May 26, 2006
Recent newspaper articles about the idea of gorge parkway removal, the proposed Niagara Greenway, and related topics may distract readers from central issues: 1) parkway removal, as proposed by the Niagara Heritage Partnership, has the potential to provide economic and environmental benefits to the region, 2) this NHP proposal is highly compatible with the concept of greenways as described in the American Greenway’s Program book Greenways A Guide to Planning, Design and Development, published by the Conservation Fund, Island Press, Washington, DC. 3) Niagara Greenway planning moves forward without formulating a meaningful definition of “greenway,” either geographically or verbally, 4) without a definition, special interests are lining up with both hands out for millions of greenway dollars, their requests justified with the flimsiest of rationales, 5) What appears to be blatant conflicts of interest and divergent agendas seriously threaten the integrity of the greenway the region so desperately needs, 6) The Niagara Greenway Commission, the entity which will facilitate the distribution of NYPA money to various and sundry to satisfy regional “environmental” reparation concerns, seems to lack the attitudes and perspectives necessary to shape policies appropriate to genuine greenway development.

The Commission, for example, ignored by and ignoring public and private developments up and down the river corridor either in progress or planning stages, remains silent about the Niagara Falls School District’s bid to retrofit historic buildings at Deveaux State Park for their administration offices. This location is nestled on the eastern edge of the Old Growth Forest, just a short distance from the gorge edge, within the greenway corridor by any imaginable definition. Locating school administrative offices there would be extremely inappropriate, contributing nothing to tourism, environmental reparations, interpretation or education about what our region has to offer. The Niagara Greenway Commission is chaired by Commissioner Castro (usually in absentia) of the Office of State Parks, Preservation and Historic Preservation, the agency to which the final greenway plan will be submitted for approval. Why has State Parks considered this ad offices idea for more than three seconds?

Further, Wendel Duscherer, consultants selected and hired by the Greenway Commission to formulate “ a lake-to-lake series of parks along the river corridor,” the Niagara Greenway, has made the outrageous announcement that they will not be considering any proposal regarding the gorge parkway from Niagara Falls to Lewiston. Is this a decision they made all on their own? In any event, it is unacceptable to NHP and any notion of common sense. This six mile stretch of river gorge is undeniably the most significant six miles of the river’s length and the most suitable for showcasing what a greenway is all about, what should be the premiere eco-tourist destination for our region. Not to create a plan that incorporates parkway removal and the restoration of natural landscapes is to create a plan by default, that of parkway retention.

It’s our belief that the consultant group should be charged with creating the very best, the ideal greenway for Niagara, without restriction. They should be creating nothing less than a dream for us. We can undoubtably cripple the dream afterward with our petty squabbling and stubborn, shallow, self-interests. But we should be willing to have the dream rolled out before us on paper so we know what it is we’re rejecting. Not to do so would be similar to hiring top automotive engineers to design the most distinctive, exciting personal vehicle imaginable and then placing so many restrictions on their creative potential that the final product turns out to be a Yugo.

How did we get in this situation? The general overview includes the mutually beneficial relationship between NYPA, OSPRHP and other state agencies, aided and abetted by the special interests of local politicians. This dynamic has resulted in OSPRHP, a previous stakeholder in relicensing negotiations being elevated to the position of Niagara Greenway overseer, the final plan for which requires their approval. They are, in effect, NYPA’s proxy, and this function involves a serious conflict of interest. (OSPRHP, in fact, made unilateral decisions about the gorge parkway “pilot” program while negotiations were in progress and the parkway was an issue.) This relationship has also resulted in the arbitrary completion date set for submission of the greenway plan, less than a year away. This permits Wendel Duscherer to imply they “don’t have enough time” to tackle such a demanding project. But, of course, it’s not demanding and there’s ample time for this. A graduate student with knowledge of highway exit and entrance design could do it in two days, maybe less, without giving up coffee breaks.

Another result is the Commissioners, some of whom may be ill-prepared to make decisions about environmental matters, who put personal agendas ahead of the larger plan. We’ve noted previously the absence of African-Americans and Native Americans among the commissioners. The absence of minority representation indicates that those who selected the present Commissioners have no interest whatsoever in even the appearance of elemental fairness. This is further reflected by at least one Commissioner, Mayor Soluri of Lewiston, who demonstrates his disregard of environmental considerations central to a greenway, and a willingness to advance his own agenda regardless of conflicts with his responsibilities as a Commissioner. Accordingly, we have respectfully asked Soluri to resign, but he has declined our invitation to do so. It’s an open invitation.

Soluri, because the Village of Lewiston borders the river, has been appointed as acting vice-chair, a prominent Greenway Commissioner. In spite of this, he has publicly and at length stated his opposition to the proposal for gorge parkway removal, summing up stating, “We need the damn parkway.” The Niagara Gazette was so impressed by this remark that it was selected as “Quote of The Week.” Did this same petulance surface when he established the “damn” dump in the “damn” wildlife refuge on the Lewiston Plateau? Soluri says he was disappointed about all the criticism he took from “the environmental group,” calling it “attacks” at one point, but also saying he doesn’t believe in “holding a grudge.” That’s great spin. He committed the offenses, but won’t hold a grudge over being called on them. There’s a coalition of four environmental groups, united in their criticism, none of which reached “attack” level. Soluri’s behavior more than earned the criticism he got. If anything, he hasn’t been criticized enough.

Has Soluri used his influence as Commissioner to discourage Wendel Duscherer, from incorporating four-lane gorge parkway removal into their final plan? Would exerting such influence be a conflict of interest? Soluri made it clear in a Niagara Gazette interview that the Lower River Region Chamber of Commerce had, in part, been formed to oppose gorge parkway removal. He’s an ex-officio board member. Further, Lewiston residents and Chamber members, Rick and Kristen (L. Gamble) Haight of Advanced Design Group, have been “selected” to participate in the Greenway Commission’s Engineering Team. Who selected them?

Since they’re part of the Wendell Duscherer planning group, were their affiliations known when Wendell Duscherer was chosen? Is this yet another conflict of interest? How can the Niagara Heritage Partnership get “selected” to be consultants to the planning group? Why couldn’t the Haights have made their contributions to greenway planning via the Citizens’ Advisory Committee like the rest of us? Are they being paid for their participation or is having a seat at the planning table enough?

In any case, the Niagara Heritage Partnership has made eight recommendations to the Greenway Commission related to gorge parkway removal, most of which require design engineering, so Advanced Design Group will have ample opportunity to keep busy. We fully expect four-lane gorge parkway removal to be a feature of the final greenway plan and suggest that it would be appropriate for Advanced Design Group to work on this to demonstrate their bias-free participation.

Niagara Greenway planning seems poised to continue on its present trajectory, in spite of an arbitrary completion date that has been established too soon to allow a thoughtful and thorough job of planning, in spite of its ignoring the most sizeable coalition of stakeholders to unite for single purpose since the Free Niagara Movement of the eighteen hundreds. If this is the case, then it will be testimony to the monumental failure of the NYPA relicensing process as it relates to environmental reparation. The proposal for studying gorge parkway removal and the restoration of natural landscapes had been repeatedly postponed during relicensing talks and finally referred to the Greenway Commission, whose planning consultant, as previously mentioned, has recently announced it won’t be considered.

The Greenway Commission appears unconcerned about this fundamental corruption of the process, but is generally supportive and cheerful about sponsoring a “logo contest,” with a $500.00 first place award for the design best depicting the Niagara Greenway. If the intentions of the commission remain unchanged, we have a suggestion for the logo design: a Yugo, painted a brilliant chartreuse.

Bob Baxter, Conservation Chair
Niagara Heritage Partnership