What's Going On With the Peace Bridge?
Plenty.
By Anna Hausmann & Elizabeth Licata
Photos: Jim Bush
 |
There essentially exist three schools of Western New York thought on the Peace Bridge. Many, perhaps the majority, ignore the whole issue—most of the time—paying vague attention when the bridge surfaces in the headlines every now and then. There are some who are generally disgusted with all the wrangling and just want it done—you’ll recognize them by their “Build the Damn Bridge” bumper stickers.Then there those few who still carefully follow new developments, participate in public forums, and seem to have faith that something, eventually, will get done.
Probably only a small percentage of the third group noticed a Peace Bridge-related brouhaha that exploded on the virtual “pages” of Buffalo Report (www.buffaloreport.com), an online publication edited by Bruce Jackson, UB professor, filmmaker, photographer, film series curator, and one of the leading advocates for a bridge-design process that includes public participation and the chance for a beautiful new “signature” structure. He waged a spirited and effective battle against the initial 1998 twinspan project in the pages of Artvoice, and continues to be a source of regular observations on the subject.
A Peace Bridge vigil
Ever since Judge Eugene Fahey ruled in 2000 that the Public Bridge Authority must follow a by-the-book environmental impact study before deciding on a bridge location and design—thus halting a companion span plan that had been agreed upon without public participation—Jackson has been sporadically reporting on the public design workshops and forums and the twice-monthly meetings of the Bi-National Peace Bridge Task Force. Buffalo Report provides public access—perhaps the only easy access—to detailed summaries, even meeting transcripts, of the stately progress of the Peace Bridge design review. It includes all of Jackson’s articles on the bridge (written for Artvoice, Buffalo News, Intersight, and Blue Dog as well as everything he’s written for Buffalo Report). All of this—up until April, 2003, that is—is now collected in a book entitled The Peace Bridge Chronicles, available through Talking Leaves and on the Buffalo Report website.
An eminent domain blow-up
The news from the bridge wars during the last year or so has seemed relatively benign—at least compared to the barrage of advocacy necessary to stop the original twin span project. Then, in June, 2003, there appeared this Buffalo Report headline:
“Sam Hoyt declares war on the Peace Bridge”
What? Not our Sam, thought many of us, used to State Assemblyman Hoyt’s progressive stance on most Western New York issues of import. Over the next few weeks, a volley of Buffalo Report articles were to follow (as well as Buffalo News articles, though less dramatically headlined). What started it all was Hoyt’s opposition to a New York State bill calling for power of eminent domain for the Public Bridge Authority. These powers would be used to take over properties on the West Side in the event they were needed for the bridge expansion. Although Hoyt is not opposed to eminent domain eventually being granted, his contention is that the PBA does not need this power at this time, and that the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Buffalo and the Public Bridge Authority (upon which the legislation would be based) does not sufficiently protect West Side citizens.
Writing on his website, Jackson charges that Hoyt’s concerns over the granting of powers of eminent domain are unfounded and a case of much ado about nothing. Jackson cites numerous documents from the city and from the Memorandum of Understanding between the Peace Bridge Task Force and the PBA which lay out “specific conditions under which eminent domain power could be utilized by the PBA and the limitations on it.” In effect, Jackson argues that the conditions Hoyt is seeking are already in place by virtue of that MOA and the requirements of the environmental impact statement procedure, as well as in the proposed legislation by Assemblyman Robin Schimminger. This legislation was rejected in June by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, because of the clear disagreements between Schimminger and Hoyt—Silver in effect told the Western New York delegation to settle its arguments before bringing in eminent domain legislation again (as reported by Tom Precious, Buffalo News, 6/21/03).
Jackson claims that Hoyt was involved in the crafting of eminent domain legislation since at least February of 2003. But the issue of contention seems to be one of interpretation, as Jackson cites a letter from Hoyt questioning the wording of the legislation. Jackson quotes PBA Chair John Lopinski and vice-chair Paul Koessler as requesting that “eminent domain power (will) come into effect at the end of our Environmental Impact Study Process only when, as and if the preferred project alternative has been ratified by the City of Buffalo, or other political subdivision if the Project were outside the city, and is subsequently identified in the Record of Decision.” In other words, the PBA was requesting legislation to take properties after the environmental review and after the project is ratified by the City.
Stating that the “MOA is weaker than the law,” Hoyt feels the ambiguities within the Memorandum—no clear geographic boundaries, no specific guarantee of adequate compensation, no ending date for the powers—do not protect West Side home owners and renters, many of whom are in low-income brackets. After holding public meetings and releasing statements to clarify his position on eminent domain, Hoyt is now working on a bill —which he hopes to present at the end of the current session or in January—that—among other elements—would contain a sunset clause and language about compensation not just for the financial losses of the residents but also for the loss to the City of Buffalo when property leaves the tax rolls.
An argument about eminent domain is not a tempest in a teapot. People’s homes and livelihoods are at stake. But both Hoyt and Jackson now seem confident that a bill will be passed soon that will satisfy all parties.
Charges of politics as usual
Looking back at the imbroglio, Jackson says “I thought it (Hoyt’s opposition) was a grandstand play. So far as I could tell, Sam had plenty of time to look at the resolution before he did all that carrying on about it.” Jackson makes the point that Hoyt’s opposition seems out of proportion and inappropriate for the current relationship of the city and the PBA. “Three years ago, the city and the PBA were antagonists in this project; they’re partners now. They don’t always agree, but when I go to the Peace Bridge Task Force meetings twice each month I don’t hear any significant disagreement. Things are, I think, back on track now, but they needn’t have left it.”
Jackson also points out that Hoyt has not attended the monthly meetings of the Common Council’s Bi-National Peace Bridge Task Force, which worked on the MOA that addresses the issue of eminent domain.
Hoyt states in response, “Ask anybody who’s been involved—no other elected official has spent as much time on this as I and my staff have.”
While Hoyt characterizes his zeal as “standing up for the people I represent,” Jackson goes on to deconstruct that zeal as the start of a thinly veiled campaign for mayor.
Hoyt’s answer to that charge is simple: “This is not about me running for mayor. If it were about that, I would be saying ‘build the damn bridge.’”
Deconstructive journalism
One interesting element to this imbroglio is that it has played out publicly in the pages of Jackson’s website with the descriptions of events alongside full texts of letters between the principals, transcripts of testimony at public hearings, and the full text of the eminent domain legislation that was proposed. Woven through all these supporting documents is Jackson’s own analysis and commentary, interpreting and comparing comments and texts in a way that facilitates comprehension of this complex issue—but, it must also be said, tends to advance a particular interpretation.
Which brings up the question of the difference between analyzing academic discourse and political speech. On this question, Jackson makes no apologies: “I do think it’s appropriate to subject the utterances of public officials to the kind of scrutiny we’re used to as academics. Look, I’m an English professor. There’s no reason not to look at political discourse and take it seriously—if anything, I think what I’m doing is treating it with respect.” Jackson asserts that it is important to apply this brand of critical analysis to public debates. “I’m trained to look at the subtleties of what (public officials) say and to compare texts; that’s the particular skill that academics bring to the discussion. I think it raises the bar for what we expect from our public discourse.”
The plaza and shared border management
An area of Peace Bridge discourse where all parties (at least American parties) seem to agree is the need to reduce the amount of border business that takes place on the American side.
While some interpret shared border management as simply moving the tollbooths to the Canadian side, recent proposals call for moving truck inspections there as well, which would remove idling trucks, a major threat to West Side air quality, from the plaza.
Hoyt states, “I sent a letter with my colleagues calling on [Homeland Security Chief Tom] Ridge to expedite the implementation of shared border management. It would reduce the size of the plaza, reduce the need for eminent domain, reduce the asthma concerns, and give us back Front Park.” While noting that the movement of toll booths is in the pipeline, Hoyt emphasizes that “we’re shooting for more.”
The twinspan that refuses to die
On Paul Koessler’s comment to Christina Abt (see sidebar to this article) that “I believe the expansion will be a companion bridge to the Peace Bridge,” Jackson has two comments. First, he notes that “it’s clear that the PBA has always wanted a companion bridge and the Canadians have always wanted a companion bridge. But they’d promised that the process would be open, so for Paul Koessler to say that is scary and depressing.”
Jackson goes on, though, to distinguish Koessler’s personal preference from PBA policy: “He’s entitled to his personal opinion.”
One point Jackson stresses is the significance of the Common Council’s Peace Bridge Task Force. “This group has been meeting twice a month since it was formed, and it has been the place where everyone can come in and talk.” But Jackson notes that James Pitts and Dominic Bonifacio have been the only Common Council members who attend the meetings or have taken any interest in the process and with Pitts leaving the Council next month when his position is eliminated, “it’s not clear what will happen to this group.” Jackson is reluctant to sound “jingoistic,” but he stresses that the Canadians have absolutely no interest in our environmental or design concerns.
Will we get a new bridge? Should we?
Jackson says, “Sure, it will be built. Not this year, not next year, but nobody ever said it would be.” Like Hoyt, he feels that shared border management must include moving truck inspections to the Canadian side. “It’s the most important thing to do.”
Hoyt has always felt that “If we’re going to spend $200 million [on a new bridge] why not make a statement, why not do something spectacular.” But, he adds, “It’s not the panacea. Some would say the trucks just go through and we do not really receive substantial benefit. Others would argue that we could be a distribution center, a manufacturing center, based on the access a new bridge would provide.”
And then there are those who would just like to drive across it some day.
Anna Hausmann is Associate Editor and Elizabeth Licata is Editor of Buffalo Spree. Want to keep up with the Peace Bridge issue and learn its history? Visit buffaloreport.com and www.peacebridgex.com (another site with full text reports and studies).
Back to the Table of Contents
Back to Top