Tuesday, October 22, 2013

What Might Have Been

Back in 2008, Charlie Davi tried mightily to buy the Washington Hose firehouse and renovate it as a firematics-themed ice cream parlor and fast-food restaurant. He was thwarted in this by the four aldermen who represented the First and Third wards at that time, who believed that the City needed to retain control of the firehouse at the entrance to Promenade Hill in order to realize the long-term goals for waterfront development and were vilified for their obstructionist stand. 

Two years later, in 2010, Gossips celebrated a happy ending. Davi's Delights had opened in the old Dairy Queen building on Green Street, and the Washington Hose firehouse--still owned by the City of Hudson--was to be restored and renovated to become the location of the Chamber of Commerce. 

Recently, there's been a new development. It seems that Davi's Delights, closed for the season but promising to return in the spring, is for sale. If Davi had succeeded in purchasing the Washington Hose firehouse, would it now be for sale again?


  1. ...and now the city lead by mayor hallenbeck is dead set on a course to turn over "North Bay lands" to the columbia land conservancy. what he didn't tell the common council last tuesday night, probably deliberately, is that this includes the small area known as Furgary. it is if you look at the LWRP with my eyes anyway. did anyone tell the mayor upon taking office that the LWRP is a proposed plan, not orders from Albany? when the city is going to pay 670 thousand dollars for a tin can that turns into a police/court facility, when the city is desperate to balance the books by selling the building lots at 4th and State St, when the city tears down a building on Spring St because they have a secret buyer in the wings and yet the sale has not been forthcoming, at least from what i read in local media, i do not think this is a time to give away a huge chunk of waterfront. this bit of Hudson may one day become a bargaining chip with the state of NY, maybe the feds, maybe Greenport, i have no crystal ball, i do know enough not to sell the family jewels for a promise, in this case give away beautiful city property because the conservancy may or may not be a better manager. so the mayor in order to save face wants to turn over the problem he created to someone else and say the common council did it?...

  2. Government agencies cannot sell or give away rivers to private ownership or control, because rivers are held “in trust” for the public under the Public Trust Doctrine. They must allow the public to fish, boat, and recreate. They must conserve the strip of public land along navigable rivers, including its wildlife habitat and wetlands. They can manage recreation to conserve resources of public interest, but not simply to reduce or eliminate recreation. They can prohibit camping in particular areas, but not exclude it entirely from long stretches of river. NOR (National Organization of Rivers).

    If a local court previously convicted a river recreationist of trespassing, that is not determinative of current rights, because public rights to rivers are primarily a matter of federal law. NOR (National Organization of Rivers).

    The entire eastern shore is already entrapped by RR tracks and Hudson's shore is further blocked by docks of the power boat all through fishing season.

    Neither the CLC nor the city are pro-active maintainers of their existing waterfront. So far their plan has separated inner city fisher folk, by further blocking them from the only pathway to the water's level. Pathways they are obligated to keep free of obstruction.

    Udall had it correct, farmers are the best stewards of farmland, and fisher folk, best stewards of land below the high water line...

    1 Riparian