Author Topic: Senate Bill S6748A - A very BAD idea!  (Read 39 times)

Michael Caswell

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
  • Location: Fairport NY
Senate Bill S6748A - A very BAD idea!
« on: November 21, 2021, 07:22:54 pm »

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 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.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2021, 07:58:09 am by Doug K »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter