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...