June 13, 2002
Alert!: DOT's Bridge Decision is in Danger of Overturn
Great Sacandaga Lake's yacht club set has launched a quiet counterattack aimed at overturning the state's decision, announced February 28, to build a replacement Batchellerville Bridge with a vertical clearance of 42 feet at its center span.
Having failed to win a victory in the public arena, the sailors are intensively lobbying state politicians from the Governor on down. They still want a 55-foot vertical clearance, and they are boasting that victory is within their grasp.
While we took the Department of Transportation's decision as final, the agency informed the sailors that its February announcement was an interim decision and that a final "decision of record" will be made this summer. That gave the sailors more than a month's head start on the rest of us.
They will need it! The BBAC is readying itself to launch its own lobbying campaign. So stay tuned. Meanwhile, check out the letter below. We will inform you of Mr. Wells' response.
Mr. Paul T. Wells
Assistant Commissioner
NYS Department of Transportation
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12232-0504
Dear Mr. Wells:
On February 28, 2002, the NYS Department of Transportation announced a decision concerning replacement of the deteriorating Batchellerville Bridge across Great Sacandaga Lake at Edinburg. According to that announcement, the replacement bridge will have a 42-foot vertical clearance at its center span, making it 50 percent higher than the existing bridge. My question: Is that decision truly final?
On Friday, June 7, 2002, DOT's media relations office responded to several press inquiries by saying that it was. However, I have found evidence that this may not be the case. In fact, I fear that the fate of one of the most beautiful views in the southern Adirondacks is no longer subject to the fresh air of public scrutiny but is now being settled in a smoke-filled room. I hope that you will assure me otherwise.
I have learned that, on or about May 9, 2002, you were visited by a delegation of four sailboat owners who argued that the design announced on February 28 should be set aside in favor of a replacement bridge with a 55-foot vertical clearance. That structure would be twice as high as the existing bridge. I hope you told them that, while you appreciated their position, the decision was final. That does not appear to have been the case. Subsequently, many sailboat owners were informed that DOT's decision was not final, that it could be changed when DOT issues a "decision of record" this summer, and that they should write Governor Pataki, Lieutenant Governor Donohue, Senator Bruno, and yourself.
Under separate cover, I am invoking the Freedom of Information Law to obtain a copy of the letter those four individuals sent you on or about May 13, 2002, and a copy of your response (if any).
Let me ask you the following questions:
Of the thousands of boats on the lake, DOT found that only 163 are sailboats. Of the latter, according to DOT, 77 percent (or 126 sailboats) could sail under a 42-foot vertical clearance when the lake (a flood-control reservoir) is full. That leaves only 37 (about 1 percent of the boats on the lake) that could not (and many of them could pass under the bridge as the lake level drops during the summer).
DOT needs to balance the interests of 37 sailboat owners against the interests of hundreds of property owners who can view the bridge. (And don't forget that opposition to a higher bridge is not just an Edinburg issue; it also has been expressed by lake lovers in communities as far away as Day, Northville, Mayfield, Broadalbin, and Gloversville.) Make no mistake: these property owners, sitting on land with a total assessment of many tens of millions of dollars, are the driving force for the local economy through their increasingly higher property and school taxes, and their local purchases. By contrast, getting an additional handful of sailboats under the bridge will have minimal economic impact. Incidentally, several owners of those tall sailboats are not even lake-area property owners, but are day-trippers that dock their boats at marinas.
DOT's February 28 decision was a compromise that appeared to resolve the long and vocal public debate over the two replacement options offered by the state: a 35-foot vertical clearance and a 55-foot vertical clearance. Those numerous people who favor the lower vertical clearance took DOT at its word. If it is true that the game is not over, and that only supporters of a higher vertical clearance know it, then the latter have had a month's unfair opportunity to lobby the agency and bombard it with letters.
This ploy, if true, is tantamount to DOT holding a soccer match and inviting only one team to play. Guess which team will win? When did DOT plan to tell supporters of a low vertical clearance that the bridge's design is still in play? The day before its decision of record is announced so that there is no time for response? This is unfair, violates the principles of democracy and common decency, and displays contempt for the public's desires.
According to DOT's February 28 announcement, its decision in favor of a 42-foot vertical clearance was based on "a detailed three-year public input period that included informational newsletters, creation of a Department web site, extensive dialogue with the lake-wide community-based Citizens Advisory Group and participation by nine federal, state, and local advisors." At DOT's public informational meeting in Edinburg in 2000 and town meeting in Northville in 2001, supporters of a low bridge far outnumbered the other side. I hope that this three-year effort and the resulting compromise are not undercut by backroom politics.
It is time to settle this matter once and for all, and to proceed to the next stage of the project: ways to finance the $36 million replacement bridge. This is not a matter that should be postponed. Earlier this year, DOT alerted us that sections of the 72-year-old bridge could collapse if overloaded trucks keep using it. Although I have noticed an increased law-enforcement presence in the area, they can not police the bridge 24/7. It is time to set aside the complaints of those 37 sailboat owners and focus on the challenge of assuring that vehicles, including school buses, can cross the lake safely.
I look forward to your comments and to your answers to my questions.
Sincerely,
Peter VanAvery