Grains of Salt (v53): Community Gridlock (Pt. 3)

Part 1 of this Grains of Salt series provided some history on the I-81 project and discussed Justice Gerard Neri's decision to prevent work on the viaduct but allow work on turning I-481 into I-81. 

Part 2  looked at the Micron project implications, even though that project didn't exist until long after planning for the viaduct removal had been done.

Today, some final thoughts.

Economic development considerations.

• What if the Destiny USA developers suddenly make a few billion on crypto and decide to build the whole Erie Canal/golf course/theme park thing? Would Neri or another judge require a new "anticipated population and traffic growth" study? 

• What about the new $85M aquarium project, and its promised half a million visitors? Should we postpone replacing the viaduct until we get a separate traffic study for that? 

• And if a currently unforeseen major project when the Micron projections are underway, would that trigger a complete stop and restart? Or, can the new project be a supplement to the supplemental EIS? And who owns that decision?

Legal questions. 

• What, if anything, will prevent some other aggrieved party from filing the next delaying lawsuit? 

• Are we soon going to see ads for this project based on the "abused by a priest?" or "did you drink the water at Camp Lejeune?" approach? I can see them now: 

Do you like speeding through the city of Syracuse on the I-81 viaduct?  Are you against having to get up earlier to get to work? Hate having to drive through Dewitt? Are you a fan of a giant viaduct soaring high above the city's streets?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you might be an Aggrieved Party eligible to file a lawsuit to prevent the I-81 viaduct removal project from going forward! Call now!

It won't cost you a thing if we don't win!

• Let's say someone, with the benefit of 15 years of study and tens of thousands of public comments, determines that a tunnel would now be scientifically and economically feasible. Is that a valid reason for a new lawsuit and review?

• After review of the supplemental EIS, let's say Neri or someone else decides we need the Harriet Tubman skybridge viaduct. Will there then be a whole series of discussions on the best design for the skybridge? And if someone doesn't like the answer, can they sue to have the decision reconsidered?

• Who gets to decide who it gets named after? I mean, sure, Harriet Tubman is an icon, but what about Donald 'Nobody in the History of this Country Has Ever Known More about Infrastructure Than Me' Trump? He's an icon, too - can I sue to have it named after him, or maybe after Barack Obama? What's more iconic than being the first - and likely only - Black president in our country's history?

Helpful studies.

• Can we demand northern business corridor merchants commission a study to determine what would happen if they spent money advertising their businesses, instead of relying on free newspaper coverage and endless lawsuits? Where is the comprehensive marketing study on how exit ramp signage, billboards, TV/radio, print, and online ads could be used to help drive customers to these businesses, whether they use the grid and the original I-81 footprint north of the grid, new I-81, or a combo of I-81, I-690, and BR-81? 

• Can we demand those businesses provide detailed sales and occupancy data, including where the customers came from and the route they traveled, and have that independently audited? Let's be sure to look at pre- and post-pandemic data so we know whether they're really going to be impacted by the community grid. This should be required ahead of the NYSDOT doing a supplemental EIS.

• Similarly, can we demand comprehensive impact data from the eastern and southwestern suburbs?  Not just barstool stuff and fear-mongering, but actual data on the specific impacts? This, too, should be required ahead of any NYSDOT supplemental EIS.

If you're asking why anyone should be able to force private companies and suburban communities to provide this kind of data, here's a better question: why can private companies and suburban communities repeatedly force the state to spend our tax dollars jumping through their endless hoops? 

At what point does this end?

From what we've seen, it ends when there's a decision to stop the community grid, unnecessarily tear down dozens of buildings, and erect a massive viaduct that towers over the city. 

It ends when proposed development and investment in Syracuse - technology, housing, business, education, health, and more - are ground to a halt.

It ends only with a decision that defies the wishes of most residents who'd have to live with the monstrosity and those in the greater Syracuse area who cared enough to comment before the community grid decision was made.

It ends when the naysayers win.

One last thing about winning.

In 2018, Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh gave his first State of the City address. Here's part of what he said about how we could all win with the I-81 project.

Instead of pitting our communities against each other, what if we stood together, unified, with a plan that creates wins for all of our communities? I believe the decision before us can and should be a source of deeper collaboration and a way to reconnect the economic interests of our City and our suburbs. 

Wouldn't it be great if that had actually happened?