The PILOT for the 77-unit building proposed by the Galvan Foundation was not discussed at tonight's special meeting of the Common Council, but Galvan did figure into the business before the Council. Among the settlements for reductions in assessments unanimously approved by the Council tonight was one reducing the assessments on twenty-one properties owned by Galvan and its various LLCs and corporations. The reductions totaled slightly more than $2.7 million.
The Galvan buildings whose assessments have been reduced are:
- 30 Allen Street--from $550,000 to $420,000
- 260 Warren Street--from $950,000 to $500,000
- 61-65 North Fifth Street--from $550,000 to $440,000
- 70-72 North Fifth Street--from $325,000 to $290,000
- 76-78 North Fifth Street--from $470,000 to $435,000
- 69-73 North Fifth Street--from $288,000 to $225,000
- 34-36 South Second Street--from $625,000 to $380,000
- 620-624 State Street--from $100,000 to $75,000
- 105 Union Street--$430,000 to $275,000
- 113 Union Street--$475,000 to $360,000
- 215 Union Street--$728,000 to $695,000
- 223 Union Street--$476,000 to $430,000
- 229 Union Street--$465,000 to $425,000
- 357 Union Street--$387,000 to $285,000
- 501-505 Union Street--$550,000 to $450,000
- 317½ Warren Street--$640,000 to $500,000
- 346 Warren Street--$600,000 to $550,000
- 412-416 Warren Street--$1,100,000 to $900,000
- 201-203 Warren Street--$700,000 to $430,000
- 202-204 Warren Street--$875,000 to $800,000
- 449 Warren Street--$1,200,000 to $900,000
Before the Council went into executive session to discuss a pending labor issue, Council president Tom DePietro said he wanted to make it clear that the Council had commissioned the Benjamin Center to do a study of the PILOT for 75 North Seventh Street, and the Council had set the scope of the study. The Galvan Foundation was simply paying for it. (The cost is $7,000.) When Alderman Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward) asked who "the Council" was, DePietro indicated it was he and other members of the Council. Those other members apparently were Rebecca Wolff (First Ward) and Jane Trombley (First Ward). DePietro explained he had gotten Galvan to pay for it, "so that it didn't have to get approved by the Council."
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
The long time locals have been forced to sell and leave Hudson so the rich can get a free ride - gotta love a city like that apparently.
ReplyDeleteCommon council sells its soul ...........
ReplyDeleteA $2.7 million reduction! Absolutely unjustifiable in any financial climate. This is a criminal act against the people of Hudson.
ReplyDeleteHow is this a criminal act? There is a grievance process; Galvan used it. Look, there are many things to not like about this entity, and a good many more to dislike about this project, but elevating a routine part of assessments to the level of criminal is hyperbolic to the point of overreach.
DeleteGossips is welcome to note the odd timing, and mistrust of city officials is de rigueur at this point, but there really isn't much of a thread connecting these two issues on the face of it. (I suppose there is something to be said if the overall drop in portfolio value is higher than anticipated, but I haven't seen any of the other settlement amounts to compare.)
The obvious thread is how much easier it is to get what you want when you have a lot of money. This is the case everywhere, and it is, sadly, the case in progressive Hudson. Somebody who owns a single property probably doesn't have the same resources to game the process for reassessment.
DeleteThe real issue at last night's meeting wasn't Galvan putting the pinch on the City's coffers -- that's old hat by now for that clown-car of companies and individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe real striking part is that the "Council" appears to have acted in secret, without a quorum, without public notice and with no public comment, to determine the scope of a study to be the basis for Council action -- with only 3 members in the loop. IN SECRET, WITHOUT A QUORUM AND WITH NO NOTICE.
Is this what "progressive" means in Hudson? A Star Chamber acting in secret? I don't think that's what most voters believed they were promised back in November.
The lash out at the assessment roll backs without knowing the merits is uncalled for. The Galvan "family" of entities own something like 83 properties, so more than 60 did not get rollbacks it would appear. As to the study of the pilot, no public action was necessary. It is akin to a developer paying for an outside consultant to review plans for a complex project that is not within the skill set of the code enforcement officer.
ReplyDeleteThe time for lash outs will be if the study proves wanting (unlikely, since I am under the impression that the consultants are well regarded academics (to do it right you really need highly skilled financial analysts or economists to do the job, not CPA's who really don't do this kind or financial/rate or return/present value analysis), or the council ignores its findings that the pilot was unduly
generous, or over time a very costly/unaffordable proposition to the city to provide this kind of financial assistance to cause the project to move forward
When the study comes out I will publish my comments and opinions about it, and let the chips fall where they may. The Common Council President in the meantime welcomed my offer/suggestion/request to pass along any questions or comments I may have to the consultants about how they are going to do their analysis. I have my opinions about the proper way to do that. I very much appreciate the Common Council President's willingness to do that.
So much about this city and its governance is unproductive, misguided, indolent, incompetent, short sighted, unimaginative (I could go on but you get the idea), and those that know me can attest that I have become very caustic about it. We can do a heck of a lot better. But on these two issues, the release of the incendiary bombs is misplaced, or at least premature. And if you are going to slash and burn, it should be based on a reasoned analysis and data, and not emotion and/or personal animus. Hudson is really talented at the indulging itself in emotion and personal animus. Perhaps on day it will finally evolve out of its Peter Pan act and become an adult. Pity I probably won't be alive to see it, but hey, one can still hope.
The question, Steve, is whether your system is democratic. Most of what you're talking about happens behind closed doors, where "reasoned analysis and data" is carefully conjured by Hudson's new elite and then passed among them before shoving it down the peoples' throats.
DeleteHello Peter, you old curmudgeon you. Hey it takes one to know one.
DeleteIn this context, to me "the elite" are those who give a fig about data based decision making. But yes, the data needs to be available to all with proper notice and time for reasoned discussion by all those whom wish to make a constructive contribution to the public square.
If the powers that be do things behind closed doors, and hide the data, or don't want data to get in the way their preconceived agenda, so avoid even gathering it, much less being transparent about it, then yeah, give them hell, and for good measure, just to punish them some more, I will sic our pet snoodle on them, who will lick them to death, and steal all of their dogs' toys for good measure.
The point is, with all those properties and those that are just sitting there empty and unused, there is plenty of space for more housing. Other things could be done to motivate B&Bs to convert to apartments, or get landlords to lower rents. Allowing the construction of a gigantic housing project in a city cherished for it's small scale and historic buildings is destructive and sets a very bad precedent. I would oppose this project regardless of the rents, PILOT, taxes, affordability - whatever. There is too much ugly, over-scale, compacted junk in Hudson already. Plenty of space exists for sprawling apartments complexes out in Greenport. If there is so much demand, build it out there.
ReplyDeleteThank God we've had Trump as president: at least we all know what quid pro quo means. And like Trump's America, we accept it. Hudson would be a great study in how the velvet glove of Progressive paternalism works.
ReplyDeleteTwo issues jump out...
ReplyDelete1) 50 years is too long for a PILOT! Most are 15-30 years because things change
2) how will the payment be divided between the city and the Hudson School District? Why is a representative of the school district not included in the negotiations? The pie for school taxes is divided among properties on the tax roll so property owners should expect an increase in school taxes to make up what The PILOT doesn't pay.