Comment EI-17678
Received or sent (printed as 5/7/2009)
I believe that the Environmental Analysis presented is flawed in that it fails to examine the transfer of ownership of the Sixth Street Embankment and assumes that the actions of local agencies will be sufficient to address historic preservation and environmental issues. The EA has chosen to pick up the ball as if SLH is the rightful owner and that Conrail has appropriately sold its interests in the property. I believe that Conrail sold this property to SLH without maintaining a exclusive rail easement and that SLH did not purchase the property as the new carrier. It is my understanding that a property may not be transferred in this way and that abandonment authority must be obtained first from the STB. Proper abandonment procedure allows the public to be protected via environmental and historic preservation review. Failing to address the ownership issue first renders 106 review meaningless and deprives the public of its rights provided by the law. The proverbial horse is already out of the barn. In addition, I believe that an important historic landmark and pivotal transportation corridor is at stake. The Sixth Street Embankment landmark borders on the Hamilton Park and Harsimus Cove Historic Districts. It is a monumental structure that is integral to the fabric of these neighborhoods and warrants a full EIS.
Submitted by: Stephen Gucciardo · Jersy City, New Jersey
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/AB-167/sub/1189X/comment/EI-17678 · back to the docket sheet