Thursday, May 24, 2018

What's Happening at East Jeezus?

The 9.9-acre parcel on the waterfront south of the "deep water" dock, the transfer of which was allegedly a condition of the state approving Hudson's 2011 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and the failure to execute that transfer is cited as the reason Hudson does not today have an approved LWRP with all its benefits and protections, dropped off the radar soon after The Valley Alliance revealed in June 2013 that 4.4 of the 9.9 acres actually still belonged to the City of Hudson, because the sale of the parcel to St. Lawrence Cement in 1981 had been illegal.

Image: The Valley Alliance
Last evening, a Gossips reader reported changes on the very 4.4 parcel whose ownership has been in question. The land was brush-hogged and mowed recently and a barrier of stones constructed to prevent vehicle access. The transformation makes the site a little like Rick's Point.

It was revealed in 2016 that the City's negotiations with Holcim for the transfer of the 9.9 acres had broken down in 2013 because A. Colarusso & Sons had started its negotiations for the purchase of all the Holcim holdings in Hudson and Greenport, and Colarusso wanted the 9.9 acres to use as a "staging area." Colarusso took possession of the Holcim property in early in 2015

The new "improvements" made on the 4.4 acres believed still to be owned by the City of Hudson raise some questions: Who did the work and why? What does it mean? Does it signal some resolution in the contested ownership of this parcel?

Back in December 2013, Gossips asked the same questions about bulldozing and gravel spread on the 4.4 acres. That time, it turned out to be associated with Amtrak making repairs to the railroad tracks. This time, the intent appears to be different, but you never know. 


  1. Did you ask Rob Perry if the City had anything to do with it?

  2. The list of who might have done this should be short, so hopefully we will find out soon who did it and why. And unless there is a good reason for it to have been installed (in a rather crude manner I might add), with which our city approves, it should be removed. I instantly thought about the adverse possession over time, but fortunately that cannot vest against a governmental entity.

    All of this assumes that the City does in fact own the land. Hopefully that has been well documented. That piece of land is a part of the larger puzzle about how to resolve certain outstanding issues about the future of that portion of the waterfront.