Comment by Steve Knowles on January 5, 2011 at 5:19pm

I'm with you Jonathan!  Will we ever get back to people being responsible for their own actions? (the attorneys have really ruined things, across the board!)  At what point are people who knowingly do something that is considered a risk to their life or health prevented from trying to sue someone else for their own action?  If a sign says no swimming, and someone swims, and drowns, can their heirs really sue because the person wasn't fenced out of the area?  (I guess that actually is the case, since I believe natural swimming holes have to be fenced in to prevent people from swimming there, and then suing if they drown; it really is madness!)(what if they use a helicopter to get over the fence, can they still sue?; see what happens when common sense is taken out of the law)

 

I don't know the biology of the water chestnuts.  Perhaps if they are killed at the root, they don't take over an area so easily?  Perhaps a biologist can provide a quick overview of those nasty things (when I moved to Beacon, I thought some kind of alien plants were growing in the Hudson; those wicked seed pods look like something from outer space!)

 

I can work up a reasonable cost of constructing an artificial beach (but in NY, there is the reasonable cost, and there is the cost that contractors and politicians agree on that exceed the reasonable cost by 10x!(walkway over the Hudson is a prime example)  There is almost free sand available from NY Harbor dredging project, but it won't be available too much longer (the cost would be to transport it up the Hudson; each scow holds about 5,000 cubic yards of sand)

Comment by Philomena on January 5, 2011 at 5:26pm

water chestnuts are incredibly invasive and notoriously difficult to control once established. The little bay area between Dennings Point and the railroad tracks is usually a solid mat by mid-summer. Here's some info on them :

http://www.waterchestnut.org/Assets/PDF/wcfactsheet.pdf

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 6, 2011 at 11:41am

Thank you for the water chestnut link!  Perhaps slight burial kills the seeds, and constructing a beach would eliminate that problem from part of the nearshore area.  I remember the Long Dock project, at least back when it was first discussed, included small boat launching as part of the plan, and I thought the project map included the shoreline south of the Long Dock peninsula as where the small boat launching would occur, so the water chestnut problem would seemingly have been considered.  Perhaps a small swatch could be cleared for boat launching, and a beach would still be a beach (and the water chestnuts would prevent swimming)

Comment by Philomena on January 6, 2011 at 12:17pm

Yes, water chestnuts are nasty, nasty things - Wappingers has tried (not sure if they still do) the mechanical methods for cutting the plants in one of the ponds in the area used for fishing and boating - it was expensive and not sure if it was effective long term.

 

btw, this pic shows the long-term plans for Long Dock :

http://www.longdockbeacon.com/sitemap.php

Looks like the section "9" is supposed to be for day boat launches, and "3" is also for water access.

 

Also - pretty sure this one shows that the land you are talking about is part of the project :

http://www.longdockbeacon.com/vicinity.php

Comment by Steve Knowles on January 6, 2011 at 1:26pm

One of the photos on the Long Dock site shows that the "Red Barn" building used to be used for the manufacture of "Hammond's Slug Shot", a rotenone-based insecticide/piscicide (fish killer)(and somewhat ironically, this area of Beacon was apparently once called "Fishkill on Hudson").  Rotenone is now approved for organic pest control, since it is naturally produced by plants (natives in some countries use it to harvest fish)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page