The thinking behind the proposal is that, because the City of Hudson needs to increase its tax base and the revenue the school district requires increases inexorably every year, it makes no sense for HCSD--a tax exempt entity largely supported by property taxes--to own property that is unused and generates no tax revenue either for itself or for the City of Hudson. The idea is to encourage private development of new housing on this 33-acre parcel to create new property tax revenue for both the City of Hudson and the Hudson City School District.
When Gossips asked Moore about the nature of the housing envisioned for the site, he reiterated that the resolution specified market rate housing and suggested that "arguably there could and should be both" individually owned homes and apartments. In a subsequent email, Moore stated, "The desirability of the location is clear. It has access to the center of Hudson, to the Middle, Junior and High Schools, to merchants on Fairview Avenue, and to the existing and planned recreation and conservation areas along the river." He went on to say, "I foresee a complex set of land use master planning, negotiations and agreements between the School District and the City to arrive at a point where everyone is confident in the character of the project." Moore believes that the City--represented by the Council, the mayor, and Hudson Development Corporation--and HCSD are in earnest to begin discussions of the possibility.
Click here to read the draft resolution.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
then of course when that doesnt jell theres always GALVAN to pick up the deal
ReplyDeleteAt least 3 of Mr. Moore's premises, as reported, are suspect: 1) that the land is unused, 2) that the district needs more money every year, and 3) that Hudson needs an expanded tax base. As to #1, that land is "used" by vegetation and all kinds of animal life, not to mention the kids' cross-country team. We sound like St. Lawrence Cement dismissing land not used by humans as "unused" or without value. #2. Hudson is filled with underutilized housing and improperly taxed properties. Let's fix Hudson before we start polluting open space -- which is a large part of what makes this area so wonderful (and valuable!). #3 I sat on the HCSD board for 5 years and know that tens of thousands of dollars are "wasted" every year. There is simply no conceivable reason to justify spending $22,000 per student, the current figure, especially in light of decreasing enrollment. There are plenty of better ways of saving taxpayer money before selling off such a precious part of the endowment. --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteOops. I switched #2 & #3 in the explanation. Sorry. --pm
ReplyDeleteWhere is the demand for this housing coming from? First and foremost Husdon needs sustainable jobs to foster economic development and housing demand. As for the location, it's completely car-dependent. Increased density and zoning reform in the core, walkable area of Hudoson is where development needs to be encouraged.
ReplyDeletethe views alone are priceless; location,location, location...............people & dog parks, performing arts venue or high priced apartments and/or homes. Why not? Only the best for the those w/ $ 400k +
ReplyDeleteIf we have more tax-paying properties, then taxes could actually go down for owners of existing properties. That is the goal. As for the existing housing stock or developable vacant land, none is in the hands of the City. The parcels that are available are few, scattered around the city and owned by the Hudson Development and Planning Agency. HCDPA is making an effort to develop those properties.
ReplyDeleteTo the question of demand for housing and the very good point about job creation, non-retail business is returning (Crafteck, Etsy, Harney's and the LB-based businesses in Hudson; Premium Brands and Flanders in Greenport) with substantial workforces by recent Hudson area standards. There is also the factor of the clearly increasing attractiveness of Hudson as a livable city. Our housing stock is not growing to meet these needs. Ask around about the apartment and house availability and rental prices both North and South of Warren Street. Properties are being renovated, but the cost of mortgages and the extent of renovations, along with the shrinking supply of units is pushing rents up.
As for open space, the city is dedicating a good deal of effort in collaboration with the Columbia Land Conservancy to creating a conservation area that will stretch from Water Street, through the 2nd Street land fill, connecting to the Greenport Conservation Area.
Many people complain, and for good reason, about the property tax burden in Hudson. One of the most effective answers is to expand the tax base. Can this new housing happen easily or overnight? Obviously not. We may encounter insurmountable hurdles. This proposal need not be the only strategy for lowering our tax burden. New businesses are a big part of the answer.
Please keep the questions coming. Let's thoroughly examine this option to determine if it is or is not in the City's or the Schools' interest.
Not to beat a dead horse here but there is no mention of the 80+ properties presently owned by GALVAN. The unquestioned majority of which are vacant and vacated upon purchase. That is housing stock that affects demand for living spaces and the actual population by an estimated 1000 people. Then there is also the question of tax burden on this town' if or when' GALVANS holding turn into not for profit status. It seems to me your resolve for housing and property tax is being shifted to this most complicated proposed parcel development while the real solution rests in some REAL answers on just what GALVAN intends to do with this major hoarding of Hudsons housing stock and how that will affect ALL of us. I hope you will reply with a clear message Don but if you can't that will just be business as usual for the Mysteries of GALVAN and their ever so evasive hold on our community. Thanks for reading this if you made it this far. Most Sincerely ... a taxpaying property owner who doesnt depend on grants or gov't subsidized incomes. vince
ReplyDeletehow much land in the conzervancy deal can be built upon?...mucho...
ReplyDeleteYeah, and the vets will return from WWII too.
ReplyDeleteA really dumb idea.
For many years the CLC has restricted use of land in their control for hunting deer. Now the City of Hudson wants to give them control of the land beneath Navigable water to restrict fowling. Citizens pay fees and taxes for these uses yet the City blocks them. On WGY today we hear DOT is looking to expand river use on the western shore of Albany blocked by 787. The eastern shore is (almost) completely blocked by the RR tracks amd Hudson looks to restrict it even further. Ponderous...
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen my property taxes going down since around 30 new townhouses have been built on Academy Hill at the top of Rossman Avenue. All new revenue for the City. Where does that go?
ReplyDeleteA thorough market study of housing demand and economic development needs to be undertaken before this "proposal" should be considered. Exactly what type of housing and number of units as well as what types of jobs and household incomes need to be determined before, not after, land use proposals are made. Low-density, car-oriented suburban sprawl doesn't seem like a good fit for Hudson. Higher density development in the walkable core of Hudson near transit would initially seem to make much more sense. As for the development risk regarding the uncertain future of the large number of vacant or warehoused GalVan properties and to what extent they're contributing to the tax-base of Hudson is more complicated, pressing question about which we have yet to see any detailed information.
ReplyDeleteTwo ways to balance city books; increase the "paid" or reduce the "due".
ReplyDeleteCity might want to study the North Dock fishermen's method; minimal maintenance, to extract maximum use, of land that can be taken back at any time by would be "municipal monarchs."
I appreciate Don Moore's comments, but the difference between wanting a community discussion about "increasing the tax base" and a proposal to develop 33 acres of prime property are very different. As Newcomer says, "a thorough market study" is needed, one which answer the good questions already posed. No, the resolution "to initiate discussions" about a particular piece of land is misguided. A thorough market study is not.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that no one answer will make everyone happy. The two biggest issues I personally hear about in Hudson involve rising taxes and rising rents. I don't think there are many people in any ward that would report they feel good about what they pay in taxes here. It's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. While this idea may or may not in the end pan out to be the best strategy, I commend Don and the Common Council for responding to public demand for tax relief. It is a step and we have to start somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThe progressive solution is to place citizens on a tax and spend treadmill until there is no green space remaining.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Cuomo offers relief for municipalities that consolidate services and Greenport borders the proposed development.
Council might want to consider reducing the "due" by taking up the governor's offer.
A 3rd street truck route extension, connecting to Rt. 9 might serve Hudson better than profits to handful of "tax base developers."
ReplyDelete