Monday, October 1, 2012

Galloway Gallery: Exhibit 31

Back at the end of August, Gossips discovered that some items in the inventory of properties owned by Galvan Partners that had been overlooked in the "gallery." Having previously revealed three of those overlooked properties--70-72 North Fifth Street, 618 State Street, and 346 Warren Street--Gossips returns to the topic to feature the fourth one: 20 North Fifth Street, the building right next door to the house formerly owned by longtime Galloway designer, project manager, and spokesman, Kevin Walker.

 Further on the topic of Eric Galloway's and Galvan's acquisitions, it's been confirmed that the Eric Galloway who purchased 27 East 11th Street in New York City for $10.6 million is indeed T. Eric Galloway, the enigmatic man who is buying up Hudson.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. unheimlichOctober 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    If the concern is not overlooking anymore houses in the Galloway "gallery," are we sure that the city has put all of its property available for purchase into the recent auction? The law doesn't require it.

    In a city like Hudson, I'd want to find out what properties, if any, were held back from public auction for sale through other means.

    Unless someone who really knows can be found, and taking the recent incident of an underreported public hearing as our example, I'd be checking those classifieds!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carole OsterinkOctober 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM

      Unheimlich--The process of tax foreclosure and the sale of foreclosed property is pretty transparent and carried out by the city treasurer. Early in the process, a list properties at risk of foreclosure is published (distributed to the Common Council and the press and posted on the bulletin board in City Hall). In subsequent months, that list gets pared down as property owners enter into payment agreements with the City or find some way to pay their back taxes. In some cases, I expect owners may sell their properties in private sales before foreclosure occurs. After observing the process for several years now, I am quite sure that no properties are being "held back" from the public auction. Two properties were withdrawn from the public auction on Saturday--405 Warren Street and 318 State Street--because of ongoing litigation. They are expected to be auctioned at some later date.

      Delete
  2. unheimlichOctober 1, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    Thanks for the info Gossips. I'm heartened that the process you describe is regulated by our excellent City Treasurer.

    Call me unduly suspicious, but when a city which regularly engages in illegal activities and illegal leases adopts a law, the intention of which can be explained as obscuring transparency, the onus is then on the public to pay close attention.

    The nuts and bolts of any particular law can take time to digest, and I freely admit that I've not fully processed the language of the City of Hudson Charter at §41-1, "Real Estate, Sale of."

    Earlier in the summer I was searching for examples in Hudson's charter where Home Rule was elicited to overturn New York state General City Law. That was on behalf of the Furgary community.

    I stumbled upon §41-1 which does exactly that:

    "Pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Section 10, the City of Hudson hereby elects to supersede each and every provision of General City Law Section 23, para. 2(b) as it pertains to the sale or lease of city-owned real estate. ...

    "In the sale or lease of city real estate, property may be sold at public auction or at private sale. ... Private sale shall be under such terms as are fair and equitable, but any sale of city property at private sale shall be for the fair market value of the property and advanced public notice shall be posted."

    The following proviso that some of the fox are in a position to guard the hen house gives me little confidence: "No sale or lease of city real estate ... under the control of the city shall be made or authorized except by a vote of three-fourths of the weighted vote of members of the Common Council." 

    I have to wonder about the circumstances and purpose of superseding the state's General City Law, which the Common Council did in 2002 with §41-1.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)