Author Topic: More knitting lessons for STCC members needed!  (Read 72 times)

Doug K

  • ECNA Co-Founder
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
  • Choosing to Live FREE of Social Media Influences
  • Location: Port Byron NY
    • ECNA US Website
And YES...it gets EVEN better....

The ECNA is always "fact-checking" the Stop the Canal Clear-cut Group on it's claims and statements, especially from it's Founder and Leadership Team.

We have already debunked their so-called "experts", who were tricked into making statements about canal earthen embankments being levees.

 https://ecna.createaforum.com/perinton-canal-embankment-discussion/check-the-ecna-forum-for-important-information-on-december-8-134/msg180/#msg180

We have also pointed out a few of their past postings where they outright made up their own facts, you can find those in our Forum if interested...

But let's look at that very FIRST post you were shown above, once again. There are NEW red highlights that show the group's Founder is saying.


AND you decide: Ironic or Moronic?






Did you see how quickly the group's FOUNDER took credit for a new proposed Bill in the NYS Legislation?

Did you see her "claim" that SHE caused this to happen and those pictures were "HERS?

The post was referencing some new Legislation being proposed to assure better communication between the Canal Owners, the community leaders the Canal passes through, and the Canal Neighbors who live along it. It wanted to give a voice to those who's voices the STCC tried to "drown out" with their rhetoric of "no danger here". And did you also see how fast the group's "brown-nosers" got into their favorite position and gave Ms Agte all the credit that "she told them she deserved? They all praised the work she did... but is it TRUE?


Did Elizabeth Agte, and her Facebook Group, convince Senator Robert Ortt and Assemblyman Josh Jensen to put this new Canal Transparency legislation through?


Because our crack staff at the ECNA looked up the article online, and found out quite a bit about this new Bill, including that it's already being "modified" to account for possible emergency canal work. It appears that the Canal Communication Bill has some holes in it, and some Erie Canal Work would not need to meet this requirement of Public Notice or Input, specifically the original Bill had no provisions for Emergency Canal Work.



https://www.whec.com/politics/bill-would-require-public-hearings-before-new-projects-along-erie-canal/6112482/?cat=12371&fbclid=IwAR2mejCpMz4UF7ozqILmCzO-rAOggCxyrny5HVe0o-bhetlF6C-RlDJ_sHA


In fact the ECNA also contacted both NYS Legislators, who have presented this Bill for a Vote, and requested verification of this outlandish claim made by this Facebook group.

Here's a copy of our email and the photo we asked them to comment on.






Yes, The ECNA did receive a call, After a 1 hour conversation with Mr. Josh Jensen, the ECNA also learned quite a few FACTS... real facts.

The new Canal Bill proposed, was NOT influenced by Elizabeth Agte, or her group, those words directly from the person who wrote it. To think a NYS Legislator would follow such a misguided group and their cause is laughable at best, and sad that some canal neighbors actually might believe this to be true.

Assemblyman Jensen is on the SIDE OF SAFETY, as this new Bill is as well. The proposed bill would only make it necessary for the Canal Corporation to do a better job in two-way communication with those affected by work done along the NYS Canal System. He also understands that some are opposing how the canal handled this latest round of safety work, and is looking to improve that. He fully understands that the Canal Corporation knows best how to do it's job on the Canal, he just wants to insure the public, and specifically neighbors, also know what is being done and why.

He also agreed that NY Public Safety along the Erie Canal comes FIRST, he agrees that the decisionmakers and those who run NYPA and the NYS Canal Corporation TOOK AN OATH, like he did, to protect and serve the People of the State of NY, and that PUBLIC SAFETY will always come FIRST, over public OPINION.

Assemblyman Jensen also informed us that Canal Bill, S6748, would also have new provisions, that are being written as your read this post.

Those changes are being made to insure that EMERGENCY work on the Canal System, for issues with water escaping, unsafe dams or from dangerous trees, would NOT have to wait 3 month for public communication and input.

It would happen as needed, and the NYS Canal Corporation would use it's current methods to communicate that work to the public. If a tree falls on the trail the bill as written, would require public input OVER A 3 MONTH PERIOD. so work to remove the dangerous down tree could be stopped, on a technicality hidden in this law.

There are many different kinds of work done along the Canal System, a law that generalized all of those, improvement, emergency, maintenance etc. would not serve the "public's best interest". Allowances have to be made specifically for any work that if NOT done, might put the public at risk.

https://www.canals.ny.gov/wwwapps/tas/notices/

According to Assemblyman Jensen, both he and Senator Ortt agree that work like Embankment Repair and Clearing Overhead Canal Trail dangers are priorities and NOTHING should tie the hands of NYPA or the Canal Corporation in their pursuit to keep all New Yorkers SAFE from an aging Canal System.

The Danger Tree allowance was something suggested by the ECNA that may become part of the overall update to this Bill, there are current NY State DEC Guidelines that allows unsafe trees to be removed. https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5293.html




So there's the TRUTH about how Bill S6748, and you can look up more here: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S6748

You are also welcome to call and talk with Josh Jensen to confirm the conversation between the ECNA and his office today.



But more importantly, hopefully you see that yet another claim from the Stop the Canal Clear-cut group has been examined, it's authenticity verified and the statement has been labeled: "UNTRUE".


But then again, what would expect from a group who's leadership & membership claim to be "all-in" for trees, and keeping them on along the Erie Canal Trail, then moans & complains about "too many" trees once the Canal Corporation tries to appease their request? Or that they are planted too close, or that they may not get watered. 







Again, you decide: Ironic or Moronic?

Maybe both...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2021, 04:26:34 pm by Doug K »