Letter to the editor 2, March 9, 2017

Dear Editor,

I am vehemently opposed to the Sandy Beach project. That beach is a major contributor to the fine quality of life in Hudson. The peacefulness and natural beauty of that land creates a sanctuary that soothes one’s soul.

Mayor Prévost has been quoted numerous times about the potential tax revenue from the proposed project and that appears to be the driving force behind his apparent support of the new development. I believe that is extremely short-sighted in terms of what we as a town would lose, an area rich in history and nature that could never be replaced.

From a practical view point there are many issues which I don’t think have been answered adequately.

  • Water: Hudson already has a water shortage. Water bans are imposed from late spring to late fall. Mayor Prévost believes there is time to “resolve the problem before the project is finished.”

  • Sewage: Prévost has said that the sewer system has been upgraded but is it sufficient to add this many more homes? When the road was built were sewer pipes incorporated?

  • Traffic: The development as presented would tremendously increase traffic in town especially as there is only one road in and out.

  • Beach Parking: already inadequate and no plan is in place for the future.

  • Beach: Where is the depth of the proposed beach, 66 feet, measured from? Season to season the actual depth of the beach varies greatly depending on the water level.

  • Beach path: The existing beautiful path we enjoy would fall into the developed area. How can a path be made closer to the water where the beach is rocky and marshy?

  • Flood area: The planned flood area is less than the natural flood area causing potential problems for any waterfront properties down river.

  • Environmental study: The environmental study was done by a company hired by the developer and not published. Should not an independent study done and be published?

  • Wetlands: There is a lot of information documenting how damaging the loss of wetlands are to the environment, increased flooding, loss of wildlife habitat and decline in water quality.

  • Tree Coverage: No natural forest is totally dense so all buildings will be visible from both sides. On the road side it would be impossible to complete the amount of construction planned without disturbing trees and brush.

  • The forested area that would belong to new residents on their properties: Is it reasonable to think that nobody would touch this natural land and not landscape?

  • High density imbalance in town: Can you imagine a 20% increase of the town population in this one condensed area?

  • No clear vision of price points or demographics: The developer does not know yet whether the multifamily complex is for rental or ownership, seniors or families. There is no plan except to say it will be driven by the market.

Let’s all work together create a vision for this town and this valuable piece of nature. We have so much creativity and talent living here. Today we understand the importance of sustainable development which keeps in mind the long term effects and benefits of any plan. What was acceptable in 2001 is remarkably different today, 16 years later.

Once started there is no turning back. Surely you do not want your legacy to be the one that was responsible for the destruction of this parkland?

Pamela Campbell


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Instagram Social Icon
Current Issue


  • Facebook App Icon
  • Twitter App Icon
  • 2016_instagram_logo

             © 2020 The Journal.