 |
|
Taking
it to the bridge: Arbor Hill residents protest the opening
of the Hudson River Way. Photo
by Joe Putrock
|
A
Tale of Two Bridges
While
Albany celebrates the opening of the footbridge to the Corning
Preserve, activists charge that the city has neglected a run-down,
unsafe pedestrian bridge in Arbor Hill
‘Mr.
Mayor, why are you spending $90,000 on this celebration when
our bridge is falling apart?”
That was one of the questions posed on placards carried by
two-dozen demonstrators protesting the ribbon-cutting ceremony
Saturday morning for the Hudson River Way, a newly opened
pedestrian bridge connecting downtown Albany with the Corning
Preserve.
The bridge has been touted by Mayor Jerry Jennings as Albany’s
landmark attraction, but some city residents say the money
($9 million for the entire project and $90,000 for Saturday’s
celebration) could have been better spent.
“Mr.
Jennings can raise millions of dollars for this pedestrian
bridge so people can go from the beer improvement district
and walk across 787 and puke in the Hudson River,” said Rodney
Davis, Arbor Hill Environmental Justice Corporation executive
director and demonstration participant. “Meanwhile, you have
the other bridge that’s crumbling and falling apart, and children
have to use that bridge to get to school and residents have
to use that bridge, with no lighting, and holes in the walking
surface.”
The other bridge Davis speaks of is the pedestrian footbridge
that crosses Manning Boulevard in Arbor Hill, connecting residential
neighborhoods through Colonie Street Park to Arbor Hill Elementary
School. As pedestrian bridges go, the Manning Boulevard footbridge
stands in stark contrast to the newly constructed Hudson River
Way.
Above Manning Boulevard, tree limbs reach through the footbridge’s
handrails, which are marked by rust and peeling yellow paint.
The uneven, worn concrete walkway full of cracks and holes—in
one spot, wide enough to trap the foot of an average-sized
elementary schoolchild—winds down to the Arbor Hill Elementary
side of the street, where exposed rebar juts from the ground
and from concrete benches. The bridge’s supports are cracked
and crumbling, and the electrical conduit running beneath
the footbridge, connecting the defunct street lights, has
rusted from its brackets and hangs loose.
“Instead
of using the bridge, kids use the hill and cross the road,”
said neighborhood resident Gregory Fields. “And this is a
main thoroughfare. For a whole section of the neighborhood,
legitimately, this is the only way of getting there. But they’ve
had to find other ways.”
When asked about the Manning Boulevard footbridge’s state
of disrepair in contrast to the gleaming new Hudson River
Way, Jennings called the comparison “apples and oranges.”
Jennings also said that maintenance responsibilities for the
Arbor Hill footbridge lay with the Albany City School District—but
the ACSD said otherwise.
“We
believe that the city owns the bridge span on the practice
and history over time that they constructed it and had maintained
it,” said Jeffery Honeywell, attorney for ACSD. “But it’s
not like there is any document out there that says this. This
is one of a number of issues looking for clarification between
city school district and the city.”
The need for clarification goes back to a sloppy piece of
state legislation written 30 years ago. Until the early 1970s,
the management of the city’s schools was an undertaking of
the city itself. At that time, the state Legislature created
the ACSD as a separate governing entity, but failed to make
clear what maintenance responsibilities were whose.
The Manning Boulevard footbridge illustrates the dilemma created
by this ambiguous legislation. The span connects Arbor Hill
Elementary School to Colonie Street Park and the walkway to
the Capital District Field of Dreams. Since children use the
footbridge to walk to and from school, it might seem logical
that the school district would be responsible for the maintenance.
But other neighborhood residents use the footbridge to get
to the park or the Field of Dreams, which seems to push responsibility
more in the city’s direction.
While the footbridge’s ownership, and thus the maintenance
responsibilities, are issues Honeywell thought were “resolved
a long time ago,” the city believes otherwise.
“In
my experience, the school district has been involved in the
repair and maintenance of the bridge, from snow removal to
painting,” said Gary Stiglmeier, corporation counsel for the
mayor’s office. “There has been an issue with respect to this
bridge for some time, I’m not sure it ever was crystal clear
who’s facility it was or remains today.”
Though Stiglmeier said a letter sent by Davis to the mayor’s
office on Aug. 9 represents the first time the city was presented
with information regarding the bridge, Fields said the bridge’s
longtime dilapidated state has never been a secret.
“Bottom
line, this is a well-known problem, not something that came
about eight months ago,” Fields said.
As work continues on the Hudson River Way (several of the
trompe l’oeil murals adorning the footbridge’s 30 lampposts
have yet to be finished), Davis said there is no way of tricking
the eye into believing the Manning Boulevard footbridge is
without need for steady maintenance.
“The
city needs to distribute funding and help the neighborhoods,
instead of building their bridge to nowhere,” said Davis.
“We’re not asking for special treatment down here, just equal
treatment.”
—Travis
Durfee
Over
the Wall
The
one principle of journalism that is supposed to remain inviolate
is the “wall” between news and advertising. Sometimes, a catastrophic
breach will occur on a major daily newspaper. In 1999, for
example, the Los Angeles Times published a special
issue of its Sunday magazine about the Staples Center, where
the NBA’s Lakers and NHL’s Kings play. It was actually a promotion
disguised as journalism. The Times split the $2 million
advertising profit with the Staples Center, and forgot to
disclose this to its readers or editorial staff.
In other instances, the breach is so small, and so subtle,
that it can go almost unnoticed.
If you glanced at the back cover of the Life & Leisure
section of the Times Union on Friday, July 26, you
would have seen a page of ads for various Capital Repertory
Theater current and upcoming productions, alongside a theater
review, written by the TU’s Michael Eck, of Capital
Rep’s Song of Singapore. The review, however, was actually
an advertisement, just like the rest of the page. The original
piece was republished almost exactly as it originally appeared,
in the usual Times Union format.
Running reviews as advertisements is a common practice, explained
Nancy Laribee, Capital Rep’s marketing and public relations
director. Laribee, who put the page of ads together, added
that “they run ads just like this in papers in other parts
of the country. It’s exactly what happens if you run an ad
like this [in any newspaper].”
Not in the Times Union, however, according to editor
Rex Smith: “The ad did violate our standards.” Smith explained
that even though there are legitimate ways to use editorial
copy in advertising, the Capital Rep ad did not differentiate
itself clearly enough from the paper’s standard editorial
style. “Not only is the ad to be clearly differentiated,”
Smith added, “certain typefaces are not to be used.” Although
it included a small-type disclaimer (“Paid Advertisement”)
above the reprinted article, the ad did not meet the paper’s
accepted standard.
Though this particular breakdown seems inadvertent, it does
reinforces an obvious point: Advertisers just don’t have the
same interest in editorial integrity. Their job is to sell.
It’s up to the media to be vigilant about the separation of
editorial and advertising, which Rex Smith acknowledged: “We’re
going to be more careful.”
—Shawn
Stone
|