DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Erie Canal Neighbors Association
  HTML https://ecna.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: NY State Agency Announcements & Updates 
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 1872--------------------------------------------------
        Senate Bill S6748A - A very BAD idea!
   DIR By: Michael Caswell
       Date: November 21, 2021, 6:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6748/amendment/A?utm_source=ny_state_senate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscriptions&utm_content=NEW_AMENDMENT
       This proposition is a BAD idea.
       The Canal Corporation staff are professionals and should be able
       to get on with their work without hindrance from radical groups
       like the Stop The Clear Cut Group, who have no knowledge or
       understanding of the mechanics of canal operations.
       Bad decisions have already been made by politicians, putting
       many Perinton neighbors at risk of flood. The Canal Corp does
       not need this encumbrance.
       Let's not forget what happened when Senator Brouk's staff
       visited The Perinton Dam. They were shown all the dangerous
       areas, many of which were reported in the RIZZO Engineering
       reports, stating this was a CLASS C High Hazard DAM likely to
       cause LOSS OF LIFE, and unfortunately, it was obvious these
       ladies had no idea what they were looking at, nor could
       understand Phreatic lines, or embankment slope gradients. They
       also had no idea about what was actually growing on the dam like
       tree toppling vines, or the imminent danger of the sheer size of
       the Cottonwood trees on the crest (150' tall).
       If you send people to look at the problems, then surely it would
       be in the public interest to send someone with some
       qualifications, not just office administration staff?
       As for public meetings for input. Has anyone actually asked the
       Canal Corporation if these are helpful? I know the answer, as
       I've been to a couple. You'll get a lot of rhetoric about
       "Shade' and squirrels homes, and bees being pollinators, but
       very little positive input, as those likely to be in attendance
       (in opposition ie. The STCC)  are ignorant of the engineering
       skills needed to make decisions for the safety of the people
       under the threat of loss of life or property.
       Senator Brouk made a decision to support the STCC group, and one
       can only perceive she was 'persuaded' by the group founders that
       this would encourage their group to support her in an election?
       One or two other politicians have followed Ms Brouk, and signed
       onto this, but they are all missing the point. It's not about
       how many votes you get because of a radical group's rhetoric.
       It's about those folks who LIVE UNDER A DAM, and WHO COULD DIE!
       The Public should be asking why anyone would purposely stop a
       public safety work on unsafe earth dams, from happening in the
       first place.
       If the burden to work for the best interest of all NY residents
       is left to self-policing in ALL agencies under NY State control,
       why is this change in Canal Law even needed?
       If they clear trees, to increase public safety, why would the
       public be allowed to debate that?
       I do not think this proposed change to NY Canal Law works in
       the best interest or safety of Erie Canal neighbors...it is not
       needed or necessary to question or debate work that would be in
       the public's best interest for their own safety.
       They only want to add the word 'Trees' to the Law, and that is
       because of what? A politician who's trying to please a Facebook
       group.
       This proposed change had no value to the public, in light of the
       extensive work done on EEIP...dedicated to just that very topic.
       EEIP supercedes this Ortt act. NYPA will fight back on this.
       What Ortt is asking for is already in the new EEIP program..had
       it's own dedicated Chapter on Public Communication for tree
       removal... No need to have a law added, when's it's already
       mandatory.
       And the EEIP public threshold for communication works to insure
       that a new law wouldn't just get abused by disgruntled Facebook
       users.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1