Saturday, March 11, 2017

Of Interest

In today's Register-Star, Rosa Acheson has the story of the meeting between the mayor and City attorneys and Colarusso and its attorney which was discussed briefly at Thursday's Planning Board meeting: "Planners question private meeting between Hudson officials and Colarusso reps."


  1. So the participants DID discuss compromises at the meeting! Access during "festivals"! Brilliant.

    It even sounds as if the Appeal was discussed, and why wouldn't it be? Put another way, how was it possible not to discuss substantive matters, if only allusively.

    Allusive: "both parties agreed at the meeting to request alternative options from ... the state Department of Transportation," and yet somehow a week later we were instructed by a meeting participant that the publicly preferred alternative was of little account.

    If he'd only just agreed to petition the DOT, how did he already know the answer? (I refer to the statement of the attorney who attended the meeting without the knowledge of his clients, the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals.)

    This appointee is steering City policy, which is not what we're paying him to do. The question bears repeating until people wake up: What business did he have at that meeting?!

    In a way, the Khosrova controversy prefigures a central theme of this year's City elections.

    People will have honest policy differences, as indeed they should, and then with each election a majority chooses the future it thinks is best.

    But in the present case, City officials are being forced to interpret existing laws.

    By signaling a willingness to subvert Local Laws, or at least to distort them on behalf of a special interest (floating compromises at clandestine meetings!), anyone aspiring to win a political contest is failing a test that's a lot more important and revealing than the easy promises they'll soon be making about the future.

    If someone isn't prepared to defend the City's existing laws against threats, then they're just not credible candidates, whether they're already in City government or only wish to be.

    This year's election will be about defending existing Local Laws. If you can't do that, then don't even think of running for office.

  2. Khosrova: "there’s been a lot of public statements, a lot of acrimony, a lot of misstatements, confusion ..."

    Presumably, it's the stupid public which is broadcasting misstatements, and the company was invited to set the record straight.

    So when will the ignorant public be invited to meet with someone in City government - anyone! - so that some City attorney can explain away the public's misuse of a tape measure.

  3. For as long as there have been boats, navigators have carried cargo of stone as well as fish.

    Might Colarusso have a legal right to the continuous customary, prescribed, historic and prehistoric use?

    Each new (LWRP) waterfront use (Access during festivals) seems only to reduce the ancient use of shore, navigation.

  4. Khosrova is not capable of handling this complex review and getting a good outcome for the City of Hudson. It's time for a better attorney.

    1. Nobody should presuppose what the DEC will decide regarding Hudson's zoning issues and the SEQR review, yet it seems that's exactly what officials in both municipalities are doing, making plans for the DEC's next segmentation.

      Does the DEC comprehend that the City's ZBA would then have to conduct its own SEQR review for the proposal? More to your point, do our City attorneys grasp this?

      Even more to the point, what should the ZBA's legal advisor be doing about this? Mightn't it be different than his advice to the Planning Board?

      What is his advice to the Planning Board on bringing the Code Enforcement Officer to court? (In the only valid argument in the entire appeal, the hint was provided by the appellant itself: Why choose this violation alone?)

      The City already has a position which affords the necessary overview for these questions, a Corporation Counsel, whose job is not only to advise the mayor and the department heads, but also do crisis management. Who could be in a better position to coordinate all of the above with the advice that the other City attorneys are giving their respective Boards.

      Only in this case, the involved Boards both share the same attorney.

      My argument is that the position of any attorney in both of Mr. Khosrova's roles is fundamentally compromised. He can't move left or right without doing or saying something which may be prejudicial to some other part of City government.

      I agree the man doesn't help himself by making presuppositions, predicting outcomes, and obviously steering the process towards those outcomes, but no one should be in his position in the first place.

      He's at the center of web of paradoxes with no right solutions, constantly changing hats and having to make sure they stay changed.

      It's his own fault that he's managing the crisis by essentially becoming a spokesman for the company, but no one in his position could have the overview and responsibility required to handle this situation properly.