Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "After this therefore because of this." It is usually considered a logical fallacy to assume that because Event Y happened after Event X, Event X caused Event Y. In this case, it isn't.  

Event X  On June 23, it was revealed that Mayor Joe Ferris had amended the contract for the sale of the Mill Street property, changing the deadline for closing from a fixed date (one that had already passed) to an open-ended one (thirty days after pending litigation is settled in a manner that would allow the sale to go forward). This was done without the authorization or the knowledge of the Common Council. Indeed, the Council and the public would likely have known nothing about it had a Mill Street resident not pointed out, at a Council meeting on June 15, that the deadline for closing the sale, as specified in the original contract, had already passed. 

Event Y  On July 20, at the informal meeting of the Common Council, a resolution was presented "stating the Common Council's power to authorize sale of real estate." The resolution reads in part:

WHEREAS, Section 41.1 of the City of Hudson Code states that no sale or lease of City real estate or of any franchise belonging to or under the control of the City shall be made or authorized except by a vote of 3/4 of the weighted vote of members of the Common Council, and 

WHEREAS, the Common Council requires that contracts of sale be submitted for review as part of the authorization process, and  

WHEREAS, any subsequent substantive change to a contract authorized by the Common Council is subject to review and further authorization by the Common Council . . . 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Hudson does hereby assert its right to review contracts and subsequent substantive changes to previously authorized contracts in compliance with Section 41.1 of the City of Hudson Code. 

When Councilmember Claire Cousin (Fifth Ward) asked if there was "something that the City has discovered that makes this clarification necessary," Council president Margaret Morris explained there were two reasons--both having to do with the contract for the sale of the Mill Street property. First, the contract that was signed by Mayor Kamal Johnson on May 3, 2023, is not the same as the contract that had been approved by the Council on January 17, 2023. Second, the amendment to the contract made by Mayor Joseph Ferris on May 20, 2026, was a "substantive change" which needed Council approval, and that did not happen. 

Authorization of real estate transactions requires a supermajority, which back in the days of the weighted vote was three-quarters of the votes but today is nine affirmative votes.

With reference to the resolution, First Ward resident Matt McGhee put the issue in a larger context and urged the Council to "fulfill their promise to support by Constitution by defending their prerogatives against usurpation by the executive branch."   

It is expected this issue will be discussed further at the regular meeting of the Common Council on Tuesday, July 28.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Time and Again

There is a clock in the pediment of the historic Montgomery C. Smith school that hasn't worked in decades.

At the last night's Hudson City School District Board of Education meeting, a plan was presented and approved to make the clock work once again. Lance Wheeler reports the story in a video that can be viewed here.

Comic Relief

For those who know a bit about education and "edu-speak" and can appreciate satire, here is a piece by Frederick M. Hess, senior fellow and director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), set in our fair city: "The Art of Being an Education Guru." One of its most quotable lines is this: "An innovation is just an old idea that hasn't been funded lately."

Gratitude to Peter Meyer for bringing this to Gossips' attention.

Last Night's Public Hearing

Last night, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Hudson Housing Authority's proposal to construct new buildings on their site at 41 North Second Street. The community space at the Central Fire Station was nearly filled to capacity. Among the notables spotted in the room were Mayor Joseph Ferris, architect Alex Gorlin, and Fourth Ward supervisor Linda Mussmann. 

At the outset, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle suggested, "The subject matters that might be most useful are focused around your observations as a neighbor or of the neighborhood--comments about traffic, safety, design, environmental issues, or other matters that you believe are relevant for our review." Of the thirteen members of the public who commented, only three touched upon the issues Bogle suggested. The rest presented some version of the argument that the people currently living in Bliss Towers deserve new and safe housing (no one is disagreeing) and people who have been forced to leave Hudson deserve to come back (there is no guarantee that can happen). Among the people urging the Planning Board act expeditiously to grant site plan approval were many of the usual suspects--Kaya Weidman of Kite's Nest, Bill Hughes, Claire Cousin, Abdus Miah--and some we don't hear from as often--Nona Walthour and Kim Singletary, neither of whom lives in Hudson. 

Of the three speakers whose comments related to the issues Bogle suggested, Alan Weaver, who chaired the HHA Board of Commissioners in 2018-2019, when HHA last had plans for redevelopment, reminded the board that the earlier plans were abandoned because the land on the north side of State Street was determined to be unstable and unable to support the building to be constructed there. He noted that the building now being proposed for the site is even larger than the one proposed earlier. Weaver called the current plan "out of scale with the current neighborhood" and questioned the need to build so many units when there were now, according to some accounts, only 84 tenants in Bliss Towers. Of the current proposal, he asserted, "We don't know what it's going to cost; we don't know what it's going to look like." He called for a project that would be of benefit to Hudson and not just to the developer and urged that the project not be approved until all the information was available.

Britt Zuckerman, a landscape architect, pointed out that the site plan involves destroying mature trees, noting that the Second Ward is "the least planted of any ward." She criticized the overall design, calling it "towers around a park . . . with no streetscape engagement." She said the design "segregates residents and creates a dead zone."

Carla Sadoff expressed the opinion that too many things that she considered "red flags" were being ignored--mentioning specifically the issues with the soil and management during construction. She asked rhetorically, "Is there sufficient information to the Planning Board? Does the Planning Board have any doubts about what is being presented to them?" She concluded by saying, "There are too many things that have been said, that have been discovered, that have been revealed that leave certain things in question that make me question the immediate acceptance of this."

The entire hearing can be viewed here. Spenser Walsh from the Register-Star, Jeanette Wolfberg from The Columbia Paper, and Roger Hannigan Gilson from the Times Union were all present at the hearing so there will soon be several other accounts of what transpired.

The Planning Board is accepting written comments about the project until its next meeting, which takes place on August 11. Comments can be submitted by email to the Planning Board clerk Linda Fenoff at lfenoff@cityofhudson.org. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

More About the Dunn

Late this afternoon, the Register-Star published an article by Spenser Walsh about the current situation with the Dunn warehouse: "Brewing Co. will continue with Dunn restoration after grant loss." 

In the article, Kaitlin Armocida, operations manager for Hudson Brewing Company, is quoted as saying: 

We had put together a budget that I think was very reasonable and very attainable which included this grant. Not having it takes a chunk out of the budget, but it's not, in our opinion, an insurmountable amount, but it does require us to go back to the drawing board a little to figure out how we want to fill in those missing funds.

More News from the Informal Council Meeting

The informal Common Council meeting is typically when resolutions are introduced to be voted on eight days later at the regular Council meeting. Last night, however, there were three resolutions that had to be introduced and voted on that evening: the resolution to add a second full-time code enforcement officer; a resolution authorizing a budget amendment to cover the fees for the Planning Board attorney; and a resolution authorizing a budget amendment to cover anticipated legal fees for the remainder of the year. The third resolution is of particular interest.

In the 2026 budget, $80,000 was appropriated for legal expenses. Now, just halfway through 2026, that $80,000 has already been spent. The resolution before the Council would authorize taking $103,000 from the fund balance to cover anticipated legal fees for the remainder of the year. As justification for this, the resolution explains: "[T]he City has been heavily involved in Planning Board-related litigation, tax certioraris, and union contract negotiations." The resolution explains how the sum of $103,000 was reached:

[W]e have received estimated billings for June through December 2026 of $15,000 from Hinman Straub (labor attorney); $70,000 from Tabner Ryan & Keniry LLP (Planning Board and tax certiorari attorneys); $7,500 from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP (Zoning Board of Appeals Counsel), and $11,000 from Rodenhausen Chale & Polidoro LLP (Historic Preservation Commission Counsel).

When asked to comment on the proposed budget amendment, Heather Campbell, city treasurer, said, "I'm not particularly happy about it, but I don't see that we have much of a choice, short of trying to . . . reduce the amount of activities that are causing litigation against the City."

At this point, after Council president Margaret Morris invited public comment, Josh Kipp, a Mill Street resident, asked, "Wouldn't our money be better spent trying to get out of the fact that we approved to build on state parkland or city parkland?" He was alluding, of course, to the ongoing litigation over the sale of the former Charles Williams field to Kearney Realty and Development and Mayor Ferris's recent unilateral act to extend the terms of the contract.

Although the money being spent by the City defending against the lawsuit brought by Mill Street Neighbors represents only a fraction of the estimated $103,000 in anticipated legal expenses, Mill Street remained a topic of comment. Lakia Walker told the Council that the Mill Street Neighbors met in March with Mayor Joseph Ferris in an effort to "come up with some kind of settlement" to avoid further legal fees. She said nothing came of their efforts. She told the Council that she and her neighbors were "actually paying twice": "We're paying our own lawyer fees and we're paying our taxes, which is also fighting against us." 

Speaking of the meeting with the mayor on March 6, the meeting Ferris referenced in his statement on June 23, Mill Street resident Jack Hornickel told the Council, "I found it personally offensive that we organized a settlement conference with the City, and we heard nothing back. We offered to settle our case, and we heard nothing back. And when I say nothing, I mean no yes, no maybe, or counteroffer. Nothing. We offered that with the goal of settling the case and limiting everyone's exposure to endless litigation. My understanding is that the mayor is charge of litigation strategy, and from my perspective there is no litigation strategy."

In the end, Morris suggested that the resolution be amended to reduce the amount being taken from the fund balance from $103,000 to $40,000--enough to cover the next two months of legal fees and prevent the City from being delinquent in paying its bills. She also proposed that the law firms involved show how they arrived at their estimates. The Council agreed to the amendment, and the amended resolution passed without opposition.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

In Preparation for the Public Hearing

There is a public hearing tonight on the proposal before the Planning Board for the redevelopment of the Hudson Housing Authority properties. In advance of that, Hudson Common Sense has published an editorial on the topic: "Bliss 2.0 TV Show: Hudson Has Seen This Show Before." 

The public hearing takes place at 6:00 p.m. at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street. To make a comment at the hearing, you must be present in person. The hearing will be livestreamed on YouTube. Written comments on the project can be submitted to the Planning Board Clerk at lfenoff@cityofhudson.org.

News of the Dunn

At the informal Common Council meeting last night, Council president Margaret Morris provided an update on the sale of the Dunn building to Hudson Brewing Company. She said that the State of New York had rescinded $400,000 in grant meant for the redevelopment of the building, and Hudson Brewing was looking into other sources of funding to make up for that loss. She also said that Hudson Brewing and the City were working on a definition of "stabilization," since the contract of sale will include a stipulation that Hudson Brewing will be penalized if they fail to stabilize the building within twelve months of closing.

This morning, Gossips received the following statement from Mayor Joseph Ferris:

Earlier this month, my office unearthed a September 5, 2025, letter [attached and pasted below] the previous administration received from New York State Empire State Development (ESD). The letter informed the City that ESD had terminated the $431,640 in Restore NY funds designated for the Dunn Warehouse. This letter was sent before the City of Hudson issued the second Dunn Warehouse Request for Proposal.

Both RFP respondents included the Restore NY funds in their financing plans.

Over the past few weeks, my office was in frequent communication with State officials in an attempt to reverse the funds termination. When it became clear that was not possible, we worked closely with the Hudson Brewing team to investigate other government grant funding opportunities to cover the cost of stabilizing Dunn Warehouse.

While that effort was unsuccessful, Hudson Brewing is evaluating their options. My office remains committed to a future for Dunn Warehouse that brings this historic building to life and allows a local small business to continue to grow.

I am eager to work with Hudson Brewing and the Common Council moving forward to make this vision a reality.

The following is the letter from Empire State Development referenced above.

September 5, 2025

Mayor Kamal Johnson

City of Hudson

520 Warren Street

Hudson, NY 12534

Re: City of Hudson Dunn Building RESTORE IV, Project #127,483

Dear Mayor Johnson:

On February 13, 2017, City of Hudson Dunn Building RESTORE IV was awarded a $500,000 Restore NY–Round 4 funds for the project located at Broad and Water Streets. The grant was subsequently reduced to $431,640.

Since that time, numerous attempts have been made by Empire State Development staff to gather project information to develop and issue an Incentive Proposal that would identify the project scope, budget and schedule, and provide the terms and conditions of the award. To date, however, we have been unable to issue an Incentive proposal for your grant award. The failure to progress on project development over an extended period of time, lack of responsiveness to ESD requests for status or progress updates, and failure to update and submit a realistic and implementable timeframe for project completion has resulted in the termination of this grant.

ESD will terminate its commitment of $431,640 to fund the above-referenced project.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at (518)270-1130. We wish you the best of luck in future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Michael Yevoli

Regional Director, Capital Region

There was also $1 million in DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) funding designated for the stabilization of the Dunn building that was redirected to the Hudson Housing Authority redevelopment project lest the City lose that money altogether.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

More About the Golden Re-al

Last week, Gossips linked to an article in the Register-Star about the Golden Re-al, a boat that has been sitting for several years in the southernmost embayment of Henry Hudson Riverfront Park, suffering from the ravages of weather and vandals, and is now going to be scrapped by its owner: "Who Knew?" That post was accompanied by this picture, taken by a Gossips reader in April 2026, showing the boat partially submerged in the water.

Last week's post prompted Brenda Shufelt, History Room Coordinator at the Hudson Area Library, to send me pictures she had taken two years earlier, in April 2024, when she came upon the boat while exploring the waterfront. Those pictures are shared here with her permission.

When Shufelt came upon the boat in 2024, there pictures of the boat in its better days, including some pictures of the interior, displayed on the shore in front of the boat. Here are Shufelt's pictures of those pictures.

The photographs of the interior, particularly the kitchen, make its sad fate particularly lamentable.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

Now that we are midway through July, and the extreme heat and smoke seems to be behind us for now, here is what's happening.

• On Monday, July 20, at 6:00 p.m., the Common Council holds its informal meeting.  Of interest on agenda is a resolution authorizing an application for a grant to update the city's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Tuesday, July 21, at 6:oo p.m.,  the Planning Board holds a public hearing on the Hudson Housing Authority's proposed redevelopment. The hearing will take place at the Central Fire Station, 77 North Seventh Street. The meeting will be livestreamed on YouTube. Those who wish to comment at the public hearing must be present in person at the meeting. 

• Also on Tuesday, July 21, at 6:00 p.m., the Hudson City School District Board of Education holds its monthly meeting. The meeting takes place in person at the Hudson High School Auditorium, 215 Harry Howard Avenue. The meeting will also be livestreamed on YouTube.
• On Wednesday, July 22, Waterfront Wednesdays features Operation Unite NY and the Bindlestiff Family Cirkus, with special guests Kaisokah Moko Jumbies USA. The event takes place at Henry Hudson Riverfront Park from 4:00 p.m. until sunset.

• On Thursday, July 23, Mayor Joseph Ferris holds hold open office hours from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. 

• At 6:00 on Thursday, July 23, there is a meeting of the Hudson Community Development and Planning Agency (HCDPA). The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Friday, July 24, the Historic Preservation Commission meets at 10:00 a.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Also at the Planning Board Meeting

The public hearing that was postponed for fifteen minutes on Tuesday so the Planning Board could discuss further a proposed code amendment was on the adaptive reuse of the former John L. Edwards school building as apartments for people over 50.

Only two people commented at the public hearing. Councilmember Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward) expressed her support for the project, saying she was "super excited" about it. Alan Weaver expressed his support and asked if the building would accept Section 8 vouchers. No one present was able to answer that question.

After the public hearing, the Planning Board voted to grant site plan approval with the seven conditions, two of which are of interest:

• The final plans shall note whether the access easement between the former library [400 State Street] and school is dissolved or retained.
• The final site plan shall contain notes referencing conditional approval from the NYSOPRHP regarding the existing/proposed windows to be submitted for a review and approval, and that the HVAC shall meet standards, and set forth details of location, size, concealment, or finish of the ductwork and utility lines.

The resolution granting site plan approval, which lists all the conditions, can be found here.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Framing the Discussion

The Planning Board's "workshop" on the proposed clarification of Section 325-17.1 of the city code started out with a statement from Ron Bogle, who chairs the Planning Board. It will be remembered that the proposed amendment had been referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Bogle's comments were meant to frame the discussion, and, as he explained, he had prepared his comments in writing "since I want to select my words carefully." This is in part what Bogle said:

Our task is not to resolve the broader controversy. Others have those responsibilities, including the Common Council in its legislative role and, where appropriate, the courts in their judicial role.

Our opportunity is narrower, but I believe it is equally important.

We can help strengthen the City's decision-making process by remaining disciplined in our role and providing constructive advice from the perspective of the municipal body--the planning board--that will ultimately administer this section of the Zoning Code.

With that in mind, I would like to suggest that we focus our discussion on the question that I believe is uniquely within this Board's remit.

Does the proposed amendment provide clear, objective, and administrable standards that future Planning Boards can apply fairly, consistently, and predictably?

I do not believe it would be particularly constructive for today's discussion become a reconsideration of the Conditional Use Permit, any potential or pending Article 78 proceeding or other action, or the broader policy debate surrounding the waterfront.

Nor do I believe we have been asked to determine what occurred at the dock in 2011 or to resolve competing legal interpretations that may ultimately be addressed elsewhere.

Instead, I hope we can focus on questions such as:

• Does the proposed language provide sufficient clarity for future administration?
• Are the standards objective and capable of consistent application?
• Would future applicants and Planning Boards understand what evidence and findings would be required?
• Are there provisions that would benefit from additional clarification or definition?

If we can answer those questions thoughtfully, I believe we will provide the Common Council with something that only this Board can provide: practical advice from the body that will be responsible for administering whatever legislation the Council ultimately chooses to adopt. . . .

Bogle's attempt to frame the conversation and focus on process rather than content failed. Veronica Concra declared that what he was asking was not possible:

You're saying don't look at it thinking about the past or the future, past litigation or future litigation, when to me this seems a direct consequence of past and present litigation. . . . If this is adopted, and if Colarusso does come back to us, we then would be taking and applying it to Colarusso.

It is clear the Columbia County Planning Board could not see the issue in the way Bogle was framing it either. The County Planning Board recommended that the amendment not be enacted. The following is quoted from the letter that communicated the recommendation:

There is only one commercial dock operation in the Core Riverfront District. These proposed amendments would apply to a single, existing commercial use, on land controlled by a single property owner, A. Colarusso & Sons, Inc. . . . 

It is highly likely that the adoption of this local law will result in a decrease in the number of jobs, and have negative effects on the labor force and the economy in Columbia County and beyond. The dock is operated by a major employer and the proposed restrictions on truck trips and material tonnage could result in a significant loss of business.

It is worth noting that the Columbia County Planning Board currently has no representative from Hudson. The seat designated for Hudson has been vacant for several years now, but for many prior years Hudson was represented on the County Planning Board by the late Arthur Koweek, who was famously quoted in an article in Hudson Valley magazine for December 1984 as saying of our waterfront and the Hudson River: "It's an industrial area. Let them go out of town to get access to the river. . . It's not a recreational river. It's to move raw materials."

In his presentation, Ken Dow, counsel to the Council, stressed that the proposed amendment was not creating a new problem or a new question. It was simply addressing a question that already existed. "The whole point of it is to clarify what is already in the code"--code that predates Colarusso's acquisition of the property in 2014. Dow also said, "The point of the amendment is filling in the missing data. It gives specific numbers that are fact-based." Dow used the expression "to put meat on the bones" more than once to describe the effect of the amendment. 

The discussion went longer than had been anticipated, and the public hearing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. had to be postponed fifteen minutes. Despite Bogle's argument that "anywhere we have the opportunity to clarify, we should take it . . . to reduce ambiguity," the Planning Board could not come to an agreement on how to respond, so Bogle said he would draft a letter to the Council expressing the Planning Board's "advisory opinion." At Concra's insistence, he assured them it would be a "balanced statement." 

It all seems moot at this point. When legislation is referred to the City and County planning boards for a recommendation, the boards have thirty days to respond. The requests were sent to the planning boards on May 29. The County Planning Board submitted its response on June 16. The Common Council is not obligated to follow the recommendations even when they are submitted in a timely fashion.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Corrigendum: Alex Madero, First Ward supervisor, just informed me that at the Board of Supervisors County Government Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 15, Charles Millar was appointed for a three-year term as the Hudson representative to the Columbia County Planning Board. Millar previously served, from 2023 to 2026, as the community member of the Hudson Industrial Development Agency (IDA). Presumably Millar had not yet been appointed when the recommendation was made regarding the proposed amendment to the city code.