There was concern among several at the meeting that this was the first anyone had heard about the PILOT for the project. The moribund state of Hudson's IDA, which seems not to have done anything since granting a PILOT to Evergreen Partners in 2009 for the redevelopment of Hudson Terrace, may be part of the reason why. Last year, the NYS Authorities Budget Office recommended that, because of its lack of activity, the Hudson IDA be absorbed by the Columbia County IDA. This has not happened, and Mike Tucker, the new president and CEO of the Columbia Economic Development Corporation (CEDC), advised against it, telling the members of the Hudson IDA that it is "important from a public policy standpoint that the city IDA stay in business, and the city and county IDAs work together." He cited the new development anticipated for the area adjacent to the proposed hotel and the possibility for further development on the waterfront as reasons why the Hudson IDA should "get back in the business of financing projects on their own."
There was considerable discussion during the meeting, which went on for almost two hours, and much of it is reported by John Mason in the Register-Star: "Hotel developer seeks tax break." Something that was not reported, however, is a comment made by Alderman Rick Rector (First Ward), who chairs the Common Council Economic Development Committee. He told the group, "We have to look at this project a bit differently. It's a hotel going into an area of future development. It's a catalyst for future development." He noted that the Sustainable Community Associates' project was attracted by the Redburn project. Tom DePietro, IDA member and Planning Board chair, commented, "What Rick said is basically our mission statement."
Another IDA meeting to discuss a PILOT for the project has been scheduled for Thursday, June 2, at 10 a.m.
Later on Thursday, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the hotel project. Five people made comments. Steve Dunn, who serves on the Zoning Board of Appeals and was the only member of the ZBA to vote to deny the project a needed use variance, expressed his continuing concern about parking. Beth Kanaga, who lives on Tanners Lane, praised Redburn Development for their proactive approach, working with the neighborhood and addressing their concerns, and expressed her support. Bob Rasner, who operates a B&B on Union Street, voiced his concern that the whole waterfront was being put on the line "with an untested hotel operator." Mike Tucker, president and CEO of CEDC, noted that the Regional Economic Development Council has made this project a priority and encouraged the Planning Board to approve it. Myron Polenberg, who also serves on the ZBA, observed, "I understand that there is going to be tax relief for the hotel."
Soon after the public hearing was closed, the Planning Board began its deliberation. Members of the board asked the applicants to explain their plans for potential flooding, for accommodating tour buses, and for parking. The code requires one parking space for each room with 300 feet of the hotel, and Rossi explained that they had 6 spaces behind the building, 26 in a large lot behind the building on Front Street where Relish is located, and 15 on the parcel next door to 41 Cross Street--all within 300 feet of the building--which put them only 8 spaces short of the required 55. He explained that there were 47 backup spots, in the Amtrak lot, where they would purchase permits from the City, and the parking lot at Basilica Hudson.
When it was observed that the hotel proposal was consistent with the larger vision for the waterfront outlined in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), Rasner interjected, "I didn't say it wasn't consistent. I was saying it's gotta be good, it's gotta be really good."
After Planning Board chair Tom DePietro led the board through the SEQR short form, and a negative declaration was made, the four members of the board present and able to vote--Rob Bujan, Gene Shetsky, Cleveland Samuels, and DePietro--voted unanimously to approve the site plan for the hotel.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Just for the record, my concern was not that the Hotel was short 8 parking spaces (I accept that being a bit short is OK here, given that some of the guests will use the train and not have vehicles), but rather that the lease or leases for the parking areas were only 5 years in term. What happens if they are not renewed after 5 years? At that point, the 55 room hotel will have grossly inadequate parking. Thus, as I said in the meeting, a "Sword of Damocles" hangs over the adequacy of the parking 5 years hence. Nobody responded to this concern.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, since the parking areas are leased, rather than owned by the Hotel outright, the parking does not comport with the zoning code, and thus needs an area variance in addition to a use variance from the ZBA, which was never obtained. Nobody responded to that expressed concern of mine either.
Needless to say, I found the experience rather frustrating, given the lack of dialogue. I am under the impression, that zoning changes are moving forward, that might moot the legal inadequacies. Which raises the issue of why the Hotel went to the ZBA at all (for the use variance anyway), rather than just working the system to secure the requisite zoning change.
Obviously the Hotel has broad public support (irrespective of whether or not there is an inadequate parking situation), so it seems that the zoning changes will go through. Thus, that part of the Hotel applicants' strategy is puzzling to me. Why involve the ZBA at all? I become "the villain" for no good reason! :)
Finally the applicants are very nice and sincere chaps, and I wish them well. As i said putting aside the parking, I think their project is excellent, and will be good for the waterfront, and they seem sincere and competent. And despite my opposition as it concerns the parking, they were always friendly and polite to me, which I appreciate.
As to the Pilot, Rick Rector I think made a valid point as to this Hotel being in a different category than other lodging facilities in Hudson, which Carole outlined. That leaves the issue of whether or not a tax rebate is really needed to make the project financially viable enough to proceed. I understand, that unfortunately, the criteria for a Pilot is not needs based, but giving a tax rebate that is not needed, seems to me, just throwing money away, which is one thing Hudson can ill afford to do. The City is financially strapped, with very high property tax rates as we all know.
Sorry for rambling on so long.
Thank you for explaining this in such detail. From past comments you made here, it was already obvious to me that you're proceeding on the basis of principle, and asking the ZBA to do the same.
DeleteA zoning variance applies to the land itself, and not to any current owner of that land. It's a travesty, then, if a ZBA member must defend a principled stance to refuse a variance against criticisms that his motivation is particular to the landowner.
That would be a criticism from someone who not only misunderstands the role of a ZBA, but is, in all likelihood, incapable of discerning actual principles from personal interests. Believe it or not such people exist, and it's their perpetual muddle which ineluctably advances a society of personalities over a nation of laws.
(You can't legislate against human nature, but our Founders aimed to frustrate the nation's inevitable drift in that direction. They had as their example scoundrels like Aaron Burr, predecessor to the unprincipled lawyer currently serving as NYS Attorney General.)
If the ZBA was influenced by the antics of Alderman Friedman, who appeared before them as an attorney (necessarily) to argue for the variance, then that was entirely the fault of the ZBA members, and not the lawyer who surely misled them with forethought:
http://cityofhudson.org/content/MeetingCategories/View/1:field=meetings;/content/Meetings/View/298:field=documents;/content/Documents/File/3020.pdf
Sorry to have rambled on myself, but to quote George Orwell, “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
We should get a clearer idea about any overlap between the IDA and the HDC, and also where they can overlap if they haven't before.
ReplyDeleteThen, we should incrementally diminish the role of the HDC by having a public agency take over these conceivably overlapping functions.
Mike Tucker's advice to preserve the IDA was sage, but maybe it wasn't the officials at the NYS Authorities Budget Office he was contradicting so much as past City officials who assumed that a private HDC was a better bet than a public IDA (a better bet for entrenched cronyism, to be sure).
Whatever the overlap in their roles, and there are many, our private HDC somehow gets publicly-owned properties from the City which it then privately dispenses as it privately sees fit.
At least two properties come to mind which were mishandled by the HDC, and currently are extremely problematic either for the City or for the legitimate property owners.
One of these properties is a particular parcel which belongs to the Hudson Powerboat Association. It was sheer lack of vision on the part of a previous HDC to give away a major stretch of the City's waterfront, a loss which now frustrates a sensible waterfront revitalization (I mean, if you could do everything over from scratch).
That doesn't mean that the HPBA should now be made to suffer, but the public can't even find out how much that land was sold for. The deed says $1.00, but everyone knows that's not true.
The trouble is, the HDC is immune from the Freedom of Information Law which, for those with a sense of Hudson's history, pretty much sums up why it's a dangerous organization to be taking possession of City business.
Here's the "New York State Industrial Development Law," which allows for an IDA
http://theagency-ny.com/documents/Article_18-A.pdf
It should be pointed out that the Hudson Powerboat Association is always law abiding, whereas the owner of Hudson Cruises Inc. (Spirit of Hudson) is currently using 95% of the City dock, and locking it against public entry too.
DeleteThe company's lease, which expires 5/31/16, specifies that "the tenant shall leave sufficient room on the dock for the docking of another large vessel."
Soon the owner will start parking cars around the gazebo again, or re-installing his ice machine on the dock. In fact, both things would require the permission of the State Legislature.
This year alone, A. Colarusso and Son Inc. broke multiple Local Laws, and at least one State law involving stormwater. Last year the company attempted to expand its operations onto State-owned land, and then submitted a site plan with numbers so suspicious that the Army Corps of Engineers sent it straight back.
Make no mistake, we continue to live in a lawless place, where the best public officials are lily-livered, and the worst ... remain the worst.
“IN recent years, fences and barricades have blocked the public right to have access to our seas. We are becoming a landlocked people, fenced away from our own beautiful shores, unable to exercise the ancient right to enjoy our precious beaches.” Senator Ralph Yarborough, Texas 1969...
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that rivers that are physically navigable are legally navigable for purposes of state ownership ("state title"). On such rivers, in any state, the riverbed and banks are state land, held in trust for the public for navigation, fishing, and other non-destructive visits. . - See more at: http://www.nationalrivers.org/member-area/#sthash.DN8TN5gr.dpuf
Placing the cart before the horse merely allows for the maximum graft per grant.
Some of past grants chasing projects that required pilots or fudge factored engineering...
Shrimp Box, Schroeder's Chevy, Hudson Wine and Liquor, Rick's Refrigerator, Powerboat, Riverloft, Hallenbeck's Toxic Harbor...
There seems to be a pattern of city officials "assuming the wrong direction" whenever grant money is involved. If there's a grant available for a bad idea why wait for a notion the pays for itself?
Our servants continue to hold the people's shore hostage until Albany produces more "free" money from taxpayers.
Citizens should not be made to wait for boatload of free money to float down river, so these quasi governmental agencies can return to serving themselves.
In the words of then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo; these IDAs have become a "cauldron of corruption." They are a colossal waste of citizen liberty and taxpayer money.
1 Riparian
But to stem corruption, wouldn't you prefer a public and transparent IDA over a non-public HDC?
DeleteWhich is more useful for the concealed interests of the bosses?
"Boss rule is the negation of democracy" - T.R., Saratoga, 1910.
You ask me to pick the best of two bad choices...
ReplyDeleteCoasting Trade in maritime law: Commerce and navigation between different places along the coast of the U S as distinguished from commerce with ports in foreign countries. Commercial intercourse carried on between different districts in different states, different districts in the same state, or different places in the same district, on the sea coast or on a navigable river...
The free flow of people from a federal watercourse to a city street to is interstate commerce, an authority exclusively reserved to Congress, not Municipal Homewreckers.
Unheimlich,does either agency have the right to collude with city leaders to restrain trade by blocking winners and backing losers?
With City leaders serving on both bodies, I guess we have to trust that these individuals don't "collude" with themselves. (Thus the importance of public servants sticking to principles.)
DeleteBut aside from its Code of Ethics, what are the principles to which the non-public HDC must hold?
Strictly speaking, that's none of our business; not without becoming HDC members ourselves.
I appreciate the attentiveness of the Planning Commission's discussion -- and Gossips' informative account. But I worry that the IDA will walk into another PILOT proposal without knowing whether such Payments in Lieu of Taxes actually benefit Hudson. In my experience of the PILOT program, and I think there is data to back me up, in Hudson it tends to play out as a form of corporate welfare that does not deliver what it is supposed to deliver: jobs for citizens and economic benefit for the community. Like many good ideas, I think this one has far fewer benefits than promised and, in fact, leaves ordinary citizens contributing more to the bottom lines of private companies than the economic welfare of their fellow citizens. I don't mean to suggest that Redburn doesn't have a terrific idea and that it couldn't benefit the local economy, but it is past time for the IDA (or some government agency) to tell us regular taxpayers whether PILOTs have worked the way they were supposed to have worked.
ReplyDelete"time for the IDA (or some government agency) to tell us regular taxpayers whether PILOTs have worked the way they were supposed to"
ReplyDeleteThese pilots of industry have led all but one overdeveloped industry out of Hudson.
They say that Hudson should place all our hopes on tourism. There are clear signs it's been overdeveloped, where each additional tourist added is diminishing resident rights.
Our betters have said for thirty years that IDA are fantastic, where are the jobs?
Why should we now be able to trust what they say?