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.