[Voytek Wilczak]

I certainly have neither time nor inclination to read the entire NJ DEP 1988 directive regarding the creation of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway.

It had been challenged in court by developers but was eventually upheld, whether Pat agrees with it or not.

Therefore, every developer who builds on the part of the NJ shoreline designated in the directive must also provide the 30-ft wide public walkway along the perimeter of the property which abuts the water.

Most of the developers who must comply with this law develop new housing. Liberty National developed a golf course with planned housing. BGC has no housing, but is a private golf course. I have not read the law, but I suspect that they also had to comply with the DEP 30-ft walkway requirement.

Whether the Walkway is currently continuous is totally beside the point.

It was not designed to be continuous from the beginning.

The BGC part of it was supposed to wrap around the whole perimeter of the course adjacent to water all the way to Constable Hook (hence the bridge), but Homeland Security recommended against it, so the work on the walkway has stopped at the current Helipad location (a good financial break for BGC, actually).

Pat's argument that the bridge is insanity because 800 ft of it only extends the walkway by 200 yards is invalid, bacause the walkway WAS supposed to continue all the way to Constable Hook.

Regarding the flying balls on 17th - since the walkway requirement had presumably been known from the beginning, the golf course should have been designed to protect the walking public from a close encounter with a struck golf ball.

Alternatively, a protective steel mesh canopy could be installed, like along the 18th hole at Liberty National, which is contiguous to their part of the Walkway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I certainly have neither time nor inclination to read the entire NJ DEP 1988 directive regarding the creation of the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway.

It had been challenged in court by developers but was eventually upheld, whether Pat agrees with it or not.

Therefore, every developer who builds on the part of the NJ shoreline designated in the directive must also provide the 30-ft wide public walkway along the perimeter of the property which abuts the water.

Most of the developers who must comply with this law develop new housing. Liberty National developed a golf course with planned housing. BGC has no housing, but is a private golf course. I have not read the law, but I suspect that they also had to comply with the DEP 30-ft walkway requirement.

Whether the Walkway is currently continuous is totally beside the point.

It's not beside the point, it is the point.

The walkway ends 200 yards past the bridge, making the bridge a ridiculous extravaganza and costing BGC more than $ 1,200,000.[/color]

It was not designed to be continuous from the beginning.

Yes it was.[/color]

The BGC part of it was supposed to wrap around the whole perimeter of the course adjacent to water all the way to Constable Hook (hence the bridge), but Homeland Security recommended against it, so the work on the walkway has stopped at the current Helipad location (a good financial break for BGC, actually).

Once HS determined that the walkway would end where it did, there was no need to force BGC to build a bridge, at the cost of over $ 1,200,000 just to extend the walkway by 200 yards.  It's a total waste of money.[/color]

Pat's argument that the bridge is insanity because 800 ft of it only extends the walkway by 200 yards is invalid, bacause the walkway WAS supposed to continue all the way to Constable Hook.

My argument remains valid.  "Supposed to" and "reality" are two different things.  The reality is that the walkway was terminated behind the 16th green.
Once it was established that the walkway could not procede further, and would terminate where it does, there was NO need to force BGC to build an 800 foot bridge to get a measely 200 yards of walkway at a cost in excess of $ 1,200,000.  It was a totally wasteful mandate.[/color]

Regarding the flying balls on 17th - since the walkway requirement had presumably been known from the beginning, the golf course should have been designed to protect the walking public from a close encounter with a struck golf ball.

And how would  you propose to do that ?
It would ruin a golf course that's woefully short on available land.[/color]

Alternatively, a protective steel mesh canopy could be installed, like along the 18th hole at Liberty National, which is contiguous to their part of the Walkway.

How many more millions would it  cost to build a 1,000 foot canopy ?

How would that look ?

BGC came in and converted a horrendous eyesore, a terrible site into something magnificent and you and your kind want to force him to spend more money.......... for what ?  So that you can walk another 200 yards ?
It's patently insane, and indicative of the problem/s with government today.[/color]

[Voytek Wilczak]

Pat, I think HS halted the construction of the walkway after the bridge was already built.

I am basing my opinion on an article I saw online from some Hudson County online paper.

All in all, I think that Hudson River Waterfront Walkway isea is most emphatically NOT an example of government going berserk, but rather a good idea in a county such as Hudson County, the most densely populated county in the nation, and also one of the most most industrial.

Over and out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I think HS halted the construction of the walkway after the bridge was already built.

I am basing my opinion on an article I saw online from some Hudson County online paper.

I'll try to find out.[/color]

All in all, I think that Hudson River Waterfront Walkway isea is most emphatically NOT an example of government going berserk, but rather a good idea in a county such as Hudson County, the most densely populated county in the nation, and also one of the most most industrial.

I'm not saying that the entire project is ill conceived, only that mandating that bridge, at a cost in excess of $ 1,200,000, to add a measely 200 yards of walkway was wasteful.

However, I do have a problem when government confiscates property without properly compensating the owner of the property.[color]

[Kirk Gill]

Check out this article...

This particular article doesn't appear to address whether or not the bridge had been built prior to Homeland Security getting involved, but there's lots of good info.

The article left both me and my wife looking at each other and saying the same two words:

"Kayak Launch?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk Gill,

Thanks for the article.

Do you think Voytek wrote that letter ?   

The NJ DEP is an eccentric organization.

While the article cited indicates that BGC was caught between conflicting agencies,  I could list a number of outrageous situations, perhaps the best of all is when the NJ DEP requested a permit from the NJ DEP and the NJ DEP rejected the application.

It doesn't get better than that.

It's obvious that common sense isn't so common and that power corrupts.

But, rather than talk about the absurdities impacting the golf course, there should be more discussion on the golf course.

Viewing BGC's website, bayonnegolfclub.com is very informative and gives you an idea about how high up the entire golf course sits and that everything on that golf course was imported.

It's quite an accomplishment, especially when you consider the three dimensional aspect of the golf course.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Do you think Voytek wrote that letter ?   

Nope.

I love what Bayonne did with the walkway.

But I did overhear some Bayonne residents being quite upset that the golf balls hit into the aqua-range might harm the waterfowl.

They seemed really PO-d and I would not be surprised if that took such a cowardly action as to write an anonymous letter.

[Tim Nugent]

Anyone know how much the covered walkway at Pelican Hills in Irvine, CA cost?  God it was hideous. Talk about "rules" (laws made by unelected b-crates answerable to no-one) that in principal "sound good" but in the reality of site-specific application - horrendous.  Glad to see you all get to see the inane stuff we archies have to put up with and design around. 
While I hear alot of praise for the course, the real magic was actually coming up with a design solution the could even be permitted and built - that's where the design team earned their fee.  But, alas, all the golfing public ever sees (and comments on) is the finished product.  Too bad I hear criticism from 'experts' who don't have the foggyist idea of WHY it HAD to be designed and built a certain way.  I'm sure that bridge and walkway might of had a major impact in the routing of the course as the safety of the pedestrians would need to be taken into account.  Had there been no bridge, you might have ended up with something completely different -whether better or worse - no one will ever know.
I also have to wonder if the course would have been public, if they still would have had the bridge jammed down their throats under the premise "it's not truely public access because you have to pay to use the course" and at what the greens fee would have had to be to be economical, "and at that price, only rich-eleatists can afford access, not the poor common man".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you think Voytek wrote that letter ?   

Nope.

I love what Bayonne did with the walkway.

But I did overhear some Bayonne residents being quite upset that the golf balls hit into the aqua-range might harm the waterfowl.

I'd be  more worried about the Staten Island Ferry, Huge freight and tanker ships and other pollutants than a small cordoned off aqua range.

When you think about it, it's quite amazing, Eric Bergstol does something fabulous for the land and Bayonne, using ONLY his money, and some idiots complain about ridiculous aspects of the project.

Would they prefer it the old way ?

Did they donate money to improve the area before Bergstol became involved ?[/color]

They seemed really PO-d and I would not be surprised if that took such a cowardly action as to write an anonymous letter.

People tend to redirect their angst to more prominent targets, so I wouldn't doubt it.  However, that range was approved by the DEP and other agencies, so I don't think there's much to be concerned about.

Perhaps the next complaint will be that the golf course and clubhouse block the wind.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()