Vacant Buildings, Silent Hearing
Mayor Rick Rector held a public hearing this afternoon on Local Law No. 4 for 2018, the law that will require owners of unoccupied buildings to register their buildings and pay an annual fee for keeping them in an unoccupied state. When Gossips arrived at City Hall, admittedly a few minutes late, Rector was declaring the public hearing closed. About fifteen people had shown up for the hearing, among them a few aldermen, Council president Tom DePietro, code enforcement officer Craig Haigh, and Roger Hannigan Gilson who writes The Other Hudson Valley, but apparently they had all come to hear what other people might have to say about the law because no one present made a single comment.
Had I arrived before the hearing was closed, I would have made a comment. As it was, I shared it with Rector after the hearing, and I share it now with readers. It has to do with the "vacant building plan" that an owner must submit to the code enforcement officer for approval when registering a vacant building.
The law states: "The plan, at a minimum, must contain information from one of the following three choices for the property." The first of those choices is a demolition plan, and the last is a rehabilitation plan. In my opinion, those options are presented in the wrong order. The City should be encouraging rehabilitation and discouraging demolition. For that reason, the choice now presented first--demolition--should be last, and the choice now presented last--rehabilitation--should be first.
COPYRIGHT 2018 CAROLE OSTERINK
When up is down, backwards is forwards, one plus one does not equal two.
ReplyDeleteI too came a few minutes late, only to find the mayor, craig haig, councilman rob bujan, and tom dipietro huddled along the back benches discussing some of the language niceties about registering a vacant building with the city.... This is an important law, which will go a long way to stop the warehousing of rental units to artificially inflate housing costs.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to find out who my doppelgänger is, since I have been in NYC since early Wednesday morning. :)
DeleteSorry Rob. But if you spent more time in Hudson, maybe I'd know what you looked like. --p
DeleteThat was a bit snarky of me. Sorry. It was Rich Volo who was part of the post-meeting meeting. I've got to get out more.
DeleteI don't think the order of the listing of the 3 options has any legal significance, the way I read what was posted, and absent further language in the statute elsewhere which might change my opinion. A property owner is free to pick any one of the three options.
ReplyDeleteIn historic districts, unless the code enforcement officer deems it a safety hazard, demolition needs to go through the HPC, which presents a substantial hurdle to say the least, particularly since the HPC statute is silent about what the factors are that should be considered as to when demolition is appropriate and when it is not, which heretofore has understandably caused the HPC to shy away from grappling with the issue.
Steve, I know it has no LEGAL significance, but I think it would be nice for the City to prioritize its priorities--meaningless though it may be.
DeleteDemolition often takes place with no permit. Once it's gone - it's gone.
DeleteA few years ago on lower Allen Street, Code enforcement halted a worker who was creating an unauthorized curb cut.
DeleteEven though the job was interrupted, the rough cut was sufficient enough so that the homeowner has enjoyed off-street parking ever since. I guess that once it's cut - it's cut.