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. 

The HPC on 11 Warren Street

The final item of business on the agenda for last Friday's meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was a discussion of 11 Warren Street. The topic was introduced by HPC chair Phil Forman, who spoke of the comments on "social media" about the three concepts for facade improvement presented at the public input session on June 9.

 

Forman cited as the best suggestion for dealing with the building the one offered by Walter Chatham in a comment made on the Gossips post "Perpetuating the Sins of the Past":

There is little hope of improving this sad building with "lipstick." It would be better to take the facade improvement money and apply it to the landscaping budget. A screen of arbor vitae or similar trees and vine-covered trellises would help a great deal. Ivy on the alley and Second Street walls would also help.

Interestingly, along those same lines, Matt McGhee commented at the HPC meeting that the building as it is now is preferrable to the proposed "improvements" because "it doesn't jump out at you the way the proposed revisions do."

Inspired by Chatham's comment, Forman consulted with landscape architect Britt Zuckerman, who created this rendering to show what a green wall of arbor vitae screening the building from the street might look like. 

The rendering above was presented at the HPC meeting. A second illustration, showing how a green wall might be made up of different species of trees and shrubs, was unintentionally left out of the HPC discussion. Gossips was able to obtain a copy of that image to share here.

Forman called 11 Warren Street "a structure that does not fit and can never fit" into the context of the historic block on which it is located. He lamented the fact that the County's acquisition of the building meant the city would have to put up with the out-of-character building for a least another thirty years. "We've lost an entire block in the historic district," Forman told his colleagues. He referred to the first block of Warren Street as a "gateway block" and called the building a "stoppage point." He attested, based on his own observation, that people walking up Warren Street from Front Street continue walking past the building, because they can see the buildings and shops beyond, but people walking down Warren Street toward the river stop when they get the 11 Warren, because they think the good stuff has come to an end. He maintained the building was "creating damage to the businesses on Warren Street," as well as those on South Front Street.

Forman told his colleagues, "We don't have clear authority to request they apply for a certificate of appropriateness," and suggested the HPC make a recommendation to the County. Forman's assumption that the HPC does not have "clear authority" may not be entirely true. Ray Jurkowski, Commissioner of Public Works for Columbia County, who is shepherding this project, has maintained the County is exempt from from Hudson's preservation ordinance, however, there is reason to believe this is not the case. 

In 2011, when the issue was the alterations to the Columbia County courthouse, Cheryl Roberts, who was then the city attorney, stated (and Gossips reported) that the City "has jurisdiction [over county projects] until the City says that it doesn't." At the time, Gossips also reported: "[David] Robinson [then Columbia County Commissioner of Public Works] had originally indicated that he would seek a Monroe decision from the Common Council to exempt the project from review and approval by the Hudson Planning Commission and the Hudson Historic Preservation Commission. . . ." In the end, Robinson chose to submit the courthouse project for site plan approval from the Planning Board (then still known as the Planning Commission) and a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. 

The mention of a "Monroe decision" in the post from 2011 has relevance to the current situation. When the question of the county being exempt for city regulations arose, Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the HPC, spoke of the Monroe balancing test and questioned whether or not the County had applied the test to this project. Googling "Monroe balancing test" yields this AI Overview:

The Monroe balancing test is a multi-factor legal framework used in New York State to determine if a government or public agency is immune from local zoning ordinances when building a public facility. Established by the Court of Appeals in the seminal 1988 case Matter of County of Monroe v. City of Rochester, the test weighs public need against local community impact.

Instead of granting blanket immunity, municipalities and courts must weigh the following nine factors:

1. Nature and scope of the public entity or instrumentality seeking immunity.
2. Legislative intent to subject the encroaching entity to local zoning.
3. Kind of function or land use involved (e.g., essential public service versus commercial enterprise).
4. Public interest to be served by the project.
5. Effect of local regulation on the enterprise (whether it will severely impede the project).
6. Impact on legitimate local interests (e.g., traffic, agriculture, aesthetics).
7. Alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive or non-local zones.
8. Alternative methods of providing the needed improvement.
9. Intergovernmental participation (the extent to which the host community was consulted and considered during planning)

If the balancing test weighs in favor of the public entity, they are granted immunity and are not required to adhere to the host community's zoning restrictions.

It seems pretty clear that the Monroe balancing test would not weigh in favor of the County on this project, but how will this all play out? There was talk of approaching the mayor to get "the City" to tell the County the project must go before the HPC. Code Enforcement Officer Nick Fox suggested that when they apply for a building permit, which presumably the County is not exempt from having to do, he could send them to the HPC. The meeting ended without the HPC agreeing on a clear path forward, but Forman's last words on the subject were: "We can't just be passive about an entire block of Warren Street."

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK   

Who Knew?

In April, a reader sent me this picture:

The picture was accompanied by this message:

This past autumn, there was an old European-looking canal boat tied up to the Colarusso shed peninsula. Just walking around and noticed it sunk. Seems a shame, cool old boat. You know the story behind this thing?

I did not know anything about the boat docked in the southernmost embayment at Henry Hudson Riverfront Park, bordering the Colarusso property. Sadly, other concerns distracted me from finding out. Today, a story in the Register-Star by Shawn Ness and Spenser Walsh identifies the boat and explains how it got there: "Historic boat from WWII likely to be scrapped."

The boat is/was a 70-foot Dutch tugboat built in 1903 called the Golden Re-Al. Most notable in the vessel's long history is its use in World War II. During the Dutch famine of 1944-1945, known as "Hunger Winter," when the German army occupied the Netherlands and people in Dutch cities were facing starvation, the Golden Re-Al, then called the Wilhelmina, brought critically needed food and supplies. 

According to the article, the Golden Re-Al has been docked here in Hudson for the past five years. Now, because of weather damage and vandalism, the owner, Richard Manack, intends to scrap it. Manack is quoted in the article as saying, "The vessel's destroyed. Ice has been doing a number on it, so inside the vessel now, it's destroyed, and because it's destroyed, they're going to scrap it." 

The article is accompanied by photographs provided by Manack that show the boat in its current location at some point before it sank.

Photo: Richard Manack | Register-Star

Photo: Richard Manack | Register-Star

It's regrettable that information about this boat was not generally known in Hudson until now, when its destruction seems evitable.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Air Quality Update

Our air quality is still being affected by smoke from the wildfires in Canada and northern Minnesota, and an Air Quality Alert is in effect until midnight tonight. As the map below shows, however, we are better off than much of the state. Columbia County is orange, which indicates "Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups." Much of the rest of the state is red, indicating the air is unhealthy for all. 

You can monitor air quality for yourself in real time at airnow.gov. Right now, airnow.gov indicates the air quality in Hudson is just below the orange range in the yellow, which is "Moderate."

The Sidewalks of Hudson: The Mayor Speaks

As background for the following statement from Mayor Joseph Ferris, this Gossips post from February 2026 is recommended: "Money for Sidewalks." There is also this one, from August 2025: "Governmental Dysfunction."

In recent weeks, critics of Mayor Ferris have made reference to his decision not to pursue a $1 million Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) which had been initiated during the previous administration. In his statement, Ferris responds to that criticism and defends his decision.

No one disagrees that Hudson sidewalks need improvement. This is why the City instituted a Sidewalk Improvement District.

In recent days and weeks, my decision in January to withdraw a sidewalk grant application has become news. I believe it is important to set the record straight in regard to the purported zero-match Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application for ADA sidewalk improvements that I withdrew after taking office.

It was never free money from the State. The proposed $2 million dollar project would have required $1 million in matching funds from Hudson – a fact that the previous administration knew.

Documentation that demonstrated the City could and would allocate these funds was never submitted because those funds did not exist.

The City’s pre-application read that “The total preliminary project cost is estimated to be $2,005,500 with $1,005,500 from the City's Sidewalk Improvement District (SID) revenue fund and municipal capital reserves.”

The City of Hudson does not have a municipal capital reserve.

The State flagged that the proposed CDBG budget included parking lot repaving that did not appear to relate to ADA compliance. They further made clear that “maintenance items such as general re-paving would not be included in the CDBG share of the project.” The grant consultants guiding the City at the time warned that the lack of formal documentation meant the State would likely eliminate Hudson from consideration.

I was only made aware of this proposed grant application after taking office by the State and the grant consultants. With the City on the hook for more than a million dollars if awarded the grant and a plan the State had serious concerns about, I made the decision to withdraw this ‘plan of a plan’ application.

I remain committed to the work of improving our sidewalks. I’m just as committed to not saddling our city and taxpayers with a hefty bill and no way to pay for it. 

The Pitfalls of Virtual Meetings

Sometimes, when the audio on Zoom or Teams is particularly bad, I turn on the "live caption" function to help me decipher what's being said. I did so tonight for the meeting of the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. The results were not helpful, but they certainly were entertaining. The live caption was less able to interpret what was being said than I was--hilariously so. Among the most memorable transcription fails was John Madeo of Mountco mentioning the "Zombie Board of Appeals" and HHA executive director Jeffrey Dodson making the statement, "I'm not taking sex meat." It's obvious that Madeo actually said "Zoning Board of Appeals." I have no idea what Dodson's actual words were.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

ZBA Meeting Canceled

Tonight's meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was to feature a public hearing on the area variances required for the Hudson Housing Authority to construct a block of four three-story townhouses at the corner of Columbia and North Second streets, but the meeting has been canceled for want of a quorum. It is not known if the hearing has been postponed until next month's ZBA meeting, or if it will be rescheduled.

Tonight on the Waterfront

The Hudson-Athens Lighthouse Preservation Society (HALPS) will be participating in this week's Waterfront Wednesdays event.

Attendees at tonight's Waterfront Wednesday can contribute to a community art project inspired by the lighthouse and share their memories, reflections, and hopes for the future of the lighthouse. Those who participate will receive a limited edition Hudson-Athens Lighthouse button.

Also, from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m., tour boats will depart for the lighthouse every 20 minutes, providing plenty of opportunities to experience this beloved landmark close up. 

Another Reason to Stay Indoors

The temperatures are expected to be a bit lower today than they were yesterday, but there's a new reason to stay indoors with all the doors and windows closed: air quality. 

ABC News reported this morning that there are more than 830 wildfires burning in Canada and more than a dozen in northern Minnesota near the border, and the smoke from those fires is now descending on an area from the Midwest to New England, and that includes the Hudson Valley. A Gossips reader reported, "I'm watching with alarm this morning as the air outside my window turns a sickly yellow." 

The maps below, reproduced from the ABC News report, show the situation at 9:00 a.m. today and the prediction for 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. 

As the maps show, things are expected to get worse for us this afternoon. Information about how to cope with the situation can be found here.

"Say It Ain't So, Joe": The Mayor Responds

The featured story in today's Register-Star is Mayor Joseph Ferris's response to criticism for extending the contract to sell the property on Mill Street. Ferris claims, as he has before, that he was advised to take the action he did, without the knowledge or consent of the Common Council, by city attorney Andrew Howard.

In his response, Ferris makes a rather grievous error, claiming that the original contract set the closing date "on or about" May 3, so the contract had not actually expired when it was amended on May 20. The following is quoted from the Register-Star article:

"In no way did the closing date for the sale lapse," Ferris said. "(May 3, 2026) was an 'on or about' closing date (in the contract between Kearney and the city), and we, as in city were, and continue to, await the court's decision. . . ."

In fact, the contract of sale, which was executed on May 3, 2023, does not say "on or about"; it says "on or before" (boldface added). The difference between "about" and "before" is significant.

The article has not yet been posted online. When it is, Gossips will provide the link.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Update: Here's the link to the article: "Mayor responds to Mill Street criticism."