Supervisor Richard Keaveney (Canaan), who chairs the committee, left this resolution for last, and after it was introduced, there was lengthy discussion of the proposal among committee members and Mossman, until finally committee member Ray Staats (Clermont) asked the obvious question: "Why do we have to do this now?" The question elicited applause from the audience, which in turn elicited this reprimand from committee member Betty Young (Taghkanic): "Be quiet!"
The tide seemed to turn with Staats' question, and the committee ultimately voted unanimously to table the resolution, but not before members of the public were given a chance to speak. In order to get this news out as soon as possible, Gossips will report the highlights of those comments in a subsequent post.
No, Betty from Taghkanic---we are NOT going to be quiet. You should be the one piping down, and you should hang your head in shame.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you quell the applause of the people. Are you high on the shred of power you may possess?
I have a great suggestion for you: bring this proposal, its folly, its money and its corruption to your own town, and see what your constituents have to say about it.
You have a lot of nerve with that reprimand of yours, and I hope you get voted out of office. And go back to Taghkanic where your rude farm manners might be appreciated.
Hallelujah, and thanks to those in attendance.
ReplyDeleteShould we attend tonight's meeting? Will there be a time for public comment?
ReplyDeleteThe resolution has been tabled by the Finance Committee. It will not be voted on tonight. There are plans for a public forum, which will be the time for public comment, so I seriously doubt that the Board of Supervisors will entertain comments from the public tonight.
Delete@Observer. Putting the content of this meeting aside for a second, I take issue with your use of the phrase-"rude FARM manners." It's that kind of unnecessary, divisive language that allows folks around the county to keep thinking that Hudson is full of uptight rich people who care more about buildings and objects then people. You should think about choosing your words more carefully, or some farmer may wrongly criticize you as having rude city manners. I think everyone (on all sides) should choose their words more carefully when it comes to socioeconomically divisive Columbia County issues.
ReplyDeleteHudson has an exisitng population that is part of the U.S.A. Socialism structure. The Fed & State programs provide housing, food, etc. to those in need & I hope are deserving of it.
ReplyDeleteIf we stay on the subject of Subsidized Housing I think it's fair to state the majority is located below 2nd St & on the North Side & also along Front St. West End. Overtime, approx +40 years, the sudsidized housing locations have become a fixture & acceptable, for lack of another word, at their present Hudson locations.
Therefore I would like to ask if there is "room at the inn" for the unfortunate homeless humans and/or land in the area to consider building a homeless shelter.
I trust that the CC & Hudson political leaders w/ input from Social Services have reviewed the statistics on homeless people, programs available for them & what non-governmental agencies can provide assistance too.
Let us all keep in mind that above all else we are discussing human lives here & that your taxes will provide the solution(s).
Tmdonofrio -- "collecting" homeless and subsidized housing and low-income housing, etc. is generally understood, I believe, to be the wrong approach. Rather, outside of Tier 1 homeless shelters, the generally accepted trend is to move to scatter-site housing for Tier II and III housing. Especially in a small geography such as Hudson's this seems more the desired approach: it prevents the construction/maintenance of a large facility, and ensures integration of the homeless population into various apartments/houses in thriving communities where opportunities are more prevalent thus apparently helping to break cycles of homelessness. One of the many problems with the current plan is its warehousing aspect; expanding this troublesome part of the current plan to a neighborhood-wide "warehousing" would, we are told, likely lead to an increase in homelessness, not a decrease.
ReplyDelete