Ear to the Ground
. . . or, in this case, the radio. Affordable housing in general and Bliss Towers in particular were topics of conversation when Tom DePietro was interviewed by Vern Cross on WGXC last week. In the interview, which can be heard here, the discussion of Bliss Towers begins at 21:52. At 23:05, Cross says he "heard that the new guy had resigned," duly admitting that it could be a rumor. (Cross used to be on the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, but he resigned in January 2017.) The "new guy," of course, would be Anthony Laulette, who took the position of executive director of the Hudson Housing Authority on March 27.
The specter of razing Bliss Towers, which arises periodically but hasn't been seriously and publicly considered since 2010, resurfaced when DePietro pointed out that past schemes to demolish Bliss Towers had come a cropper because of the requirement that, before a public housing project could be demolished, an equal number of new dwelling units had to be provided. In the past, it was always concluded that there is simply not enough available space in Hudson to create 132 new low-income housing units, particularly since the plans put forward in 2010 involved building two-family townhouses instead of four-story apartment buildings, four stories being the maximum height allowed by Hudson code. According to DePietro (he says this at 24:00), the rules have changed, and providing an equal number of dwelling units is no longer required.
Gossips Note: At an Affordable Housing Hudson (AHH) forum in May, Anthony Laulette told the audience, "Bliss Towers is not going anywhere." At the request of Second Ward alderman Tiffany Garriga, who moderated the forum, he repeated the statement: "It's not going anywhere." You can watch Dan Udell's video of the forum on YouTube. Laulette's comments about Bliss Towers begin at 9:54.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
Quick point of order: I was the moderator of the May forum you refer to; Tiffany Garriga was part of the group that organized the forum.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify a bit: My comments were based on reading through the policies on The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website. Our city's code includes a curious chapter, 174, that mentions the establishment of a Fair Housing Commission in 1982. The current status of that commission is unclear, but it does mandate a one-for-one relocation. In any case, as anyone who's spent time in Bliss knows, the building is in desperate need of repair. The estimated costs are beyond city reach, so we must demand that the builders (i.e. the federal government) step up. It's a moral imperative for our community.
ReplyDeleteTom, Unfortunately, Hudson has too many moral imperatives and too few public responsibility imperatives. Before we start spending other peoples' money (i.e. taxpayer's money), we need a government that is open--I mean OPEN--rational--I mean RATIONAL--and responsible--I mean operating in a smart and efficient manner. You talk about the federal government as if it's a foreign power instead of Us the people. And you speak of the city ("beyond city reach") as if it's a child instead of Us the people... Last May's forum on affordable housing generated tons of good ideas, but we need to take those ideas and make them work instead of waiting for some mythical savior or -- as is frequently the case in Hudson -- some eleventh hour hail mary pass that is neither good nor responsible.
DeletePeter, I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing, but my comment in no way implies that we, the citizens of Hudson, are helpless, or that the federal government is unapproachable. Surely, you don't think the city can afford the repairs to Bliss Towers. And while I appreciate your little civics lesson, and that you moderated a discussion last May, many Hudsonsites have actually been working on developing affordable housing and fixing what we already have. No one expects a savior but it seems like you are auditioning for the job . I wish you luck.
DeleteJeez Tom, you're already acting like a member of the club: defensive and arrogant. In my day, and to this day, I believed that public officials were public servants, and respectful of public opinion. You comment makes my point. cheers, -peter
DeleteI'm sorry that's how you feel. I intended no disrespect, and was only seeking clarity. I'm glad we're continuing this conversation through email.
Delete"No one expects a savior but it seems like you are auditioning for the job . I wish you luck." You meant no disrespect? Oy! The point is affordable housing is an important issue and the community needs to be involved. That's why I'm not continuing the conversation through email. Too many decisions in this town get made behind closed doors. Too often "the public" arrives at a meeting only to discover that the powers-that-be have already made the decisions. The folks that organized the two community forums (including the one I moderated in May) should be applauded for bringing the issue to the public. But this is something that our local government should be doing. Tom chides me for not appreciating the fact that "many Hudsonsites have actually been working on developing affordable housing and fixing what we already have." So what? Why does he use that fact as a criticism of my opinion instead of an opportunity to reach out to the public and widen the pool of conversants in the conversation? You don't solve these public sector problems through private email conversations; you solve them by engaging the public, all of it, in the conversation.
DeleteFor all the "How I would run a housing development" theorists, who have never sat in a Management Chair dealing simultaneously with client needs and budgetary restraints and continual community pressures and criticisms, oh it all looks like such an easy-to-do, cushy job.
ReplyDeleteAll the pie-in-the-sky theories run smack dab into the brick wall of reality.
Or, as Mike Tyson would--and did--say, Everybody's gotta a plan until they get hit in the face...
DeleteThis is Rebecca Wolff. What has been made clear to me in my efforts at bringing public and political attention to affordable housing in Hudson is that one great change that could happen easily would be for more alliances to be formed, formal and informal, between the agencies, officials, and individuals who are responsible for and in charge of--for lack of a better phrase--the various initiatives. Affordable housing is octopus-like and collaborations and partnerships, both for ideas and actions, might be what is missing. Apparently there is a county-level Housing Task Force; perhaps a localized Task Force formed by the people who actually DO the tasks, would be useful.
ReplyDelete