...common sense assessment:... its' a tin can that costs too much, in a bad location, plus it will come off the all important tax rolls...
But Mike, Mr. Finn needs to be rewarded, for coming up with the HDC scheme, to up-root fishermen from the city shore.
it was designed as a grocery store and should become a grocery store
Precisely, Vince. Thank you for your abundant common sense.
Regardless of its initial design imperative, the Finnish Line building is the City's best opportunity for this facility which is long overdue. If some entity would like to purchase the building for a grocery store I'm sure the deal can be struck. There's nothing stopping such an endeavor from starting there except perhaps zoning and that is easily overcome with a hearing or 3. Really no big deal in the scope of such a project. But recall that at least some of the buildings along what we now call Columbia Street were originally designed as whore houses . . . not sure we want original intent to be dispositive or even (no pun intended) suggestive. :)
...nothing was "designed" as a bawdy house, house of, bordello, many better expressions to use in the English language, sorry john, clean up your mouth. if this property were on the market at the city's price it would sit unsold. it's a tin can that costs too much.....which begs the question, who came up with the 670K figure? has mr. Finn been offered less?
Really? You're sure not one house on Columbia was built by someone who thought "that's the ticket, whores!" Why not? It was, by most histories, just about a legit business in Hudson back when. But that is neither here nor there. The value of the Finn property is not in its building, that's for sure. It is, to use your description, a tin can. It happens, however, to be a tin can sitting on 1.5acres of land that is for sale in Hudson. This makes it highly unique in such a small city. It is the future possibilities that exist for the city owning that parcel (which connects, in the rear, with the Plum Bronson House property and, therefore, gives an unimpeded access to that property). The City offered Mr. Finn less than he was asking but he was firm. The City negotiated a fair option agreement whereby all sums paid to the seller for the option are credited against the purchase price so if we close we have gone out of pocket on the option exactly $0. If we don't close, it's because either a) we can't get the financing done or b) there's an environmental issue -- and in either of those cases the City can cancel the purchase agreement and get $30k of its $35.5k paid to-date (which may increase to $41k if the phase II environmental examination isn't completed by 9/29/13).As for my language, Mr. Lesawyer -- if you don't like what I have to say, don't read what I write.
Isn't it the "job" of ONE of Hudsons many organizations to seek out and entice the kind of businesses we need ?Or are we perpetually at the mercy of fly-by-nights who promise employment and leave without paying the town whats due ...
...O.K. i get it now, we are paying, 400K plus per acre in a land deal to take 470K commercial off the tax rolls, for a property that connects to Plum-Bronson when and if the state lets it go and then we build a road to it, perfect. is that before or after we fix the Ferry St. bridge?
Personally, I would have rather seen the police department in the Armory than the senior center.
For years it had been Scalera's plan to put COPs,Court and Bldg. Dept ,in 25 R.R., when Tony Concra's PILOT and DSS lease with him ended. When that time came, City was in process of going ahead with that, when Galloway made offer to put it all in the Armory. Scalera bit...and DSS bought 25 RR for twice what the City was going to pay. But, that Armory offer by Galloway vanished and was quickly replaced by his "Civic " plan of his on 4th and Columbia. The City would have gone through with that, if it wasn't for the Police Union, stopping it,as they did not want to be under 2 floors of SRO Homeless Shelter.That project was endorsed by Alderman Friedman, as maybe not ideal, but Hudson's only chance at that time...It is the same thing GalVan did at Senior Center ...first offering 300,000 to have that project go ahead at S3rd St,and then just as quickly ,that turned into the Senior Center being over at Armory, at no charge to City, but utilities,insurance and some $1 a year or something...that quickly morphed into the C.C. signing a M.O.U. that the City would do its best effort to have 400,000 grant and 150,000 grant ..from original Senior Center ,be given to GalVan.Since the 400,000 Grant was refused to GalVan, by Funders...and I was told by a HDC member that the additional 100,000 grant from HDC for S.3rd that was returned,that GalVan was going after was turned down...things have gone quiet on the Senior Center front.