The "Working Landscape" of the Hudson Valley

Cannavo defines a working landscape as "agricultural lands characterized by a long-standing balance between human and natural forces." (Cannavo, 220) This semester's focus has been on the historical struggle between these forces- particularly when it comes to the man's desire to alter his environment to better suit his needs.

Looking back on the Hudson River's colorful past, we have discussed both the physical and chemical alteration of the river. Whether it be construction projects such as that which was proposed for Storm King Mountain, dams, and concrete plants, or the introduction of pollutants from municipal, agricultural or industrial sources, there is no doubt that the Hudson has long been dominated by human forces. Cannavo warns us, however, that "founding without preservation is abusive in that it leads to the pure instrumentation of places, i.e., their treatment as objects to be disposed of at will, just like animals in a factory farm." (Cannavo, 221) Recent class discussion regarding conservation efforts gives hope that the region is working towards a more effective working landscape, where the river is healthy enough to counter-balance continued human forces.

How do we keep this balance? Cannavo believes that "the proper mixture of development, or founding, and preservation must thus be determined democratically, through a deliberate process." (Cannavo, 222). In our last class, we discussed the risks and benefits of a regional government. As a science major, I couldn't sit down and argue about regionalism and whether it was appropriate for the Hudson Valley; however, I believe that a regional committee based within a pre-existing legislative body would be a realistic goal to keep focus on both local and regional issues that pertain to the management of the Hudson River. A system like this would involve representatives from around the region, so that local issues could be better adressed with regional political power. Cannavo describes this approach as "multilayered, flexible in dealing with changes in social-ecological systems, and reliant not just on top-down scientific expertise, but also on culturally and geographically embedded local knowledge." (Cannavo, 223)

Difficulties in Determining the Future of the Hudson

Cannavo’s description of A working landscape seems to perfectly describe what we have conceived as an ideal Hudson river. Unfortunately, the Hudson river’s struggle to become a working landscape is perhaps the most polarized of any region imaginable. Cannavo defines a working landscape as, "agricultural lands characterized by long standing balance between human and natural forces" (220). The Hudson river falls a bit short of this definition because it has not been a primarily agricultural region throughout its existence; however, it is impossible to deny that for centuries people have been striving, unsuccessfully, to find a balance between human and natural forces. As a result, the Hudson river exemplifies many of the problems that Cannavo identities with the politics of place.

In producing a truly working landscape, Cannavo stresses the importance of compromise between opposite sides. In striking a balance between human and environmental considerations, Cannavo recommends that both sides set aside their individual interests and come to some kind of rational agreement. This approach to the Hudson river would certainly make solving the regions problems much simpler. Unfortunately, setting aside ones personal interest is nearly impossible for most people. It would be very difficult for an executive from General Electric to rationally come to the conclusion that his company should spend millions of dollars cleaning up the Hudson river when the reallocation of such money would have a devastating effect on his livelihood. Alternatively, it would be very difficult for individuals that regularly fish and swim in the Hudson to allow harmful PCB’s to remain in the river unchecked. I cannot imagine these individuals, and the politicians that represent their interests, coming together to find a logical solution without years of discussion. The PCB question represents just one of the many hotly contested issues that have surfaced throughout the semester. It has become abundantly clear that issues such as this, or the Saint Lawrence Cement company, are not easily settled.

Professor Cannovo’s solution to these difficult issues is decentralization or regionalism. I believe that this represents at least a partial solution to the problems posed by politics of place. In my opinion, the Saint Lawrence Cement discussion represents a victory for regionalism. The local politicians in Greenport may have been ready to start building a new plant immediately, but the local government possessed a framework that allowed for residents to voice their opinions and for politicians to adjust accordingly. In the end, the citizens that were most politically active were able to mobilize and effect legislation. This may not have resulted in the best outcome for all of Greenport’s citizens, but the residents of Greenport had tremendous input in the eventual outcome. In my opinion, it would have been impossible for a national government to respond to the actions of such an isolated town. The individuals who care most about an area should be able to effect the politics that determine that area’s future. In the case of St. Lawrence Cement, the citizens of Greenport N.Y. were able to mobilize and effect legislation on the future their area.

There are many complicated and multifaceted problems that will continue to face the Hudson river. In my opinion, regionalism affords the best opportunity for inhabitants of a region to effect legislation determining the future of that region. The structure of local politics generally allows citizens to mobilize, and in most cases, the largest group of individuals has the strongest effects on local legislation. Because of the difficulty in getting opposite sides to compromise on particularly heated subjects, local legislation should be determined by the side with the most involved individuals.

More about Portland and Measure 37

A Region Unto Itself?

As an aside: I was in Boston over Thanksgiving, where I've never been before, and spent a good deal of my time just wandering around trying not to get lost. Concerning our previous discussions about "living room" businesses - armchairs in chain venues such as Border's and Starbucks - I witnessed the viciously cyclical nature of independent bookstores and coffeeshops against corporate copies while exploring the city. Cambridge is replete with bookstores, but, when I went to several local independent retailers, I noticed the lack of chairs and tables, and the uncomfortable situation of being a bookstore's lone patron; I wasn't encouraged to sit and loiter, but to buy and get out, which, I realized, is a direct product of bigger bookstores. Smaller, independent stores need business to operate, and therefore economically can't allow for reading without buying. Likewise, independent coffeeshops accost their customers to purchase something, whereas Starbucks doesn't depend on your business - although it's depressing, I think these examples show the inevitably, if not the benefit, of globalization.

Cannavo concedes that "there is no formula" (235) for determining whether natural boundaries

have precedence over social boundaries in defining a region, the first, and probably hardest, step towards regionalism. Regionalism is not a simple solution solely for this fact - determing every individual region's boundaries seems, and may be, impossible. The Hudson Valley provides an expecially difficult example, as evidenced by the wide variety of perspectives and economic diversity we've discussed and studied in this class. As illustrated in the photo above, these two neighboring homes in Newburgh embody the identity crisis of the Hudson Valley. Even if the river itself was logically used as the definitive boundary of the region, as this course would suggest, the surrounding areas are nearly schizophrenic in their diversity - historically, geographically, economically, and so on. Cannavo almost dismisses the challenges presented in the Hudson Valley in the brief section "Reconciling the Particular and the Universal." Parochialism already seems rampant in parts of the Hudson Valley, as the St. Lawrence Cement issue (well-to-do WASPy enivronmentalists versus working class minorities) implies.

Fortunately, the Hudson Valley does have its river; the environment of the region itself therefore has more potential to engage residents, either in collaboration or debate. Tulsa and the surrounding counties have very little environmental issues in common, since Tulsa is an urban environment and the outlying regions swiftly become farms. The Hudson Valley, however, can at least unite over the shared river. The Hudson Valley is, therefore, an established region; it's a very simple start and a basic beginning, but it is, at least, a beginning.

An Important Ideological Difference Between Portland and the Hudson Valley

First of all, I miss Portland.

Peter Cannavo’s example of Portland as the ideal of federated regionalism provides a remarkable success story that may be difficult to transpire to the Hudson Valley. In my experience, I have always benefited from the strict development laws just by driving beyond the city limits into an expansive region of forests, mountains and clean beaches with little evidence of development. By restricting the production of subdivisions and strip malls growing further and further from the city, Metro has forced the citizens of Portland to live within close proximity to one another, enhancing the sense of community and creating a greener and bike-friendly environment. This effort has by no means solved racial divisions, as the gorgeous Willamette River splits the city into an “East” and “West” side with their own characteristics. Suburbs have sprouted further out along highways, yet my experience in other cities makes Beaverton and Gresham seem like integrated parts of the Portland area. Driving just thirty minutes from Portland’s city center brings about endless possibilities from year-round skiing at Timberline Lodge to wind-surfing in the Columbia River Gorge to camping in the Tillamook State Forest. Few major cities around America can say the same.

The Hudson Valley has been labeled the “backyard” for New Yorkers, a place of striking beauty in need of preservation and even a symbol for American freedom due to its importance in the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, many people living in the Hudson Valley that experienced economic collapse with the fall of industrialization do not hold the same values. The socioeconomic diversity that exists along the Hudson makes its situation unique and much more difficult to resolve. Once the Catskill cement plant falls, what will become of the individuals whose families have lived and worked for generations? It seems ridiculous to force them out with higher property values and the prohibition of jobs which provide them with the greatest opportunities. The difference between the Hudson and Portland is the reliance on developments that have taken place. When Metro adopted its policies, few major corporations or citizens opposed the plans. The ideology behind the establishment of a regional governing body that addresses land use issues has succeeded because Portlanders generally have the same liberal mindset and they were handed the political power.

The same restrictions and preservationist policies may occur in the Hudson Valley if power is handed to Manhattan residents who own cabins they travel to for the weekend. The biggest concern in establishing a regional governing body is the representation that "old-timers" receive. As primary residents, they play a crucial role in the founding and preservation debate that should not be ignored.

The Ill Effect of Regionalism

In Chapter Six of The Working Landscape, Peter Cannavo stresses the importance of compromise and democratization in determining the future of land-use politics in the United States. Cannavo argues that the decision to develop or preserve open space can only be properly addressed if opposing parties put their competing interests aside and engage in rational conversation over the meaning of the proposed building site. In the same breadth, Cannavo supports further democratization of land-use issues. However, he believes the national government is currently not doing an adequate job of managing American land-use. Cannavo’s remedy is thus the decentralization of the national government’s authority over land-use with the aim of placing more power in the hands of state lawmakers and local political organizations. Cannavo’s goal of balancing founding and preservation is worthy, and his call for businesses and conservationists to reach a common ground is essential to the future sustainability of both world financial markets and the environment. However, the regionalization of politics is not currently a viable course of action.

Developers and conservationists agree that the Bureau of Land Management, the central government organization controlling land-use, does not sufficiently regulate the use of America’s open spaces. Yet, it is hard believe that local politicians would do a better job of deciding how land should and should not be developed. Take the St. Lawrence Cement case as an example. If that decision had been left entirely to Mayor Rick Scalera and the local board of officials, St. Lawrence Cement would have immediately broken ground on a new plant. The environmental and aesthetic concerns associated with the proposed “state-of-the-art” plant are debatable, but the measly sum of money Greenport, New York would have annually received from St. Lawrence Cement was set in stone. Scalera and his political minions were extremely shortsighted in accepting St. Lawrence Cement’s initial offer of $200,000 per year. It took these local politicians far too long to realize a) how small an annual payment of $200,000 was to a company like St. Lawrence Cement and b) how little such a sum would actually do for the community they represented. Moreover, the local political body that drove the decision making process in Greenport was uninformed, its members professed inconsistent opinions, and it was overall severely unorganized. Fortunately, a federal court mediated and eventually ruled on the debate between Greenport’s politicians and St. Lawrence Cement. Although the federal court considered the final anti-plant sentiment of Greenport’s local politicians, these judges recognized that St. Lawrence Cement was attempting to take advantage of Greenport’s location and its citizens. Greenport’s politicians were ineffective and helplessly blinded by their own passions because they were so attached to the land they were representing. They were also in a difficult situation because any decision they made would surely to lead to social unrest. However, the fact remains that they were terrible business negotiators because they nearly sold out Greenport to a powerful, multinational corporation for what would have amounted to a mere $4 million over twenty years!

My point is that regional political bodies will not legislate development better than branches of the national government. The national government employs lawyers and scientists to study the effects of proposed developments from an impartial standpoint, which limits corruption and does more to ensure fair rulings that combine economic and ecological interests. Unfortunately, serving the interests of all parties is not always feasible, but foundation and preservation can be balanced if a central authority ensures that developers and conservationists equally accumulate victories and defeats.

Democratic Deliberation, Regional Governance, and The Portland Example: A Model for the Future of tthe Hudson River Valley

Cannavo's chapter entitled "The Working Landscape" provides a perfect solution to the policy and governance dilemmas that haunt the Hudson River Vally today. The spread of sprawl and the role that democracy among localities play a very large role in the continued development and the on-going struggle between citizen and state throughout the Hudson River Valley. As I am sitting, writing my term paper about the role that urban sprawl has played in the development of suburbia, I am somewhat inspired that someone has identified a possible solution to the never-ending debate between the nature-destroying, economically-driven conservative and the tree-hugging, hippie environmentalists that are doing everything in their power to put an end to urban development along the Hudson. It is nice to finally hear someone offer a solution. Cannavo fist addresses his space-and-place argument, specially the fact that there can be no continuous harmony about a specific place. New debates about what to do with a certain area and when to enact certain policy changes occur daily. The key that Cannavo suggests is a "commonality surrounding a place" (226). In other words, for debate, conversation, whatever you want to call it to take place - the people engaging in these debates must share the same land so that they can put the best interests of that place at the forefront of policy debates. Cannavo even suggests that "... a shared conversation can ease some of the deepest, most divisive conflicts about a place." (226-227). This is important to our class because it shows that the people engaging in the debates about whether or not urban sprawl should be the future of the Hudson, the people that live or own land in that region should be the ones engaging in the debate...the decisions and conversations should not primarily go through an outside agency or the federal government.

Cannavo suggests that in order to follow this approach, a system of regional governance combined with the local governments in that designated region. Cannavo comments on the ineffectiveness of thousands of small, local governments and these localities could voice more as a collective unit. The Hudson River Valley, for example, would be more successful in attaining mutually accepted policy if the villages, towns, and cities along the River were grouped together to form a larger democratic voice. Cannavo address the development of land in his explanation of regional systems saying, "To address the danger of simply partitioning the landscape into a commodified real estate and sealed-off preserves, citizens and policy makers should adopt a landscape, or regional, perspective, embracing an interrelated, coordinated mosaic of different kinds of places...and balancing founding and preservation across the region." (232). This is the solution! Instead of sectioning off little pieces of the Hudson River Valley for housing developments or re-industrialization, why not create larger areas that encompass these specific desires. Only then can there be a democratic system in which the people of that region decide if and how their land should be divided.

Finally Cannavo address what he calls the model city of a regional approach: Portland. Portland's directly elected, metropolitan government, or "Metro" serves as the foundation of Cannavo's argument. Here is an explicit example of how this regional system would work, and the astounding success it has had. The Hudson River Valley should adopt these guidelines. Although Measurement 37 was a hiccup in the design of Portland's regional government, this hiccup also provides valuable information about the strengths and weaknesses of such a system. The Hudson River Valley can, and should, learn from Portland and adopt a similar plan that includes the strengths of the Portland Metro and solves some of its biggest weakn

Cool it!

Hudson Valley Sprawl

Bannerman Castle

Globalization and IT

Exporting PCB dredging to Texas

Gradual Development: The Wave of the Future

The Hudson River Valley is to conflict as river is to water. Although the end of industrialization created a cleaner Hudson River, post-industrialization has led to a plethora of problems--socioeconomic and racial divides, unemployment, and communities that are deteriorating as quickly as their town centers’ buildings are--in the cities and towns along the Hudson River. Unfortunately, community division often occurs as a direct result of the river's environmental revival. A prime example of such division is the debate that is currently unfolding over the Hudson Valley housing boom. Contentious discussions are heating up between environmental activists, townsfolk, and real estate developers over the real estate market’s desire to construct approximately 15,000 housing units along the river between Yonkers and Kingston. Disagreements between these three parties are already causing social unrest, and it is ironic that tempers are flaring because the Hudson River is cleaner, quieter, and a more desirable place to live. The environmentalists and river enthusiasts argue the Hudson Valley’s history trumps its economic potential, and, therefore, they do not want to see any development of the river’s banks. Hudson Valley citizens hold mixed views. Some desire environmental conservation and historical preservation, but there is a surprising majority that see real estate development as the definite answer to the Hudson Valley’s post-industrialized economic lull. However, even the citizens that favor development are divided in their opinions of how real estate moguls should add housing units.

Gradual development is the ideal method. It calls for real estate developers to add housing units by renovating existing buildings, such as old factories and plants, that are no longer inhabited by local businesses before constructing “cookie cutter” developments. Although gradual development would not be as profitable as constructing large, new apartment and condominium complexes, real estate developers could still make a great deal of money by re-using these remnants of industrialization. Besides generating necessary tax revenue, gradual development would not change the current aesthetics of the Hudson Valley; developers could actually act as conservationists by renovating abandoned factories and plants instead of constructing new town homes and apartments. State lawmakers embrace housing construction as a means of protecting the environmental future of the Hudson by enforcing strict “green” building codes. Green building would curb point and non-point pollution during the construction process, and constructing a green development would limit both types of pollution in the future. Gradual development would also limit suburban sprawl, a main source of non-point pollution. Suburban sprawl occurs when the population of an area becomes too large too quickly, and the society can no longer depend on local businesses. Gradually developing the banks of the Hudson is a controlled method of increasing population because it won’t add 15,000 new housing units over a short period of time. It is instead a way of using what the Hudson Valley already has to add only what the riverbanks can support. Environmental legislation is necessary, but that is up to the politicians and not real estate developers. Real estate development is the most economically viable option for reviving the Hudson Valley, and it is a misconception that housing developments have to be of the “cookie cutter” variety. A consensus must be reached and all sides have to make concessions because the environmental and economic well-being of the Hudson Valley is at stake.

The Hudson's Future

As the Hudson valley looks to rebound back into a prosperous, successful area since its decline due to the end of urbanism and industrialization that hit the valley hard, there have been steps to try to help bring industry and money back into the Hudson valley. The Lohr article about I.B.M.'s factory in East Fishkill, NY focuses on how communities as well as companies are trying to bring industry back into the valley. In order to bring life back to the valley large companies like I.B.M., that are opening these large factories, are receiving large amounts of tax credits in order to ensure that I.B.M. opens its factories in the Hudson valley. The hope is that the opening of these factories will bring about employment opportunities to areas that have been in the decline for the last couple of decades. The impact of the I.B.M. factory is that it should impact the regions economy by adding $2 billion over the next ten years. Also, the factory should create more jobs and hopes to employ 3,600 full-time jobs, and not to mention all of the construction workers that will be needed during the construction of these factories. The I.B.M. factories are doing a great job at bringing some jobs back into the Hudson valley as well as helping the economy in the area, but the factories are only a start to improving the Hudson valley. The factories are only creating a limited amount of jobs because factories have become very mechanical so the 30,000 people that were once needed to run the factories are no longer needed and there is a larger need for the limited amount of skilled labor positions. The East Fishkill region took a hard hit to its economy when I.B.M. closed its factory and left in 1993, but the new factory has done a lot to help the economy by attracting private investment and skilled workers. The factory has helped lower unemployment to 4 percent and rising housing prices is showing the region is on the rebound. The East Fishkill region is a success story as of now about how an economy has benefited from the introduction of a factory that has brought about many employment opportunities as well as stimulating the regions economy.

A New Vision for the Hudson River

In his chapter on patterns of industrialization and regional development, Scott outlines modern patterns for industrialization and specifically examines the technological-institutional structure that developed in silicon valley. This chapter becomes valuable to a discussion about the future of the Hudson River when compared with the articles by Forderaro and Lohr. These two articles explain future plans to bring greater wealth into towns along the Hudson River Valley. The Lohr article focuses on high-tech industry that is moving into the Hudson Valley and Forderaro explains the new luxury homes that seek to increase tax revenues to old industrial towns. Scott’s article indicates that if high-tech industry is the economic future of the Hudson, then industrialization of the area must occur in unprecedented fashion. Furthermore, the conceptions of place among inhabitants of the Hudson River Valley makes any new development more difficult.

Scott asserts that "flexible manufacturing" -characteristic of high tech industry in Southern California- "occurs in parts of Western Europe and North America where traditions of fordist-style industrialization are at best weakly developed" (31-32). Scott defines fordist mass production as "large-scale assembly and process industry", which seems to characterize the traditional industrial towns along the Hudson River. In other words, according to Scott, the Hudson River cannot develop into a center for flexible manufacturing in the same fashion as Silicon Valley simply because it has an established tradition of fordist mass production. However, the Lohr article clearly indicates that with the help of substantial government subsidies high-tech industry is developing along in towns along the Hudson River. The role of this kind of government involvement is also discussed by Scott. Scott asserts that the movement of flexible development to forefront of capitalist development occurs along with privatization (32). Once again, the development of high-tech industry along the Hudson River occurs in opposition to Scott’s traditional method of development. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile Scott’s patterns of development with the development along the Hudson River is to say that the industry developing there is a hybrid of old-style fordist manufacturing and newer flexible manufacturing. The goods may be similar to those produced in Southern California, but New York State’s high-tech industry is being constructed, in unprecedented fashion, similarly to fordist mass production with high levels of government involvement.

High-tech industry could bring a large boost to the Hudson River Valley’s economy, but the Lohr article indicates that these jobs may not benefit the blue-collar poor in the region. These individuals could get a boost from the housing developments that are springing up along the river (discussed in Forderaro’s article) and the service jobs that would accompany an influx of wealthy landowners. However, groups like Scenic Hudson are slowing this development because of their conception of the Hudson river. Their environmentalist efforts focus on limiting urban sprawl and maintaining the valley’s natural beauty. I agree that environmental concerns are important in any kind of development, and Scenic Hudson is probably benefitting the region by exploring these new plans, but I think that it would be irresponsible of any group to stop development in this region. These two articles helped to illustrate a future in which the poverty of many Hudson River towns can be alleviated by the development of high-tech industry and high-end housing.

Breathing New Life into the Hudson Valley

What does the future hold for the Hudson Valley? After reading both the Lohr and Foderaro articles, I was pleased to see that the technology industry and big housing money might be finding its way to the region- positive news compared to the depressing outlook of recent class readings. While some voice concerns that a luxury housing boom would alienate local residents in mainly blue-collar towns such as Sleepy Hollow, others seem to welcome the idea as a fresh start for the post-industrial region.

Lohr's article discusses the benefits of making the Hudson Valley the next Silicon Valley, specifically citing IBM's microchip plant in East Fishkill, NY. This is a win-win in more ways than one. Not only is the production of these items not being outsourced overseas, but it has the potential to bring new companies, communities, and people to the region. The development of this new community, in tandem with a housing boom could serve as the financial stimulus that the Hudson Valley needs to jumpstart its economy again.

Concerns over the clash of new townhouses/condos and unique existing homes are legitimate, however if the demand for housing become great enough, and pressure by organizations such as Scenic Hudson continues, perhaps new projects can be designed to better fit in with their surroundings. Best said by Lowell Thing, former president of Friends of Historic Kingston, "Gradualism is a good thing in cities and towns because they are complex environments. When you try to do things in one fell swoop, the results are unpredictable and often disastrous." Something tells me that even gradual change may be opposed in the Hudson Valley, even if it is the one thing that could bring the region back to the forefront of progress...

Booze, Birds, and a Barber

As far as I can tell, change is good. At the "Muppet Diplomacy" lecture this past Monday, Sesame Workshop CEO Gary Knell stated the obvious but still disturbing fact that our children, and our children's children, will grow up in a world that never knew what life was like before cell phones, Blackberrys, iPods, and wireless internet, to name just a few. Consequently, the organization is hoping to infiltrate the newer, faster forms of media by releasing "alphabet-promoting" podcasts. Technologically, nothing could slow electronic progress beyond the actual apocalypse, and companies will always strive to fix what isn't broken in an unending attempt to improve and make our lives better and faster. That being said, "high-tech" companies are far from assured to improve any community, as cited in the example of the IBM chip production in Lohr's New York Times article - factories will come and factories will go, regardless of what the factory is making.
Lohr's objectivity in his article, "New York Bets on High-Tech to Aid Upstate," made choosing a definitive stance difficult for me, though I want to point out a frightening detail that seems to have been glossed over - these microchips, and this overwhelming wealth of nanotechnological knowledge, are being used for video game consoles. The article does not state whether video games are the primary users of these chips (I certainly hope not), and I don't mean to harp on a detail, but, from my own ethical standpoint, how can this be a good investment for the Hudson Valley, or any community? What message does that send about the state of American culture, and, more importantly, future generations of Americans? Without proselytizing, I can't see any kind of benefit from promoting NFL Madden or even Wii Bowling, especially with the current onslaught of childhood obesity. And there is some cyclical irrationality to harmful (at least to me) entertainment being produced by highly-skilled, PhD-wielding workers.
I admit my own bias against the video game industry because I fail to see the sense and benefit in it - but, given the aforementioned lightning-paced rate of technological development, I feel we can assume that Xboxes will, eventually, be as absurd as the "caged bird retailer" frequently mentioned in Rae's Creative Destruction. One could argue that business is business, and therefore any business is good, but if we taper the argument to the Hudson Valley specifically, the right and wrong of "high-tech" industries becomes clearer.
Setting nostalgia aside, sleepy towns and mom-and-pop diners are quickly becoming a thing of the past. As we discussed briefly in class a few weeks ago, there are some psychological benefits to globalization - the argument that a Border's in Chicago and a Border's in Albany are still going to have a Seattle's Best Coffee, and more than likely the coffee will taste pretty much the same, and the "living-room" feel will also carry across the states. However, the Hudson Valley has proven its worth beyond sheer size and available space - historical, geographic, literary, and purely natural significance are all present - leading to continual debate about development and change that wouldn't be as present in, say, Tulsa Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the cultural wealth of the Hudson Valley is just that - cultural, not monetary (how much money do you think the Olana Estate brings in versus the Wal-Mart in the next town over?). In Foderado's article, housing developments are largely contested on the basis of losing "quirky character" to "hundreds of cookie-cutter housing units." I agree with Mr. Thing in prescribing a return to the past, in renovating and restoring some of the Hudson houses and buildings. The Hudson Valley may become a fantastic backyard for New York City, but, truthfully, isn't it already? And, if not, the trend of urban sprawl will certainly force it to be, sooner or later.

An Unfortunate Effect of the End of Urbanism

I have always been a firm believer in self-sustainability. I don’t mind paying a little bit more to support a mom-and-pop shop that has maintained itself for years. I understand the importance of buying local goods, reducing the polluting effects of mass transportation overseas and keeping money in the regional economy. Without clear and distinct lines between the wealthy and less affluent, a sense of community grows because people work together and rely on one another for their survival. In Douglas Rae’s City, Joseph Perfetto contributes his office supply store to the community where demand is high enough for him to make a profit. He has worked in his store for seven decades, living a modest yet stable life selling “transparent tape and typewriter ribbons.” The city around him appears to have stayed the same, yet Perfetto has recently struggled due to the end of the era of urbanism. The city has disappeared little by little, its superficial similarities falsely alluding to a preserved community, yet the people and close relationships no longer exist.
Globalization and the end of urbanism have brought about much success in America, yet their consequences have torn apart communities and made the country reliant on others for its survival. Increased productivity and cheaper imports have increased the buying capacity of American citizens, but shops like Perfetto’s that bring towns and people together to support one another have vanished. Walmart’s cheaper prices draw in customers, and shops that sustained themselves on simple products are unable to manage. Henceforth, the sense of community is many towns has dissolved from the mass movement of economic focus beyond the city limits.
Portland, I believe, has stood up to this threat. I can still go to Jim and Patty’s Coffeehouse (a one-store franchise) and share a conversation with the owners while devouring their famous coffeecake. To Jim and Patty, the focus of their business is not to bring in more money, but to bring neighbors together to share a social drink. Thankfully, some community still exists.

Housing Boom in The Hudson River Valley: A Double Edged Sword

Development along the Hudson has existed for 200+ years, but the large and expensive housing developments that have been constructed along the river in recent years have caused many residents and activists to panic. Why is there this uneasy feeling about development along the Hudson in the 21st century? Lisa Foderaro, in herarticle "Rooms With Views Replace Factories on Hudson's Banks," first examines the reasons for the recent housing boom along the Hudson. Foderaro talks about the recent cleanup of the Hudson, coupled with the "...empty lots created by vanished factories, a housing boom, the proliferation of suburban developers, a willingness by local officials to embrace a new source of tax revenues, and a crystallizing Hudson Valley consciousness - have come together in recent years to generate interest in building and living along the Hudson." (1). This is important because it shows that the efforts by many poeple to clean up the river and its surroundings, as well as widely available, river front property has made the Hudson River Valley much more attractive in recent years. Many people, however, still oppose the housing boom. One problematic aspect of these large-scale developments are their size. Foderaro warns that some plans call for the creation of villages within villages, as well as developments in Sleepy Hollow and Kingston will create 1,250 housing units and 2,182 housing units respectively (1). These are huge developments, and they cover large areas of land. The Sleepy Hollow development alone will cover 100 acres. These developments, however, have stimulated the growth of cities along the Hudson that are still feeling the harsh effects of the end of the industrial revolution. Foderaro comments on this saying that, "Elected officials have raised concerns about the density of the plans, but have, for the most part, embraced them, particularly in communities that have felt the sting of departing industries" (2). Housing in most cases, therefore, is replacing the role that industrialization played in the economic development of the Hudson River Valley. Foderaro uses Yonkers as a case study that displays the potentially positive effects of certain housing developments explaining that citizens are pleased that these housing units are being created and that their view of the Hudson will not be compormised in the process (3). It seems as though these developments are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they are massive, they are extremely expensive, and they damage the majesty and beauty that many people associate with the Hudson River Valley. One the other hand, these developments are the source of economic growth and development in the wake of the industrial revolution. The real key to maintaining a good relationship between building company and residents along the Hudson seems to be a certain sense of respect. Residents do not want to compromise the beauty of the Hudson and building companies want to capitalize on the massive lots that are left over from the factories that existed during the industrial revolution. If the two sides could meet on some sort of regulations and policies, the development along the Hudson could be both economically beneficial, as well as acceptable to the current residents and activists that live in the Hudson River Valley. The government will play a large role in the continued developmet of the Hudson because the government will need to establish stricter policies that appeal to both the villages along the Hudson and the building companies that want to build housing developments along the Hudson. Housing, according to Foderaro, is the key to the contemporary, economic success of the Hudson. This success, however, could be severely restricted if these two sides cannot meet halfway.

The last mile

OpEd by environmentalists arguing that NYS should require utilities to retrofit old plants with cooling towers.

Metro Nation

Research project at Brookings Institution about the economic significance of metropolitan areas. Related to our class this week.

Calm in Calamity

ANOTHER PAST POST

Like countless New Yorkers, Wendy Bounds was displaced on September 11th, 2001. Bounds was forced from her home and lost countless possessions, but she weaves a remarkably heartwarming story in her book, Little Chapel on the River. Bounds’ most impressive characteristic is her composure, which shows readers how to properly react in the face of any life altering event. Bounds was merely blocks from the World Trade Center when the Twin Towers fell, but she stayed collected in the midst of such confusion and physical danger; Bounds remains calm and helps distressed citizens by distributing Gatorade and water from the back of a delivery truck instead of jumping into the river, which she admits was tempting. Bounds does not give into fear or her emotions during the attacks. Rather, she stays composed and realistic by helping others and attempting to move forward with her life as quickly as possible. In reading Little Chapel on the River, one realizes that Bounds’ resolve helps her endure the violence and heartbreak of September 11th, as well as enables her to cope with the way in which her life irrevocably changes following the attacks. Bounds approaches her living situation in Garrison, New York with the same poise that she displays on September 11th. Although Bounds immediately falls into the good graces of Jim Guinan, her relationship with Jim’s daughter, Maggie, takes longer to develop. Although Bounds admits she was afraid of Maggie, she does not become defensive towards Maggie. Instead of disliking Maggie for her fiery demeanor and suspicious behavior, Bounds is patient with Maggie and tries to understand the hardships Maggie has endured. Throughout the book Bounds’ patience allows her to cope with less than desirable circumstance, and find a new place in the post-9/11 world. Bounds’ composure finds her a new home, new friends, and ultimately a new family that shows her “what really matters most.”

Property and Prosperity

ANOTHER PAST POST

Human beings’ natural drive to attain property has driven history since the beginning of time. That said, it is not surprising that the history of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century New York was defined by its citizens desire to possess as much property as possible. New York changed a great deal following the American Revolution. Between 1786 and 1820, the population of Manhattan increased by 100,000 climbing from 23,000 to 123,000. The fur trade declined as cotton and flour became New York’s most profitable domestic imports. Clearly, Manhattan had become America’s most important port, and New York was now the financial center of the post-revolutionary Union; the founding of the New York Stock Exchange, the Bank of New York, and the Manhattan Company ensured that the bulk of America’s capital flowed through the banks of the Hudson. However, Manhattan’s prosperity was linked to New York’s new capital, Albany. Although Albany was first and foremost the political center of New York, the upstate city was securing its high rank in the financial world because New York’s wealthiest families lived in the Hudson River Valley upstate of Manhattan and secured their assets in Albany’s three prominent banks—the Bank of New York, the New York State National Bank, and the Mechanics and Farmers Bank. It was the patriarchs of these families—the Van Rensselear’s, Philipse’s, Livingston’s, and Van Derbilt’s—who built New York State through financial risks driven by an aspiration to own as much property as possible. Yet, Tom Lewis reminds readers that property to these men was not confined to land. Intellectual rights (see Gibbons vs. Ogden) were as important as acres, and the trading of human beings as personal property was also considered a thriving enterprise. The yearning to own consumed and inspired New York’s most ambitious men. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that everything from marriage to political power in New York was rooted in the attainment of property.

River of Fortunes

THIS IS A PAST POST THAT I WAS UNABLE TO POST BEFORE BECAUSE MY ACCOUNT WAS MESSED UP. HOWEVER, PROFESSOR EISMEIER WANTED ME TO RE-POST IT.

In chapter eight, “River of Fortunes,” Tom Lewis writes about the men who commercialized Albany and New York City, as well as numerous Hudson Valley towns and cities between these two booming metropolises. Although the shipping industry had declined by 1861 in Hudson Valley cities, such as Hudson, the rise of the manufacturing industry preserved the commercial value Hudson Valley real estate. Iron manufacturing in Troy, Hudson, and Poughkeepsie made these cities important centers of commerce, and their inhabitants became increasingly wealthy. However, Lewis’ eighth chapter is interesting because he explains how a rift formed in 1861 between New York City and the cities located on the Hudson River North of Manhattan. Economic growth in New York City had not shown signs of decline for centuries until the prospect of disunion became reality. New York City’s barons and merchants had profited so much from their investments in the cotton trade, which was of course driven by slavery, that they forgot the principles of liberty and diversity that Manhattan was originally founded upon. New York City’s most powerful men, such as Mayor Fernando Wood, could not see the liberal motivation for fighting the South because they refused to look past their southern investments, and they thus rallied against president-elect Abraham Lincoln. On the contrary, Hudson Valley citizens living North of New York City supported Lincoln. The support of Lincoln in places like Hudson and Poughkeepsie demonstrates how vastly different the ideals of people living North of Manhattan were during this time period, which explains the moral divide between New York City and the northern Hudson Valley. While Mayor Wood spoke out against Lincoln and disregarded the moral worth of enslaved blacks, Matthew Vassar used his amassed wealth to build a college for women, who were then considered intellectually inferior to men. By chronicling the Albany-New York City leg of Lincoln’s 1861 journey to Washington, Lewis reveals a great deal about the accomplishments and well-founded priorities of those who lived on the Hudson River between New York’s two most economically prominent cities. In 1861, economics did not beget benevolence in Manhattan.

The Conundrum of Non-Point Pollution

Jeffrey Levinton demonstrates the prominent roles point source pollution and non-point pollution play in contaminating the Hudson River. Point source pollutants are the manufactured nutrients, sewage solids, and toxic waste that emanate from particular manmade structures on the Hudson River, such as publicly owned sewage facilities and industrial complexes. These manmade facilities release pollutants directly into the Hudson River, and, as a result, federal legislators easily pass laws that regulate point source pollution; point source pollution is thus somewhat preventable because environmentalists and politicians know exactly where the pollutants come from. Unlike point source pollution, non-point pollution comes from many different sources. Non-point pollutants include fertilizers and insecticides from farms, oil and toxins from industrial waste, sediment from construction sites, acid runoff from old mines, atmospheric deposition, and even bacteria and nutrients from livestock and humans. These natural and man-made pollutants are naturally dispersed by water runoff from rain and snowmelt. The ground then absorbs the polluted runoff, which contaminates groundwater and the river estuary. The EPA condemns non-point pollutants as the leading contaminant of human drinking water, and estimates that non-point pollution also has an extremely detrimental effect on the Hudson River Estuary’s wildlife, specifically the region’s fisheries.
However, the main problem with non-point pollution is that we all contribute to it regardless of our respective levels of environmental consciousness; humans release non-point pollutants into the ecosystem by simply going to the bathroom. The unchecked, widespread production of non-point pollutants is not the only reason this form of pollution is so dangerous to our environment. The term “non-point pollution” implies pollutants are dispersed in random locations by natural forces, which makes it is almost impossible for politicians to enact effective legislation against non-point pollution. Legal regulation of non-point pollution is difficult to enforce because politicians have no distinguishable producer/polluter to blame. Additionally, one must question whether non-point pollution should be handled by state or federal legislation. The 1972 Clean Water Act, which was passed by the federal government, offers some protection against non-point pollution because it requires regular testing of the Hudson River’s toxicity levels, but it does nothing to curb the process of non-point pollution.
The shortcomings of the Clean Water Act in regards to non-point pollution come as no surprise because federal legislation is not the correct means of action against non-point pollution. Rather, local action is necessary if we want to stop this destructive form of pollution. State level politics is vital to this fight, and town councils also have a significant role to play. The Hudson Valley needs stricter building laws that mandate “greener” construction sites, restrictions on pesticide use, detoxification of abandoned mines, and limitations on urban sprawl, which would decrease runoff following inclement weather. Yet, local politics can only go so far. Like other environmental movements, curbing non-point pollution in the Hudson River Valley rests in the hands of local communities. If farmers want to see environmental change, they will re-evaluate their use of pesticides. Similarly, residents further downstate will fight against suburban sprawl if they wish to decrease the amount of toxic runoff that reaches the river, as well as pollutes local reservoirs. The Hudson River depends on us to stop denying our responsibilities to our environment and to one another.

Allen Mill Incident

Recovering from PCB Contamination

Following the release of multiple scientific investigations, people began to understand and accept the detrimental effects of PCBs on aquatic and human life. Studies have shown that the chemicals and “bio-accumulating compounds” affect animals by causing “reproductive dysfunction, impaired development, reduced growth, and alterations in biochemical processes” (353). In humans, scientists have labeled PCBs as possible carcinogens and investigated effects such as liver damage and “impaired human immune systems” (352). Animals further up the food chain face the worst consequences because eating more in terms of mass exposes them to the chemicals at higher concentrations.
General Electric ceased dumping PCBs in 1977, and evidence has shown that concentrations in fish have decreased since that time, only subsisting due to the gradual mixing of the sediment on the river floor. Many environmentalists have suggested that General Electric should pay millions for the dredging of the river floor, to decrease the amount of contaminants entering the water and reduce the risk of another Allen Mill incident that could occur under extreme weather conditions. However, the amount of money to pay for dredging seems unreasonable for the few benefits that would be achieved. First of all, ecosystems would be damaged throughout the dredging process, with increased turbidity and noise that would force wildlife away. A possibility also exists that dredging could disturb the sediment and release too many PCBs. Active remediation may not be the best solution for the river. The “natural dissipation of pollutants” is reliably steady and decreasing. Within 100 years, PCB concentrations in fish will reach normal levels and sediment will no longer contaminate the river to the slightest degree. Natural healing is the solution.

Point vs. Nonpoint Pollution

Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution present challenges in the modern day Hudson River. Point sources are well-defined sources of pollution, and in the case of the Hudson this includes sewage and industrial outflow pipes, and other on shore facilities that pump material into the river. Nonpoint sources are less defined and could include runoff from industrial, residential, agricultural, or urban areas. The challenges presented by each source type of pollution are unique, in that they must be addressed and enforced through different means.


Point sources are more specific and identifiable, and can therefore be regulated through legislative action (water discharge quality standards, pollution limits, discharge rate limitations). As most point sources are either industrial or municipal, setting restrictions through legislative means is practical and simple in concept, however this same legislative system can bog down these actions with appeals and time-consuming studies and impact statements. When examining BOD5 (biological oxygen demand) levels, which are are associated with pollution input, point sources account for approximately 36% of total input. In comparison, nonpoint sources account for approximately 44%.

Nonpoint sources present their own challenges, specifically they are harder to regulate due to their unspecified origin. While it is feasible to trace the source of runoff contaminants, it is not practical on a large-scale. It is possible to create laws restricting actions that contribute to runoff pollution (such as agricultural or residential over-fertilizing), however enforcing these laws is not always practical or effective. Where I'm from- the Chesapeake Bay watershed area- actions such as legislation regarding agricultural waste and residential-aimed public service announcements have been used to combat rising runoff pollution in the Bay. What the chicken industry does with it's animal waste is now being reevaluated (shipped out of the watershed area as opposed to being spread on watershed-area fields), and residents are urged to be sparing with their lawn fertilizer and to apply it in the fall (as opposed to the rainy spring season). The significant pollution contributions to the Hudson from nonpoint sources should serve as a reminder that not all water quality issues are the fault of industrial and municipal organizations; rather, we as citizens share the burden and should continue to play our part in maintaining suitable water quality in the future.

PCB's: Threat or No Threat?

Chapter 24 of the book The Hudson River Estuary, begins with a startling statistic: "From the latter 1940's until 1977, the General Electric Corporation discharged an estimated 200,000 to 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hudson River..." (349). This is a staggering number, but the effects of these PCBs were not known until decades later. Are these chemicals harmful to people? Have these chemicals had an adverse effect on the human and animal development along the Hudson? Levinton first addresses these questions by stating two main points: 1) PCB levels of fish in the Hudson are well above those levels that are believed to harm humans and 2) That PCBs have caused harm along the Hudson based on the extremely high concentrations in certain areas (352). Levinton then goes on to describe the possible effects that PCBs have on humans which are not limited to developmental and learning disorders, impairing human immune systems, and low birth rates. Although the GE plant does not currently PCBs into the Hudson, the levels of concentration that have accumulated over the years have been harmful to the human and animal life that have been exposed to the river. In fact, PCBs that have been ingested by fish can directly affect the health of those humans who eat the contaminated fish. This is one of the main connections that Levinton makes between the high levels of PCBs and the exposure and effects on humans. Levinton points out, however, that determining the levels of PCB exposure that are harmful to people can be very difficult, and that these risks need to be judged by probabilities. He talks about the probability that someone will be affected by PCBs, based on the number of fish that person eats. The FDA set an acceptable level of PCB-exposed fish two decades ago, but this number has changed due to the increase in the number of fish people eat worldwide (352).

I think that Levinton makes some interesting points in his chapter about the effects of the GE dumping of PCBsPCBs have on humans, but his main point is that the high levels of PCBs along the Hudson have and could continue to cause harm to humans who are exposed to the Hudson. According to Levinton, "the large quantity of PCBs residing in the sediments of the Upper Hudson River are not permanently sequestered, but rather are currently leaking back into the water, comprising the largest single source of PCBs to the river. Even though New York and GE have cleaned up their acts, the effects of the dumping are and will be continued to be felt by the animal and human lives that come into contact with the Hudson. PCBs are harmful to humans, but stopping the dumping of PCBs is no longer the only solution to the problem. New York must come up with a way that protects its citizens from the leaking PCBs in the sediments of the Hudson, because prolonged contamination could result in harmful effects for generations to come. Levinton even suggests that a plan to tackle the PCBs in the sediments of the Hudson is the answer to prolonged contamination, and although this would be costly, the cost of human lives is greater. People will feel the negative effects of PCB exposure as long as the existence of PCBs in the sediment of the Hudson continues. The problem of PCB contamination has not been solved, and the effects of GE's dumping can still be felt almost 30 years after it stopped.

I am not confident that we now have systems in place that would prevent this from happening with some new product. I think that the fact that we did not understand the effects of PCBs on humans and wildlife along the Hudson proves that we will not know about another potentially dangerous product begins to emerge in the waters of the Hudson or another body of water. The fact of the matter is that until we as people feel the negative effects of something, we will not do anything to protect ourselves from another product. Global warming is a perfect example. People as a whole were polluting the environment through industrialization, littering, and CO2 emissions from the early 20th century until about 10-15 years ago. It was not until we saw the negative effects of global warming until we decided that recycling, using less energy, hybrid cars, and other environmentally friendly ideas were important to our future. Whatever the next crisis, the appropriate system to research and determine the effects of this crisis will not come into effect until we feel the negative effects of the crisis. Although we have advanced exponentially in technology since GE was dumping PCBs, people feel no real sense of urgency until other people begin to get sick or die.

A Bicycle Industrial Complex

Would this be good for Hudson Valley?

An Erie Canal in Space?

Nature Conservancy Becomes a Logger