News Confirmed

It has been rumor and insider news for a while now, but today it's official. It was reported this morning in the Albany Business Review: "Boutique hotel sold for $11 million, upgrades planned." The hotel in question is The Wick on Cross Street here in Hudson, which has been acquired by an investment group led by Ben Fain, president and CEO of the newly formed Nice and Weird LLC.

Photo: Donna Abbott-Vlahos | Albany Business Review

Fain, whose enterprises in Hudson include Kitty's Market and Restaurant, Grapefruit Wines, The Caboose, and the market, proposed in collaboration with Hawthorne Valley Farm, to be established in the former Kaz warehouse building, is quoted in the article as saying, "We want to try and create a campus, for lack of a better word, that is really synergistic and makes everything sing." He goes on to say, "The Caboose has been an incredible success for us, and it's surprising how much interest and activity we've had. It sort of took us off guard, because we got interest from people and groups that we never really expected. . . . We just hosted Art Omi's gala and the weekend before the Hudson Area Library's gala. It brought so many people down here and a lot of them were looking for a place to stay, so having the option of a hotel like the Wick makes that whole process more comfortable, more streamlined, and just a better overall experience."

Although it's not mentioned in the Albany Business Review article, the historic Robert Taylor House, late 18-century home of the tanner Robert Taylor, will also be part of the "campus" Fain envisions.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

Of Interest

The Common Council's decision to opt in to New York State's Good Cause Eviction Law was the topic of a report on News 10 tonight: "Hudson 9th locality to opt-in to Good Cause Eviction." The report includes comments from Vicky Daskaloudi, councilmember from the Fifth Ward.

Help Needed

Gossips has learned that one of the Youth Department vans was stolen. The van has been recovered, but help is needed in investigating what happened. If anyone on Warren Street or in the vicinity of the Youth Center, 18 South Third Street, has surveillance cameras that may have recorded what occurred, you are asked to contact Liz Yorck at director@cityofhudsonyouth.org.

The Outcome for Good Cause

Perhaps predictably, the Common Council passed the resolution adopting the Good Cause Eviction Law.

Because the Council Chamber and the lobby of City Hall were filled with people bearing signs urging the Council, in English and Spanish, to pass the law, Council president Tom DePietro suggested, after a presentation by Starr Whitehouse about plans for the Furgary, that they go directly to what he called "the main event": voting on the resolution to adopt the Good Cause Eviction Law. There was just one hitch: Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward) wasn't there in person. Because of what he described as "personal business," Sarowar was attending virtually. According to the law, councilmembers attending a meeting virtually can vote only if their cameras are turned on and they can be seen by the audience and other members of the Council. Sarowar's camera was not on, and he was not visible to the rest of the Council.

There were eight members of the Common Council present in person at the meeting. Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) and Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward), who had recused themselves from consideration of the Good Cause Eviction Law, were not present at the meeting. Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward), who also had recused himself from the issue, was present. Before the vote was taken, DePietro asked Merante to explain why he was recusing himself. Merante explained that because he was a renter he might benefit financially from the law, and for this reason he felt ethically compelled to recuse himself. For this, he was berated by the audience member.

Obviously, with just seven people present to vote on the issue, DePietro felt Sarowar's participation was critical. He determined the Council should postpone "the main event" and consider other matters before them while Sarowar tried to get his camera to work. When there were only three items left on the agenda, Sarowar's colleague, Mohammed Rony (Second Ward), managed to get an image of Sarowar on his phone. The vote was taken, with Rony holding up his phone so the other members of the Council could see Sarowar. Of the eight members who had not recused themselves, only one, Margaret Morris (First Ward) voted no, explaining as she has in the past that, although the intent of the legislation was good, she believed it would have a negative impact on renters. There was a smattering of boos from the audience when Morris cast her no vote.

The resolution needed six affirmative votes to pass; it got seven.

There were cheers from the audience after the vote was taken, with someone declaring repeatedly that the Council was "on the right side of history." The meeting was paused while the jubilant crowd made its way out of the building.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

Of Interest

In about thirty minutes, the Common Council meeting for October begins. About thirty minutes ago, thehudsonwail posted the following on Instagram. 

 

Between all the spam texts and social media ads in the post above, it's hard not to notice that Hudson is becoming a battleground for larger, big-monied interests. One method used is using autogenerated form letters to spam elected officials. Being that one can send a pre written letter with a click of a button (slacktivism), and more interesting, there is no way to confirm who is sending the letters. This means that any well motivated group can influence our representatives by autogenerated grassroots support (astroturfing). As an experiment, we sent two extremely exaggerated letters to the Hudson Common Council, each on opposite sides of the Good Cause Eviction debate: from one "Feather" and another from "John Q. Landlord."

Besides the laughs, I would hope that actual Hudson residents pay more attention to local government and get involved, because others will happily speak for you. Write your own letters, and if you feel strongly about it either way, you can attend the meeting tonight at City Hall, 6pm 

The letter from "Feather" can be found here. The letter from "John Q. Landlord" can be found here. The Common Council meeting is a hybrid. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

Almost midway into autumn, our glorious October weather has turned into something resembling damp, drizzly November. Things are expected to improve as the week goes on, but meanwhile, here is what's happening.

• On Tuesday, October 15, the Common Council holds its regular monthly meeting at 6:00 p.m. The big event of the evening will be the vote on Hudson opting in to the state's Good Cause Eviction Law. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely. 
• On Thursday, October 17, Hudson Community Development & Planning Agency (HCDPA) meets at 4:30 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Saturday, October 19, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., The Spark of Hudson is hosting a "celebration of the revitalization of Charles Williams Park" at Charles Williams Park. There will be food vendors, and the plans for the revitalized park will be on display.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

BEA Budget Workshops This Week

The BEA (Board of Estimate and Apportionment--the mayor, the Common Council president, and the city treasurer) has only two budget workshops this week. The workshops are hybrid, taking place in person in the Council Chamber at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click on the department name to find the link to join the workshop remotely.

• Wednesday, October 16
• 2:30 p.m.--Cemetery, Water & Sewer
• Friday, October 18
• 2:30 p.m.--Nondepartmental

What Gets My Goat

Gossips' post about plans for the Public Square, in particular for the fountain and its ornamentation, inspired posts on Facebook and Instagram questioning the appropriateness of goats in the fountain design. 

Image: Dan Seward | Facebook

Image: Hudsonwail | Instagram

Needless to say, the notion of goats raised some questions for Gossips as well and inspired me to take a closer look at this image of the fountain from the Evelyn and Robert Monthie Slide Collection at the Columbia County Historical Society.

Look closely at the ornamental frieze around the basin just below Venus. Although fish heads might have been more in keeping with the aquatic theme of Venus rising from the sea, those are the heads of goats.

The big question is why the city fathers back in 1883 decided to combine goats and Venus in the design of the fountain that would grace the Public Square. Unfortunately, the Hudson Evening Register in its description of the fountain, which appeared on September 11, 1883, is silent on this point.

Now that the beautiful fountain in Public Park is nearly completed and our citizens have enjoyed the sight of "Venus Rising from the Sea," exhibiting in the most effective manner the power of our water supply, and proving that it can be put to ornamental as well as useful purposes, it is proper to speak in detail of this work of art, and award credit to those who were chiefly instrumental in procuring it.

The total height of the fountain, including the foundation, is eighteen feet. The pan is a gurgoyle octagon, eight feet five inches above the base: diameter of pan, eight feet, eleven inches. The ground basin is twenty five feet in diameter. The foundation is of Coral Marble, handsomely cut, from the quarries of Supervisor Fred. W. Jones, and was donated by the energetic and public spirited gentleman.

The foundation is capped by a fine slab of Vermont marble, which was generously donated by Patrick Hoctor, of the Hudson Granite and Marble Works. From this rises the base surrounded by the figures, all in graceful proportion and artistic design. But to be fully appreciated, it must be seen when the water in full force is playing through its numerous jets and rising and falling in fantastic forms.

Mr. D. Martin Haviland is entitled to much credit for his persevering efforts in securing to the city not only this beautiful fountain, but the handsome park in which it is located. One of the most unsightly spots in the city has within a few years been converted into one of the most attractive. In this enterprise Mr. Haviland's efforts have been generously seconded by the Boston & Albany Railroad Company, and the action of our Common Council, by the contributions of citizens, and by the local press.

At the outset we said the fountain was nearly completed. It only lacks the finishing touches of the artist's brush. This, we understand, Mr. Silas W. Tobey, the veteran artist, has volunteered to do, and this assurance is sufficient guarantee that the work will be well done and in keeping with the fountain and its surroundings.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

Finally Some Attention to the Furgary

On July 16, 2012, at 3 o'clock in the morning, a Hudson Police SWAT team evicted three stalwart fishermen from the colony of shacks on North Bay known as the Furgary Boat Club. Since then, the shacks have stood abandoned and vulnerable to vandals and the elements. 

In 2017, the Furgary, then called the Historic Fishing Village, was one of five city projects approved for Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) funding. The plan that was approved called for the preservation of "the more historically significant and visually interesting structures." 

In January 2024, four shacks were demolished to demonstrate progress and support the City's request for an extension to utilize DRI funds. One of the four shacks--Shack #13--was the one generally considered to be the shack of greatest historic significance. Historic significance was not a consideration when selecting the shacks to be demolished. The four were chosen because they contained no hazardous materials and hence could be demolished by the Department of Public Works rather than by costly haz mat demolition specialists. 

City Hall recently announced a Furgary Park Visioning Community Roundtable Event to take place on Wednesday, October 23, at 7:00 p.m. at The Spark of Hudson, 502 Union Street. People are invited to come and share their ideas for transforming the Furgary site into a community recreational resource.

There is also a survey to be completed, which can be found here.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

What's Being Planned for the Public Square

On Friday, Gail Wittwer-Laird of Starr Whitehouse, the landscape architecture firm retained by Friends of the Public Square (FOPS), presented the plans for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Public Square, a.k.a. Seventh Street Park, to the Historic Preservation Commission. The materials presented to the HPC were also being submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Wittwer-Laird was seeking a letter of support from the HPC to be sent to SHPO.

Wittwer-Laird explained that work on the park would be undertaken in three phases:

• Phase 1: Interior
• Phase 2: Fountain
• Phase 3: Streetscape

In Phase 1, the war memorial will be relocated, redundant paths will be eliminated, and new water and sewer and electrical service will be installed.  Eight of the existing trees will be removed, the others preserved, and more trees will be added around the site of the fountain and along the perimeter.

Phase 1 also involves replacing the concrete and wood park benches with Central Park settees, the same style of bench used at the entrance to Promenade Hill, although the benches in the Public Square will be natural wood instead of painted. (Sadly, the paint on the benches at Promenade Hill is already peeling off.)

The fountain will re-created in Phase 2, but those hoping for the return of the Venus fountain that once graced the Public Square will be disappointed. 

The new fountain being proposed will have the same commanding height as the original, but there will be no naked figure at the top. It seems, instead of naked humans and sea creatures, the ornamental detail of the new fountain will include goats.

Wittwer-Laird explained that the original fountain was ordered from a catalog, and they have located an ironmonger in Alabama--Robinson Iron--that has the original pattern collection of the antebellum Janney Iron Works of Montgomery. It seems the pattern for our 1883 fountain is part of that collection. The new fountain will be recast in bronze from the original mold, but there will be no Venus rising from the sea at the top.

Phase 3 of the project involves planting street trees around the entire park.

Construction documents are now being prepared, and the project is expected to go out for bid early in 2025. Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 2025.

The Historic Preservation Commission is holding a public hearing on the proposed plans for the Public Square on Friday, October 25, at 10:00 a.m.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

More Opportunities for Blessing

If you and your beast missed the Blessing of the Animals at St. Mary's last week, there are still two opportunities for your furry friends to be blessed.

Photo: Lance Wheeler

At noon today, Sunday, October 13, a Blessing of the Animals is taking place at the First Presbyterian Church, 369 Warren Street.

And next Saturday, October 19, Christ Church Episcopal, 431 Union Street, holds its Blessing of the Animals at 10:00 a.m.

News from the Hudson Farmers' Market

The Hudson Farmers' Market, which typically goes on hiatus in January, has announced that, after soliciting and reviewing vendor input and customers' opinions, they have decided to become a year-round market.

On Saturday, November 30--the Saturday after Thanksgiving Day, also known as Small Business Saturday--the Hudson Farmers' Market will move from its outdoor location at Sixth and Columbia streets to its winter location in the Hudson Elks Lodge on Harry Howard Avenue, where it will continue without a break until spring. The announcement advises: "This is an experiment--we're using this year to see if it makes sense for us to offer [this] to the community permanently. So, if you would like to have market in January, please make it a point to attend and lend your support!"

The Review Goes On

At the Planning Board meeting earlier this week, Charles Gottlieb, the attorney best known in Hudson for representing the Galvan Foundation but who is now representing Lou Pierro in his effort to get site plan approval for the apartment building he is proposing for Fairview Avenue between Parkwood and Oakwood boulevards, noted that the project has been before the Planning Board for fifteen months now. In July, after the review had been going on for a year, a subcommittee of the Planning Board, made up of Susan Foster, Ben Forman, and Gini Casasco, presented a report about the project, which made the following recommendations:

• Reduce the number of apartments from 30 to 15 and make 5 of them three-bedroom units
• Make the 26 offstreet parking spaces assigned spaces--15 for tenants, 6 for workers in the commercial space, and 5 for visitors
• Add sidewalks and crosswalks to Oakwood, Parkwood, Paddock Place, and Glenwood and add a sidewalk on Fairview Avenue from the proposed building to Aldi's at Fairview and Healy Boulevard in Greenport
• Five more apartments, bringing the total to 20, would be acceptable if the last five were designated "affordable," which was defined as affordable to households with incomes of 80 percent of the area median income (AMI).

At Tuesday's Planning Board meeting, Gottlieb presented a revised proposal, with the hope of getting some guidance and positive response from the Planning Board. The new proposal involves:

• 26 residential units--9 one-bedroom (approximately 595 square feet) and 17 two-bedroom (approximately 900 square feet)
• 7 individual office spaces (each approximately 140 square feet)
• 27 parking spaces to be assigned to the residential units (2 ADA compliant) on the project site
• 9 additional parking spaces in a "remote lot" located at 23 Oakwood Boulevard--7 for the workers in the individual office spaces and 2 for visitors

Although a parking lot located a block away satisfied the Planning Board's concerns about parking associated with the two buildings proposed by the Galvan Foundation for North Seventh Street, this plan seems not to be having the same effect. Randall Martin predicted that most people would not use the auxiliary parking spaces. Theresa Joyner worried about the traffic impacts of cars exiting the parking lot. During the public comment period, Theresa and Brian Nicholson, who live on Oakwood Boulevard, expressed concern about the number of homes that would be affected because they border the lot to be used for parking, about the condition of the sidewalk between the building site and the auxiliary lot, and about cars speeding in the vicinity of the proposed lot.  

In terms of the Planning Board's response to the latest proposal, the only clue was a statement made by Martin, saying they were "all positive and well thought-out changes." During the public hearing on Mill Street Lofts, which followed the portion of the meeting devoted to the Fairview Avenue project, a resident of Mill Street commended the Planning Board for their careful consideration of the Fairview Avenue project, adding that he wished they had given a fraction of that consideration to Mill Street.

What's interesting is that of the three people who made up the subcommittee to study the impacts of the Fairview project and make recommendations--Susan Foster, Ben Forman, and Gini Casasco--only Casasco was present at Tuesday's meeting. Foster resigned after the board's September meeting, when the board made a negative declaration on the Mill Street Lofts project. It is rumored that Forman, who hasn't been present at a Planning Board meeting since the special meeting on August 20, when he voted against making a negative declaration on the Mill Street project, has either resigned or is taking a leave of absence from the Planning Board. At Tuesday's meeting, attended by only four Planning Board members (Joyner, Martin, Casasco, and Gene Shetsky), Fourth Ward supervisor Linda Mussmann asked point-blank, "How many people are on the Planning Board now?" Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, said there are "a couple of vacancies" and also said, "Some people are not here for other reasons."

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK

Good Cause Eviction: La Guerre du Jour

The Common Council is expected to vote on opting in to the Good Cause Eviction Law at its meeting next Tuesday, October 15. For readers not familiar with the law, which was enacted by the State of New York in April 2024, a useful summary and discussion of the law can be found here. To date, the Council has received 168 communications about the law, urging members to take one action or the other. (At the beginning of the week, there were only 74 communications.) Of interest is one from someone identifying themself as "Feather No Name." There is some uncertainty about whether the letter is sincere or satire.

Three members of the Common Council have recused themselves from the issue: two because they are landlords--Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) and Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward); and one because he is a tenant--Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward). Legislation is passed by affirmative votes, so their recusals constitute three negative votes. (Six affirmative votes are needed to pass the legislation.)

Volo published a statement today explaining his recusal on his blog FourthWardHudson.com:

I chose to recuse myself from the Good Cause Eviction vote because I am a landlord. Since the majority of my income is from long-term rentals, I have a large personal interest in this legislation.

I do not think it is right or ethical that I weigh in on the discussion, since it may be considered self-serving.

Daskaloudi has provided this statement:

I have been a landlord in Columbia County and the City of Hudson the last 25 years.

I have a lot of experience at the topic, but I also have a lot of strong opinions that I don't find it would have been ethical for me to vote. I chose recusal out of fairness towards my constituents.

Merante, as a tenant, believes it is unethical for him to take part in this deliberation and vote because he could benefit financially from the outcome.

Although the recusals derive from good conscience and ethics, they have been criticized by supporters of the legislation. At the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, Mayor Kamal Johnson suggested that if councilmembers were going to recuse themselves from this vote, they should also recuse themselves from the vote on the city budget, since that has even more of an impact on property owners. Claire Cousin, county supervisor for the First Ward, called the recusals "extremely irresponsible," declaring it was "not what people elected them to do." (It will be remembered that when the Columbia County Board of Supervisors voted on the purchase of 11 Warren Street, Cousin was absent.)

Today, more than half the front page of the Register-Star is devoted to an article about the Good Cause Eviction law.

The most interesting quote from the article, the title of which was wisely changed in the online version to "Debate over Good Cause Eviction Law in Hudson continues," is this one, reporting comments made to the Register-Star reporter by Brahvan Ranga, political director for the Poughkeepsie-based organization For the Many. (Ranga has been in attendance and spoken at the past few Common Council meetings.)

"It's passed in every city," he said. "In Kingston, Poughkeepsie, and Newburgh, I know off the top of my head, it's passed unanimously. So, it would be pretty monumental for them to vote it down, which is why we don't think it's likely. It could also be pretty huge if this is the first city where it votes down. We fell [sic] really confident that that's not the case because of the grassroots support we have."

Peer pressure applied at the municipal level, with no acknowledgment that Hudson is quite different from Kingston, Poughkeepsie, and Newburgh? The report of Ranga's comments continues:  

The law is the first step in creating stronger protections for renters, Ranga said.

"What Good Cause does is it gives tenants a baseline to feel secure in their homes, to have some basic protections, and that allows them to take more action. It allows them to ask for repairs. It allows them to do some longer-term planning. It allows them to really build a life for themselves in these communities," he said. "It also allows them to take more action. They can continue to engage in the political process. They can continue to ask for more, and we can build off of this to win more housing affordability for Hudson."

This morning, two councilmembers, both representing the First Ward, made statements about the law on Facebook. The first statement was from Gary Purnhagen:  

As a Common Councilmember for the First Ward, I have received many emails regarding the Good Cause Eviction Law. I want to share my thoughts and how I plan on voting on this proposed law. Thank you for getting in touch regarding the City of Hudson's Good Cause Eviction Law. I truly value your input, and I want to share my thoughts on this important matter.

When considering this proposed law, I asked myself the following questions:

Do the current eviction laws require further enhancements?

How would this law impact a homeowner renting a few apartments to make ends meet?

Current Eviction Law:

Initially, I assumed that New York State had robust tenant protections in place. To my surprise, I discovered that NYS does not currently have sufficient tenant protections against evictions. While there were temporary protections during the COVID-19 pandemic, these measures are no longer in effect.

At present, the only requirement for eviction in NYS is providing sufficient notice. This means that landlords are not obliged to state why a tenant is being evicted, and there are no restrictions on the amount of rent that can be increased.

What about homeowners renting out a few apartments? If they rent fewer than ten units, they are exempt from this law.

Additionally, there are several exemptions from this law:

• Owner-occupied buildings with ten units or less
• Multifamily rental buildings for 30 years after their construction date

Can a landlord evict a tenant? Yes, for a variety of good reasons:

This law outlines the good causes for evictions, including nonpayment of rent, violation of tenancy obligations, nuisance, substantial damage to the premises, and more.

Does this law cap the amount of rent an owner can charge? No, it does not. Landlords under this law are allowed rent increases between 8.4% and 10% annually, with provisions for charging beyond this range to recover unusual expenses.

Thoughts:

Hudson currently faces a shortage of affordable housing, which is consistently identified as one of the city's challenges. Evictions, especially those resulting in 20% or higher rent increases, negatively impact Hudson as a community.

I have heard arguments for further study on this issue and how this law may negatively impact those it intends to help. Meanwhile, tenants will continue to have no protection from evictions or outrageous rent increases leading to eviction. I believe it is crucial to conduct further research on the housing issue in Hudson after enacting this law.

This law, enacted at the State level, is a compromise and, like most compromises, is not a perfect solution. However, it aims to be fair for both landlords and tenants.

I will be voting to approve the Good Clause [sic] Eviction Law next week. Thank you.

Margaret Morris, who also represents the First Ward on the Common Council, made this response to Purnhagen's statement, correcting some of the errors made there and sharing her own thinking about the legislation.

I am also a Council Member for the First Ward and Chair of the Legal Committee--a committee you were a member of until you withdrew a few months ago. I have also heard from many constituents--both in person and via email.

At our September meeting of the Legal Committee we reviewed the NYS law in detail and I provided a full report of our discussion to the full Common Council in September.

There are a few significant inaccuracies in your statement:

1. Exemptions

a. The version of the law we will be voting on does not exempt a landlord with 10 or fewer units in NY State. The threshold in our local law is set at 1 unit in NY State--not just Hudson. In other words, unless some other exemption exists (see item b), all landlords in Hudson will be subject to this law. The 10 unit threshold apples to NY City. This is one of 2 elements in the NYS law that municipalities can modify. The other municipalities--not comparable in size or housing stock to Hudson--have set the threshold to 1.

b. Units with Certificate of Occupancy (COO) issued after 1/1/2009 are exempt. It is not based on date built. This is an important distinction in Hudson. There are many buildings that have been rehabbed since 2009 and issued COOs after 1/1/2009. We do not have a count on that, so we do not know how many would be exempt.

Exemptions also apply to units rented where there is an income threshold.

So who will be impacted? Landlords who have been renting with COOs that predate 1/1/2009.

Unfortunately we do not have a count of these units. Nor do we know how many units are owned by small landlords (e.g. less than 10 units in NY State). The Legal Committee recommended that we try to quantify that number. Why does it matter? Because setting the threshold at 1 may incentivize a landlord with, say, 2 two-family homes to take them off the market and sell them. This will result in a reduction in the number of rental units available. We are not NYC. We are not even Poughkeepsie or Kingston--populations of 32k and 24k. Our housing stock, other than the new developments that are income based, is largely single-family homes or converted single-family homes. The loss of units owned by small landlords would have a significant impact on the availability of rental units in our small city.

Other unintended consequences include:

• Heightened screening of new tenants--landlords will not want to take a risk on a tenant who does not have a perfect credit score and references. 
• Units coming on the market will be listed at the highest rental rate the market can bear--actually increasing rental costs.
• Barriers for new tenants with disabilities or older than 65. The NYS law prevents a landlord from terminating a lease arrangement, even if it is for the landlord's own use, for these populations.

I was a renter for 25 years--TX, NJ, NYC, and Long Island. It is my opinion that this law is bad not only for landlords, but also for tenants. For these reasons, I will be voting against this law. It is bad for tenants.

As suggested by Ranga's statement that it would be "pretty monumental" for the Common Council to vote this down, there's is a lot of pressure for the Council to adopt the Good Cause Eviction Law. More evidence of that pressure is a letter to the editor from Claire Cousin that appeared in the Albany Times Union today: "City of Hudson must pass good-cause eviction protections." 

It is strange, though, that among all of the voices speaking on the subject, we have heard nothing from Michelle Tullo, Hudson's Housing Justice Director. Surely this is a subject someone with her title would be expected to weigh in on.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK