I agree with Mr Wood. Please fight against this memorial to short sighted environmentalists. If we had that power plant not only would our taxes be lower but it would have provided cheap clean energy. What do environmentalists want? No energy usage??? Peace to all.

Your absolutely right Dennis and there are more that just a few of us who are upset by this. Now its going to be moved AFTER the Hudson / Fulton celebration...this has nothing to do with the celebration so move it now and end this nightmare. But you know as well as I that that won't happen.
Jerry Kiernan

The ConEd project wouldn not have produced cheap, clean energy. It was designed to store energy and release it during high-use hours.

Barbara is correct. Pumped storage is an economically sound practice for power companies, since they can pump the water uphill during "offpeak", when market prices are lower. Then they can sell/use the water to generate power during "onpeak" when the megawatt prices are higher..."storing nuts for the winter" (as it were). Since I didn't live here when the ConEd fight took place, it doesn't carry any particular emotional baggage for me; it just sounds like a vestigial wound left over from a typical feud between business interests and the not-in-my-backyard position holders. Frankly, I think that the past is the past, and if we want to shout "Nimby" we should be more concerned about Indian Point melting down.

For a year while I was in college I worked as a consultant for the DEP doing environmental permitting and assessment for construction. Perhaps the ConEd project would have lowered taxes, but the fight meant so much more than what happened to that one section of land at the edge of the river. It is not just NIMBYism, it is the edge of a state preserve that DOES end in our backyard. Perhaps there were once structures and buildings throughout the woods at the edge of Rt218 that stretched down towards the river, but if you look at it now, it is a successional forest. ... If the fight against the ConEd project had gone the other way we probably would have been having a much different debate right now - a debate centering on how to deal with ever increasing construction encroaching on and destroying a preserve and a forest. Perhaps the construction is temporarily delayed in a lot of areas due to the current economic collapse, but look at the even bigger picture. Our area of NYS is part of the Hudson Highlands - the highlands are a stretch of area that goes from Boston to DC, right in line with the megalopolous. These are issues we will be dealing with as a community for generations, because as the construction and development continue over the decades the taxes are only ever going to go up. It is not just how to maintain taxes and a standard of living, it is how to maintain a history and a community at the same time.

Well put, Melissa. Thank you. There is too much "oh if only we had the con ed plant our taxes would be lower..." being tossed around. This is pure conjecture as there are many other variables to consider. I just wish the boulder were not going to stay in the Donahue Park. It spoils the aesthetics of the park; bad feng shui.

I was going to let it slide but I can't; I am completely repulsed by the writer's analogy of a picture of Hitler in a Synagogue. It defies reason to compare a small town argument about a rock, a park, and a mountain with the atrocities of the Hitler regime. A little perspective, please.

Kate,

As YOU have so often pointed out lets not forget the 1st Amendment. Mr. Wood Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing. Let it ring others perspective be damned.

Pat Welch

Ugh! Pat - there was nothing in Kate's statement that said or implied that Mr. Wood didn't have the "freedom" to state whatever the heck he feels like stating. But she likewise has the freedom to state that in her view the analogy is disproportionate and inappropriate.

If we choose to completely ignore others perspective then we run the risk of having our own ignored in likewise fashion. So much for any dialogue on issues.

This is what bothers the heck out of me about politics in general. Seems like folks have forgotten a few things:

1. How to speak civilly to one another.

2. That just because someone disagrees with my perspective it doesn't make them my enemy. I particularly HATE this with respect to partisan politics. It is NOT and should not be an "all or nothing" thing.

3. That just because someone is disagreeing with or opposing someone else's message doesn't mean they are somehow impinging on their "freedom of speech".

UGH! Trella maybe if you scroll back a bit you will see where Kate referred me to the 1st amendment upon my making a comment regarding anothers comment. Maybe youm missed that and maybe Kate didn't and that is why "she" chose not to respond to my comment as it was hers to me.

As far as talking civilily to one another, to whom are you addressing this statement to? Seems by reading your #2 statement it's me. Kate is NOT my enemy but a friend who lives on my block. Kate I may not always agree with but she is a fine person with a lovely family.

Frankly Trella you I don't know but you and others like YOU are the problem jumping to conclusions. Mr Wood made a statement and you treat him as a skinhead hanging a nazi flag outside his house. Get a grip. Just like the bunch a few years back that were treating the skateboarders as if they were the Bloods and the Crips. I don't know Mr. Wood but I for one believe he meant no harm in his statement. The harm comes when people make a mountain out of a mole hill like the skateboarders. Sometimes its better to give the benefit of the doubt to someone whom I'm sure meant no harm.

Welch -

My ugh was purely in response to the cries of Freedom of Speech which get's thrown around so quickly. Actually I HAVE read back through this thread and see no reference from Kate to you re Freedom of Speech - but perhaps I missed it or it was in another thread? In any case - I would say the same there. Folks are free to say what they want as long as it isn't slipping into slander (spoken) or libel (written) defamation of character, and very rarely is anyone's "freedom of speech" ever actually impinged upon in this forums. Nobody ever guaranteed freedom of "anonymous speech".

As far as my point #2 - actually it WASN'T directed at you. It was directed at what I see happening "in general" to the tone and tenor of political discussion, dialougue, and debate. People seem to have difficulty making their case without slipping into perjorative personal attacks and name calling - like "hippy Rick". It really doesn't help to engage in verbal or written attacks like that.

So - what conclusion exactly did *I* jump to? In what way did *I* treat Mr. Wood like a skinhead??? I never posted ANY comment about Mr. Wood, nor did I jump to any conclusions.

So I'll have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that "you and others like YOU are the problem jumping to conclusions. Mr Wood made a statement and you treat him as a skinhead hanging a nazi flag outside his house. Get a grip."

You're off base in directing this at me.

Cheers!
Chuck

Trella,

I never said Kate?s response to me about a persons 1st Amendment right to free speech was in this thread. It wasn?t.

I enjoy Kate?s posts as they are succinct and often humourous.. She can parse words with the best without becoming a bloviating windbag getting on their soapbox like others.

Heh heh - thank you Welch. Your post proves my point! ;-)

I too enjoy Kate's posts. She and I have had many friendly discussions over a variety of issues and never once dissolved into name calling.

Cheers!
Chuck

Trella,

ALL your posts make MY POINT.

Umm - and that would be what exactly Welch?

Let's recap our interaction thusfar:
1. You post about Freedom of Speech in response to Kate's assertion that Mr. Wood's point was overblown with the Hitler analogy.

2. I post that Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with the conversation, and that in general political discussions have become less civil.

3. You apparently take my comment as being directed AT you and go off on a tirad about ME jumping to conclusions and being "the problem".

4. I reply that your ire and your conclusion was misdirected since I had no issue with you.

5. You respond implying that my posts fall into the group of those "becoming a bloviating windbag getting on their soapbox."

6. Thus proving my point - and now placing yourself into the uncivil category. Which I had not placed you in until then.

You're making no sense what so ever. So I guess your point is that anyone who disagrees with you is a "bloviating windbag?" Hardly what I would call civil dialogue sir. Not sure what your issue is with me, but since you have decided (jumped to a conclusion maybe?) that I was attacking you personally and that you don't like me. Well - so be it. Later.

Chuck

Trella,

"My ire"? Mmmm Haven't heard that mentioned before.

Placing people in categories. MMmmmm. You must be one special person.

Careful on that soapbox it's getting windy out.

Whatever...