized the issues and shared them with the city when they parted. I personally asked two questions. First why did the City focus on listing a series of five 1982 test boring points as the best of their research see "Subsurface Investigation Summary Package", they offered no answer. This report would appear to take the focus away from the reality that bedrock in many areas is 100 feet or more and is supported by newer boring tests by Hadley and Aldrich. See the Predevelopment Subsurface Conditions Analysis investigation Report pages 301 to 391. I believe there is a serious risk in opening the marina to the river causing the river to erode the marina area via the flow of the river. Second question was "Why did someone doctor Figure 3 of the Environmental Management Plan showing the overview of the boring and test pit sites to make it look like many more tests were done". The answer was the it was not doctored. I had in my possession at the meeting, copies of the figures blown up proving my claim. This again would lead someone to believe plenty of test borings had been done. One can compare that diagram to the one on page 256 of the Predevelopment Subsurface Conditions Analysis investigation report and see a drastic difference in the number of test points. Likewise if you have a good enough copy of Figure 3 that you can blow the image up, you see the same label for test sites used multiple times to clutter the document. Again, the City engineer denied any changes have been made as to "doctor" the document. I have requested a better copy of the document from Labella to allow them prove their point.
I will be the first to agree that most of the information provided seems very complete and helpful, but why did the City/Labella not provide good information which they had in regards to the boring tests on these documents makes no sense.
To not provide all the known information about why Pike walked away is at best not allowing good contractors to know what the problems are. If I were any of them, I would walk away due to the unknowns and the risk.
Thank you for covering this vital issue. As the commenter stated above, for more independent, non-industry influenced information, please go to:
An entire region, drinking water for 100,000 people, and a $4.8 billion dollar -and growing- agri-tourism industry are depending on you to learn the facts and get involved. The Finger Lakes stands to assume all of the risk with no reward, just to line the pockets of Texas-based Crestwood Midstream.
Not on our watch.
I was pleased to see a article on Crestwood's fuel projects. More people should be informed! I was very disappointed that the article gave (twice) the website for the supporters of Crestwood and did not give the website for the ones who opose.
Please check out these websites if you would like to know more (non-corporate) information of why people oppose Crestwoods operations.
A year or two after the fast ferry disaster, the town of Irondequoit was toying with the idea of building a 200 slip marina on the bay. There was no business plan - no proof or even a hint that there was demand for another marina. I visited the town hall and asked to see any research which supported the need for the project. They foolishly referred me to the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency which doesn't get involved with evaluating business viability.
At one point, a reliable source explained to me that a construction company was owed a favor by a town board member, and in fact, there WAS no sound reason for a new marina. The idea quietly faded away.
Is there actually enough demand to support the marina described in this article? Does anyone know, or even care?
Frank I bet the reason Pike did not speak out is because the city threatened to sue if they speak out. This would not be the first time that the city gagged the contractor on this project. There is a serious problem at the site. More information on the issue will come out after the bid conference on Tuesday.
Geeze, how difficult can it be to dig a hole in the ground? Is this is any indication of how the rest of the project will go?
What are the chances of finding a replacement contractor that wouldn't think exactly like Pike? The whole thing is in a state of limbo that could last years.
The only contractor interested in completing this is Edgewater as they have a special interest in having boats to bring in people to their disaster ridden hotel. Unless someone is completely transparent about the how and why Pike was let out of a contract with no consequential damages, I don't believe we will find another interested general contractor.
The city needs to provide more details. Why wouldn't they be more transparent?
The problems and additional cost of tax payer dollars that are apparent with this ill-thought out marina project are nothing compared to the problems and additional cost to tax payers that will occur unless someone or something can stop the City from proceeding with their current plan for development at the Port. There is no way the unstable, water-logged (and did I mention contaminated???) soil will be able to support 10 story buildings over an extended period of time.
It's because Pike couldn't hit bedrock and they deemed the project unsafe. So they walked off the job. Is there even another contractor that will touch this disaster of a project? I haven't heard of one. This whole thing is a huge mess and it will just get worse.
This is one of the very best articles on this subject I've read from any news outlet in the region! Is a great resource for anyone who wants a good overview of the future of healthcare.
I did ask repeatedly, Frank. The only explanation I was given was that the disagreement had to do with the continued excavation and the de-watering of the basin.
Could you please explain the "disagreement" over how to approach the project? I would think that when the city contracts with a firm do to work for the city, the firm does the work that the city asks. If there is an ethical reason to object - for example, the city's approach would be structurally unsound and a danger to citizens - then the firm has an obligation to speak up. Otherwise, the city is paying you, so shut up and do the work. Now, the city has to pay multiple firms for this job, and there is no way that two firms will cost less than one for the entire project. This wasteful spending deserve an explanation, Christine.
I could make money using my home as a brothel, but the state won't allow it. The state owes me compensation for the money I could have made as a pimp, if not for that pesky government interference. Otherwise known as "Public Assistance for Me, but Not for Thee."
The fracking ban is, in a way, a do over. Earth Day 1970 was a definitive event that marked a turning point. We decided not to turn. With NY's fracking ban, the future of energy has a new chance to start. What will we do?
Maybe the greatest victory for the anti-fracking activists in New York State is to switch the burden of proof from the victims to the producers. A hallmark of European environmentalism is to place the burden of proof on the industries producing products—making them prove their products will do no harm to the public or to the environment before they are allowed on the markets. The reverse has been true on this side of the Atlantic.
Decades of environmental and public health abuses by polluting industries have been allowed to continue business as usual until enough time and energy and research brought the polluters to court.
This statement by acting New York State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker could have profound implications on how we address environmental concerns in our hemisphere: "Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF to all New Yorkers and whether the risks can be adequately managed, DOH recommends that HVHF should not proceed in NYS," Zucker wrote in a letter to Martens that accompanies the public health report.
" When then Henrietta Supervisor Mike Yudelson announced last year that he was switching from Republican to Democrat, it was a big deal. As the town's top elected leader and, before that, a longtime Town Board member, Yudelson was an important "get" for the Dems ".
I like Mike too and I believe him to have good intentions. Yet the HDC is not telling the entire story in Henrietta and about the HDC. 2015 will be an interesting election in local, Henrietta Govt' indeed. SO with that said...if the new Town Leader, Simone and the new Chairman do not choose to tell readers the entire story that is their choice. However , I thought that open, transparent Govt' would be part of the upcoming campaign ? Already the HDC is misleading folks by not telling the entire story.
Craig Robert Moffitt...you will see, in Henrietta, more of my name and my ideas for Henrietta, NY after Jan., 1st, 2015.
Why not just require an exterior inspection? If a tenant doesn't want an inspector to enter, then that's his or her right. As an alternative, the tenant should be allowed to use a smartphone to take and email photos. Carla Palumbo, needs to understand that tenants are better served when they freely participate in the process and when their rights aren't being stripped away from them.
The inspections occur every six years. So, fortunately city dwellers don't have to get their rights trampled on very often.
Website powered by Foundation