| |
||
| |
|
|
| |
||
 |
 |
|||
| • In Our Papers • About Us • Links • Advertising • |  |
|||
Greenway meeting offers insight into process by Joshua Maloni
At Monday’s Greenway Commission Project Team meeting at Niagara University, a PowerPoint screen read in big, bold green letters: “We’re here to listen.” Indeed, Mark Mistretta of Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers – the group tasked with preparing the final plan – said, “This is more important than any hockey game,” referring to the televised Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. “We’ve got a chance for a world-class facility here. Your input is critical.” To that end, Mistretta and his team separated the crowd of 40-plus into four units, and conducted break-out sessions wherein each group spent 20 minutes discussing four Greenway-related topics: making connections, telling the story, preserving unique resources and sustainable development and tourism. As of now, there is no Greenway definition. “Every community defines a Greenway differently,” Mistretta said. “Our job is to form our own definition.” Those in attendance also had the opportunity to discuss the oft-debated establishment of the Greenway boundary. The audience was divided based on a colored handout. Blue, yellow, pink and green printouts featured four possible Greenway Plan boundary maps. The concepts included a “Narrow Boundary,” which would establish the Greenway based on distance; a “Municipal Boundary,” that defines the Greenway based on a certain outline of towns and villages; a “River and Major Related Resources Boundary,” which sets the Greenway according to land forms, rivers and vegetation; and the “Tiered Boundary,” wherein set priorities and criteria map the Greenway. Before the group meetings, Mistretta laid down two ground rules. First, it’s too early to definitively define a boundary. The screen read “important to resolve, but too early in the process” in regards to a definition, and Mistretta said, “We don’t want to get so sidetracked on the boundary that we don’t focus on other important issues and ideas.” Rather, he said Monday’s suggestions would be paired with others received through July. If all goes accordingly, then, a definition could be established in August. Second, Mistretta said individualized, large-scale projects – such as the Robert Moses Parkway, the Peace Bridge, the Erie Canal Corridor and Buffalo harbors – would not be included in the final Greenway plan. “By law, we can’t cover them under our GEIS,” Mistretta said of his team’s completion of a generic environmental impact statement. He said those topics are too significant environmentally, too controversial/time consuming (the Greenway Plan is due in March 2007), and extend beyond its purview by impacting widespread infrastructure and transportation routes. Mistretta specifically addressed the Robert Moses Parkway to the audience comprised mainly of residents and interest groups from Northern Niagara County. “If the Robert Moses Parkway is there or not … what else is going on in that corridor?” he said. “Let’s not spend time beating that drum right now.” He added that, despite the cavernous chasm between those who want the RMP to remain and those that want it removed, “For this to become a world-class Greenway, we all have to learn to play well.” “We all have to think partnership,” he said. The four groups met for around an hour, and offered a myriad of suggestions. Some want the Greenway to link tributaries, create bike paths, forge trails and maximize seasons. Others hope to see it tied in with tourist attractions like a fast ferry or botanical garden. Most advocated for making the most of nature; preserving and enhancing parks and the escarpment. Also, a number of people said Artpark should be provided the means to operate beyond the summer, as it has become a vastly popular destination over the past three years. More public meetings will be held in the coming weeks. More information and meeting text is available online at www.niagaragreenway.org.
|
|
|
