The first two episodes of the public hearing on the Hudson Housing Authority's proposed redevelopment, which took place on July 21 and August 11, saw a preponderance of support for the project. This past Tuesday, things were a bit different. A group clad in green T-shirts bearing the acronym FoSS (Friends of Second Street) turned out to express their concerns about the project and its impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The people in the green shirts dominated the public hearing, expressing concerns about the timeline for the project and the impact of construction on the neighborhood; phasing and what happens if no funding is available to demolish the existing buildings; increased population density; changing the landscape of the neighborhood and constructing buildings "not in keeping with Hudson."
Misgivings and opposition to the project were also voiced by people not identifying themselves as Friends of Second Street. Steve Dunn expressed fiscal concerns. Noting that the number of units was increasing from 135 to 276, Dunn commented, "My concern is that if most of these residents are not paying [property] taxes, given the burden on the school system, that it's going to force a tax increase for the city, and once there's a tax increase, then the value of the homes goes down, and then you have to raise taxes even further to close the gap."
Phil Forman, who chairs the Historic Preservation Commission, prefaced his comments by saying, "I would love to advocate for this project . . . but it makes no sense to me." He went on to say:
It feels to me that we are solving problems at a level of detail on behalf of the builder, and I don't see the flexibility there, since they're sticking to their economic model in terms of number of units that they need to meet their numbers. It does not, in my mind, relate to the urgency of the need to take care of the folks at Bliss, and that should happen within a year not three years. I doesn't relate to a fundamental tragedy about Hudson that needs to be addressed, which is multi-generational poverty.
Forman noted that the project does not include a grocery store or simple amenities that would "make life possible to have some joy." He expressed the opinion that the project needs to be reconsidered and the Planning Board "needs to step back and say, 'Who are we working for?'-- to make the builder wealthy on this project or for the people of the City of Hudson?"
The public hearing, which was the first item on the agenda for a meeting that started at 6:00 p.m., didn't begin until 7:2o p.m. Prior to that, a series of engineers, consultants, and attorneys for the project made presentations. Of interest from those eighty minutes is the statement by John Madeo, speaking for Mountco, HHA's development partner, acknowledging that "it is critical that we have a certain number of units to make the project economically feasible." Of the "mixed income" status of the project, which isn't all that mixed--82 percent for incomes up to 50 percent of AMI; 15 percent for incomes up to 60 percent; 3 percent for incomes up to 80 percent (extremely low, very low, and low income)--Madeo said, "We need rents that are higher to offset the really low rents." He also admitted the removal of retail space from the first floor of the building proposed for State Street was an "economic decision."
Also of interest, Madeo said they were reducing the number of four-bedroom units and increasing the number of one-bedroom units. Of this he commented, "That's going to have a lesser impact on the community in terms of number of people on the site, impact on the school district and services."
Planning Board member Peter Spear pointed out a change in the number of street-level entrances to the building proposed for State Street. In May, there were several entrances, each supporting a small number of apartments. Somewhere between May and August that changed, and the building is now to have one principal entrance. Spear characterized the change as moving from "small, neighborhood scale" to "institutional scale." Alex Gorlin, principal of the architectural firm working on the project, explained that the change was based "entirely on security" and also on cost and accessibility--multiple entrances would require multiple elevators.
Two decisions of note were made at Tuesday's meeting. First, the board voted to close the public hearing, which means the board has sixty-two days to make a decision about granting site plan approval. The time can be extended by mutual consent, but if there is no agreement to extend the time and a decision is not made within sixty-two days, the project is approved by default. Second, the board agreed to hold a special meeting, devoted solely to this project, on Wednesday, September 30, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is expected to take up the issues of design and configuration of the project. Madeo indicated a "logistics plan" would be ready for review a week before the meeting.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK






