|
|
|
|
Click to visit the
Official Town Site
|
|
|
|
|
|
General News: Monument to Con Ed Battle Approved
|
| This half of the boulder is intended for the new monument. |
|
| It was placed, at least for the time being, next to the monument to Mayor Donahue. |
April 22, 2009
By Ann Taylor Cerone
The village board voted Monday night to continue forging ahead with a boulder memorial that would commemorate the 1960’s effort by Cornwall residents to stop Con Edison from building a hydro-electric power plant on Storm King Mountain.
The decision, voted unanimously by board members Richard Gioia, Barbara Gosda and Mayor Joseph Gross, was made despite strong opposition voiced by several members of the community, including Pat Donahue, the daughter of the late Michael Donahue who, as mayor, was a staunch supporter of the Con Edison plans that he believed would bring long lasting prosperity to the village.
Board members Mark Edsall and Doug Vatter were not present at the meeting.
“I don’t disapprove of the rock,” said Pat Donahue, after the vote was taken. “I just don’t think it belongs in [Donahue Memorial Park.]”
Half of a boulder, memorializing Mayor Donahue and all his accomplishments as mayor, already exists in the park that bears his name. Mayor Gross now proposes that the other half of the same boulder be used to memorialize those who kept Con Edison’s plans at bay. The boulder has already been moved into place next to Donahue’s; the mayor will now work on what words will appear on it.
Meanwhile, the Donahue sisters – Pat and her older sister, Mary – have been penting up strong feelings against the mayor’s idea.
“I’m not a great writer, so I was hesitant to draft a petition that would speak out against this, but you can bet I’m going to get one out there now,” Donahue said.
A chasm has always existed between those in favor of the hydro-electric power plant and those vehemently against it. While the power company pledged to build a state-of-the-art water filter plant and help the village water department tap into the New York City aqueduct, a group of local residents, led by Stephen and Beatrice Duggan, sued to protect the natural beauty of Storm King and when they won, set a legal precedent that many believe was the beginning of the modern-day environmental movement.
“We’re historic,” said resident Emily Thomason. “We were the beginning of a whole new wave of environmental awareness and I’m really glad it’s being commemorated.”
Mayor Gross agrees that the battle was the most significant event in Cornwall-on-Hudson in the past 100 years; that’s why he feels it important that the memorial be part of the June 7th Hudson-Fulton celebration at the riverfront.
Donahue has not argued the intent of Gross’s memorial, but feels the placement of it – next to her father’s – is a slap in the face to the Donahue family.
“It needs to be where the plant would have been,” she said.
But board members Gioia and Gosda agreed at Monday’s meeting that to bring the two sides of the boulder together would metaphorically bring together the issue that has for so long divided the community.
Gioia mentioned that at Gettysburg, the site of a major Civil War battle, memorials commemorating the North and the South face each other in a similar fashion as Gross is proposing.
“Maybe we’re approaching this in the wrong way,” said Gioia. “This is not about winning and loosing … this is about history. This was a major event in our village that in turn shaped our entire nation.”
“To have the two rocks now coming back together – I think it’s so symbolic,” agreed Gosda.
But Donahue doesn’t see the correlation. “It doesn’t go together,” she said. “There’s no connection. Sorry.”
Comments:
|
We have Storm King Mountain as a monument. Why divide the village all over again?
posted by louise carnright on 04/22/09 at 12:46 PM
|
|
ditto louise
posted by Walter Dorritie on 04/22/09 at 1:49 PM
|
|
I have no opinion on the issues here, but this seems like a total waste of money to me.
posted by Gary Regan on 04/22/09 at 2:46 PM
|
|
How Much does this cost?
D Martignetti
posted by D P on 04/22/09 at 3:26 PM
|
|
but that's MY spot!
But aside from that (major) reason, I think a better spot for the half boulder would be at the triangle park at the top of Dock Hill road,as has been suggested, with a marker explaining what it is, and where an interested visitor can find it's other half. THAT is more interesting than looking at two halves of a rock next to each other. It's not as if it is a magic crystal that when re-joined will create peace and harmony the world over...(oh, if only...) Besides once you start putting commemorative this and that all over the place there won't be any place to picnic or run around.
Kate(using my real name)Benson
P.S. keep an eye out for your opportunity to donate to the Kate Benson get a life fund
posted by Kate Benson on 04/22/09 at 10:31 PM
|
|
Seems to me that this boulder issue is not bringing "peace together" in the village. The issue was very controversial to those of us who lived here at the time and seems like feelings still run high today. Not worth it even if there is no "cost"......to me a greater cost is controversy.
posted by louise carnright on 04/23/09 at 6:06 AM
|
|
I disagree that there is no cost associated with the 'rock'. Although I understand that the equipment and time to move it was donated by Nannini & Callahan, I doubt (please correct me if appropriate) that the village employees were 'off-the-clock'. I would also suggest that had the Mayor not been busy supervising this project, he may have been doing something else; an opportunity cost. Finally, the ill will and bad feelings created between fellow village residents because of a lack of consensus is incalcuable, but a very real and unnecessary cost.
Joe McDonald
posted by Joe McDonald on 04/23/09 at 2:48 PM
|
|
I agree that if it is such a divisive issue it is not worth the 'free'. There are enough strong feelings against it to warrant another look.
And, Bill, thank you, you warm the cockles of my heart.
posted by Kate Benson on 04/23/09 at 9:17 PM
|
|
Well - the some may be happy that the "rock can come together" - but the symbolism is lost of the people can't come together. Personally - I can see both sides on this one and since I didn't and don't have any real emotional stake in the argument - well I guess it's sort of a non issue for me. My only concern was the way this came about. Seems to me (and I could be totally wrong) that this was already "decided" long before anyone other than the Mayor, Rick, and the board even knew about it. Granted - I often don't go to planning board meetings because I get home from the city so late. But still - shouldn't there have been SOME announcement of the idea and a period of time for people to learn about it, discuss it and give feedback, etc. prior to just BOOM "there it is and here is what we're doing!"???
Clearly the Donohugh's and many others from the other side of this battle are not ready to stand in a circle with those who fought the ConEd plant and sing Kumbaya! So the symbolism might be more powerful if the rock was located elsewhere as Kate (and the Donohughs) suggested. Still in the same town, but still divided. Sure the other side should have a monument. I like the Dock Hill Road triangle idea.
Ah well - looks to me like they've made up their mind and those who object will be ignored as usual in town politics.
Hey Kate - here another $2 for your fund! I'm feeling particularly generous today.
posted by Chuck Trella on 04/25/09 at 7:32 AM
|
Add a Comment:
Please signup or login to add a comment.
|
 |
|
|
|
