September/October 2005 A Concrete Victory Politics is local, and nowhere has that been more evident than in a recent struggle to prevent a massive cement plant development on the Hudson River. After a six-and-a-half-year effort, St. Lawrence Cement Co. announced it was abandoning its quest to build an enormous coal-fired cement plant with huge docking facilities in Hudson, New York. On April 25, 2005, to the aston-ishment of a 4,100 member environmental group, Friends of Hudson, and other plant opponents, the Berkshire Eagle newspaper trumpeted, “Cement Company Surrenders.” Sam Pratt, executive director of Friends of Hudson, said he did not expect the withdrawal to come so quickly. “This outcome comes as a tremendous relief to the Hudson community. It’s clear to us that the opposition of many residents, town officials, and communities in the Berkshires really did have an effect,” he re-marked. Citizen groups had organized their opposition by winning the legal right, or “standing,” to challenge the potential environmental impacts of the proposed construction. And they pursued their case with vigor. The stakes were high: St. Lawrence Cement’s forty-story smokestack would have spewed tons of particulates, cement dust, and hazardous chemical pollutants into the sky. The sheer scale of the cement plant and its dockside facilities would have had a significant and irreversible effect on the scenic, historic, recreational, and economic character of the region. The plant would have been visible for miles. Finished cement product would have been transported from a 1,200-acre quarry on a long conveyor belt for two miles over wetlands to waterfront dock facilities. Several times each month, huge 754-foot ships would arrive to drop off coal and pick up the cement product. The coal would then be transported to the plant furnace area, which would create deafening noise around the clock. The company launched a powerful, well-financed effort to obtain government approval for the plant. But citizens orga-nized, held public meetings, and engaged experts to provide scientific, health and economic information. Lawyers then de-veloped legal arguments as to why plant permits should not be issued. Personal letters were sent to members of the boards of directors of St. Lawrence and its parent company Holcim, based in Switzerland. These letters reminded the boards that St. Lawrence would have been prohibited from building this plant in Switzerland! Picketing at the Swiss consulate in New York City caused the embassy such embarrassment that it closed for a day. Home meetings were held to explain the struggle. Tourism, fast becoming a major source of area employment, was seen as threatened. Signs reading “Stop the Plant” dotted lawns across Columbia and Duchess Counties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, including founda-tion grants, were raised by plant oppo-nents. Opponents met with local, state, and federal officials. The governor of Maine, the attorney general of Connecti-cut, and towns in Berkshire County, Massachusetts, joined the struggle once they discovered the potential damage of downwind pollution. Several hundred local businesses were enlisted to publicly oppose the plant. One was a large multinational company—KAZ, Inc., the largest employer in the region. The public at large was made aware of the health dangers, especially to people with respiratory problems. The Hudson River is one of the most historic regions in the United States, and its cleanliness and preserva-tion have widespread effects. According to an editorial in the New York Times, “…To read this decision as simply a re-jection of a particular plant at a partic-ular location is to read it too narrowly. In a broader sense, it conveys a deeply affirmative vision of the valley’s future as a place where nature, even history itself, can compete on favorable terms with residential and commercial development. Thanks to environmental laws and ad-vocacy groups, the Hudson River has come a long way from the days in which it was little more than an industrial sewer. Rulings like this one will ensure that it continues to flow in the right direction.” Walter Wink comments, “This story is included in ‘Nonviolence in the Arena’ because it broadens our understanding of social struggle. For those of us who cut our teeth in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam era, nonviolence was usually confronta-tional, equated with marches, demonstra-tions, and sometimes sacrifice. Such ac-tions are still appropriate, but for some of us this story may offer a more mature ap-proach. I have always found it easier to confront the ‘enemy’ than to enter into di-alogue. In this story, a large number of change-agents managed to stick together for more than six years (largely due to the indefatigable Sam Pratt) until achieving victory. We need to include this kind of nonviolence in our toolkit."
|
