HDC, Its Mission, and the Kaz Site
Without an executive director and with a history of two RFPs that failed to bring about the redevelopment of the Kaz warehouse site, the Hudson Development Corporation continues to struggle with its mission and the path forward. At the meeting of the HDC Board on Tuesday, Bob Rasner, president of the board, invited members to "check the rules under which we operate"--that is, the articles of incorporation, a document that dates back to 1976, when the agency was created. Rasner told the board, "It's crystal clear. Our responsibility is jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs." He acknowledged, "We do have the right to borrow money, to buy and sell real estate--but all in the interest of jobs. Housing is not mentioned in this document, although members of this board would move us in that direction."
Rasner went on to say, "Our lender [CEDC] doesn't think we are developers. Empire State Development doesn't think we are developers. For us to wander into that abyss is dangerous ground. We should be going into this with eyes wide open." Rasner then suggested, as he first did in September 2018, selling the Kaz property, which HDC has owned since the end of 2010, "and getting on with what we are supposed to be doing."
Of course, selling the property brings with it a host of other considerations. How do you ensure that the buyer develops the site in a way that brings greatest benefit to the city? Will it be sold as one parcel, or platted and sold off piece by piece? In the context of the discussion about how to go about selling the property, Rasner recommended the book Strong Towns, by Charles Marohn, and board member Kristan Keck opined, "Everything goes back to needing a city planner."
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
So someone on the board has finally figured this out after 44 yrs wandering in the desert.
ReplyDeleteBulldoze that piece of crap building. Its' loss would only make that area more desirable.
ReplyDeleteOur responsibility is-jobs, jobs, jobs?
ReplyDeleteTricky Rick, Elmer Flood and Donald Moore Tax "developed" a (single) position at North Dock by evicting 25 taxpaying citizens who continue to pay a federal tax for access to a federal waterway.
City (public) property laundering by so called "developers" should be illegal.
Oh please, everyone is tired of your pathetic whining over the loss of the private squatters camp. The only mistake made by our weak willed politicians in the takeover of the North Bay was not demolishing all those junk shacks and taking them to the dump the day after they acquired it. If they had we would have a nice park instead of a monument to stupidity and ineffectual government.
DeletePrey tell, how much and how long have you paid for use of the Hudson?
DeleteOne man's squatter is another man's steward. Furthermore, tracing taxpayer dollars to corrupt end users is an American tradition. It's that taxation without representation thing...goes way back.
DeleteTaxation without representation is exactly what was eliminated by the city takeover of the North Bay. Nothing is more of an affront and offense to the taxpayer than to allow a small group of squatters, many who did not even reside or pay taxes in Hudson, to HOG waterfront city park land only for themselves and their own personal use. The entire debate entertained by local government of the historic value and need of preservation of a bunch of shacks thrown together from discarded junk collected from the local dump was a manipulation by self serving misfits to delay the conversion to a public park. The fact that local politicians were so easily manipulated and entertained by the concept accomplished nothing but (typical of Hudson) the continuation of stagnation and decay. You all need to seek therapy. Stop complaining and take your boat to the public dock and go fishing.
DeleteYou must be a Landlubber, the issue is, Sixty-four years of paying (now $.64/gallon) and THERE IS NO DOCK TO USE!
DeleteBetter access in Catskill doesn't help Columbia County Motor Boaters.
Taxation without representation is exactly what was eliminated by the city takeover of the North Bay...
ReplyDeleteFYI: The city is obligated to "promote" the historical use, not diminish use. Instead, they obstructed a "permanent easement" for people who continue to pay access fees.
Entitled to the historical tax but not the historical use?