A River Walk's Piecemeal Birth
The United States Supreme Court also recognized the Public Trust Doctrine in an 1892 case, Illinois Central Railroad Company v. State of Illinois, Ms. Alexander said, ''when it not only held that the public had the rights to the waterfront but that the Government didn't have the power to give those rights away.''
The developers have already benefited from concessions in the state regulations, Ms. Alexander argued. ''Usually when you develop the waterfront, the regulations say you can't develop at all within 100 feet of the shore, unless your use is water-dependent, like a dock or a marina,'' she said. ''For the walkway, in order to encourage development in that formerly industrial area, the developers were allowed to construct to within 30 feet of the water's edge. But in exchange for the concession, the regulations required that they build the walkway to make sure that the public can access the water.''
The practical effect of a decision in favor of his members, Mr. O'Keefe of the builders' association said, would be a redrafting of the state regulations to meet the standards of Dolan v. Tigard, ''that the responsibilities of each builder be determined individually and proportionally.'' Such a ruling would only affect future development, he said.
But Michelle Marean, president of the Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy, said: ''The conservancy believes that if the builders prevail, it will effectively stop all future development of the walkway. It would weaken the regulations significantly because, then, what standards will be used for determining walkway requirements?''
A decision in favor of the owners ''would also allow all current walkway portions to be closed to the public,'' Ms. Marean contended, ''because the other owners will seek equal relief.''
''They are speaking a good game,'' she said, ''but the bottom line is that they don't want to build any walkway and they absolutely don't want the public to have access to it.'' Arguments in the builders' suit ended in June, and a decision by Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. of Federal District Court is awaited.
The Federal court case is not the only legal skirmish on the issue. On July 9, ruling in an action brought by Shelter Bay, a 279-apartment condominium in Edgewater, the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court affirmed an environmental department order that fences blocking access to that community's stretch of the pathway come down.
Two weeks ago, Benjamin Goldman, an author of books on development and the environment, stood beside the padlocked, barbed-wire-topped fence that blocks the walkway at Shelter Bay's southern edge. Yanking on the padlock, Dr. Goldman, a recent resident of Weehawken, five miles to the south, said, ''This is what we want to avoid in our town.''
Weehawken, he said, ''is just about the last stretch of undeveloped land along the river -- 1.5 miles of blank slate.'' Two developments with 1,643 units in six- to eight-story buildings along with 40 town houses have been proposed for construction on the Weehawken waterfront, right up to the walkway.
The key, Dr. Goldman said, is to separate the public space from the private space by building a road between any new development and a waterfront park. ''An example of it done right is Riverside Park in Manhattan,'' he said, ''and the only other place along the Jersey side of the Hudson where this has been done is Hoboken -- the waterfront park and walkway there.''
Mr. Janiszewski, the Hudson County Executive, has a grander plan, one he believes would bring peace to the public-private fight while finally threading all the gems on the waterfront necklace.
The plan calls for the towns along the river to enter into an inter-local government agreement, permitting the county to oversee construction of the entire walkway -- a project Mr. Janiszewski ''guesstimates'' would cost $80 million.
''In return,'' he said, ''the municipalities get input into a common design, and a walkway in their lifetime.''
AT the same time, all the property owners would have to sign easement agreements with the county. ''Developers get an asset,'' Mr. Janiszewski said. ''It's easier to market the property with the walkway present. And instead of a cash outlay at the beginning of their project, the walkway would be constructed by Hudson County as a public entity with access to tax-exempt bonds.''
The county could also apply for state and Federal grants, including money from New Jersey's Open Space Trust Fund, ''which could, in turn, write down the estimated cost, probably by $20 million to $40 million,'' Mr. Janiszewski said.
''We will describe the walkway as a linear park,'' he said, ''and whatever the gap between grant dollars and the bottom line cost will be made up by the developers. That is their incentive for the easement agreement; they still own the land at the end of the day.''
One last piece of the puzzle. ''My proposal would be,'' Mr. Janiszewski said, ''that the walkway be given over to a conservancy, some nonprofit entity responsible for maintaining the walkway.'' Revenues generated along the walkway -- from refreshment kiosks, for example -- ''would go to the conservancy, and the difference in maintenance costs versus revenues received would be rolled into developers' costs,'' the county executive said.
Seated in a swing chair in her zig of the zigzag building line of attached town houses at Jacob's Ferry -- an architectural device developers employ to maximize the number of views of the waterfront -- Alexandra Kehayas said she favored public access. But she did have some concerns, she said, ''that once the walkway is all connected there may be through traffic on bikes, Rollerblades, while children are playing in the area.''
Many an evening, Ms. Kehayas, a nutritionist, and her husband, Peter, chief operating engineer for an insurance company, ''sit on the deck, read the paper and relax after work.''
From there they can gaze at Manhattan and the night-lit glitter of the city's silhouette. ''I'm so lucky that I can see this,'' she said. ''It's a beautiful skyline; it should be shared by all.''