Waterfront Coalition v. Fuhrmann Access
To quote the great 20th century philosopher Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise!”
Certain of the Waterfront Coalition members have filed an action seeking to enjoin progress on the Southtowns Connector project.
State officials bid out the project in November following years of planning and discussion. But critics complain the design will maintain an elevated highway that has long been a barrier to waterfront development.
The court challenge is based on two issues, said Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper Executive Director Julie Barrett O’Neill. The first claims that major changes were made to the final environmental impact statement … revisions that should have triggered follow-up studies. The second allegation is that planners failed to make sure the Southtowns Connector is in compliance with the Niagara River Greenway Plan.
The Waterfront Coalition is made up of these groups:
The Baird Foundation
Buffalo First
Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper
Elmwood Village Association
Greater Buffalo Building Owners & Managers Association
Landmark Society of the Niagara Frontier
The League of Women Voters, Buffalo / Niagara
The New Millennium Group of WNY
Partners for a Livable Western New York
Preservation Coalition of Erie County
Sierra Club, Niagara Group
The Wellness Institute of Greater Buffalo
Yet only three of them have signed on as plaintiffs, and a non-member - Seven Seas Sailing Club - is a named plaintiff. I don’t quite understand why that is. I have an email in to representatives from all four plaintiff organizations to find out more.
In order to enjoin the project, the plaintiffs must show that there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm, together with a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. The State DOT has not yet commented on the lawsuit. When I find out more, I’ll post it here.
Christopher Smith Says:January 15th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
A couple of random thoughts on the article and the issue:
- This city is so mired in economic quicksand and political intransigence, nothing that is said here or in that court case will make waterfront development on a grand scale any more or less likely to happen.
- If Dave Franczyk or Mickey Kearns were as committed to realizing change in their own moribund council districts, we might see some real progress in this town. Dave spends more time worrying about the waterfront and Perrysburg than he does about the blight and third world conditions of his district.
- The argument becomes one of technicalities rather than emotion and ire, which it was until today.
Until today, the waterfront coalition and those who claimed to speak for them were engaging in what economists call “uncertain predictions”, those which we can not specify a reliable distribution of probabilities.
At it’s very essence, at it’s very core…the WC is a group of people who don’t deem this particular type of progress to be good progress. Really, it’s all quite subjective.
They deem it to be inadequate progress whereas I deem it to be completely satisfactory. Why is that? Because no one can clearly demonstrate how the current DOT plan discourages progress, development, or removal of the skyway with any reasoned logic, facts, or probability. The coalition believes that the current plan is “bad” and they believe it will lead to the extended life of the Skyway. There is no objective reality in that assessment, they just think its bad. Just as Higgins, Pundit, and I think it’s not.
Since subjective interpretations are not enough to stop any project, the WC has launched a lawsuit based on environmental study technicalities…also known as the last resort of an activist.
They may win that case, but the burden of proof is high…much higher than the burden of proof in a subjective discussion of what type of roadway is best for waterfront development. We’ll see how it all comes out in the wash. Most of WNY will yawn and ignore it because it’s yet another example of a project that will never get done…
Paul Francis Says:January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I’m not a member of the Waterfront Coalition, but my guess is that there are three plaintiffs because of the issue of standing as well as what kind of role these organizations have played. For instance, the Landmark Society does not and never will file a lawsuit about anything. The lawsuit is being headed up by Riverkeepers because the organization is the vanguard of the Niagara Greenway Plan, which was enshrined in law this past summer and requires waterfront projects and planning activities to conform to the plan, which calls for removal of highway barriers on the waterfront. I can’t imagine why the Preservation Coalition is involved in the lawsuit or how they’d have standing.
Buffalopundit Says:January 16th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Technically, however, that roadway is not on the Niagara River. It fronts Lake Erie. As a geographical matter, you would think it would be outside the scope of both “Riverkeeper” and “Niagara River Greenway”. Frankly, I don’t see how any of these groups have standing at all, except for Seven Seas because it’s actually located in that immediate vicinity.
And Geek’s right about Franczyk, who should be more concerned about his own district, and Kearns, who’s really just in it to get at Higgins.
Christopher Smith Says:January 16th, 2008 at 7:13 am
The Greenway area stretches from Porter to Buffalo, and according to some Niagara County legislators includes basketball courts/inland parks in the middle of the 13 municipalities of the area.
As I understand it, the greenway boundary follows municipal jurisdictions, so this area falls in the Greenway. You can read through this if you have the time for 230 pages of fun…
http://www.niagaragreenway.org/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Harvey Garrett Says:January 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
I personally don’t like lawsuits. I’d like to have seen it all handled differently so a lawsuit wasn’t necessary. But, no, I don’t agree with anyone who suggests that the project was properly vetted regardless of how much time or money they spent working on it (hence the lawsuit with claims that it wasn’t properly vetted).
I agree that the current proposed project would significantly improve access to Furmann - unfortunately I also feel that there are far better ways (that have also been vetted by the DOT) that can improve Furmann without rebuilding bermed highways along our waterfront (a major step back in time rather than progress). A temporary $55 million project that will need to be rebuilt after we remove the Skyway just isn’t a reasonable answer - especially one that was designed around a development that is no longer taking place. Talk about mis-spending state tax dollars. This project has become more about getting something done during an election cycle than getting the right thing done for our community.
I share Chris and Alan’s concern on the lack of progress here. I wouldn’t chalk all of it up to rogue citizen groups though. Waterfront Coalition members, like Riverkeeper and others, were involved in the process from the beginning (far longer that most everyone else in this discussion I imagine) - the process that ensued didn’t take the citizen / community input into account, it was overridden by developer demands for a project that has since died.
All that being said - I absolutely respect the frustration that leads to a just build something mentality - I just think it hurts us more than helps us.
Harvey
Jack Mehoffer Says:January 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The chronology of an argument…
- We don’t like the design
- We don’t want heavy traffic on an expressway
- Unaccountable authorities!
- We were excluded from the process!
- The process was flawed!
- It is built for a developer who no longer plans to build on the waterfront!
- The EIS guidelines weren’t followed!
- Wasted tax dollars!
Pick an argument and stick to it, this is tedious.
Paul Francis Says:January 16th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Jack, all those reasons you name are true. Why exclude any of them?
Harvey Garrett Says:January 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
We’ll actually there have always been a lot of reasons this proposed plan was a bad idea. You’ve listed a few of the valid ones - there are many more. So as not to be tedious I won’t re-list them but just refer you back to prior posts.
Just to be fair, there have also been several compelling reasons for the bermed highway alternative (like snow and expediency) - just, in my opinion, not enough to justify rebuilding highways along our waterfronts.
If someone really does want me to answer any questions or reiterate the concerns of the Waterfront Coalition I’m willing to do so - either on this site or just send me an email at harveyagarrett@gmail.com. I’ll do the best I can.
Harvey
Buffalopundit Says:January 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Because only a few are arguably valid. Maybe if people stuck with those rather than the more, shall we say, emotional ones.
Harvey Garrett Says:January 16th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Alan, this list was put together by Jack, not by the Waterfront Coalition. Let me know if you would like me to provide a comprehensive (non-emotional) argument. But agian, much of it can be found in prior posts.
Harvey