In a subsequent question, Rasner brought up the six-month moratorium imposed by the Council on STRs in February 2020. He asserted the moratorium was intended to provide "ample opportunity to study the impact of the legislation and [determine if it] would achieve its purposes." He then asked, "Has anything been done?" In responding to the question, Wolff said the proposed law was intended to address social issues, including "housing displacement and cultural displacement." She stressed that the proposed law is not "an economic law."
Questioned about the losses to the City in tax revenue from the legislation, Wolff argued, "The losses would not be so severe if we had more full-time residents." She also cited the return to the general fund of the money from the lodging tax that had been going to the Tourism Board. (Wolff revealed that she thought all the money from the lodging tax went to the Tourism Board, when in fact it was only a portion, the maximum each year being $250,000.) She expressed the opinion that "tourism is not a sustainable source of income for the City" and reiterated that money spent by full-time residents would compensate for the loss of tourism dollars.
More than once during the discussion, Wolff mentioned the anti-displacement grant, which was awarded to Hudson in January 2020 by the New York State Anti-Displacement Learning Network. The goal of the program is, in Wolff's words, "to push back against low-income people of color leaving Hudson." In January, Gossips described the three-phase program:
In Phase 1, municipal teams will learn about various strategies to address displacement through webinars and peer-to-peer discussions. In Phase 2, each municipal team will receive twenty hours of technical assistance to select an anti-displacement strategy and develop a plan to implement the chosen strategy. During this phase, each team may submit a funding request of up to $1 million to implement the chosen strategy. In Phase 3, municipal teams that have been awarded implementation funding will execute their chosen strategies.There has not been a lot of transparency about this grant. It is not known who is on the municipal team or where in the three-phase process they are, but on Monday Wolff seemed to suggest that STR legislation might be among the strategies being developed for anti-displacement.
The discussion kept returning to the need to understand the impact of the legislation on the economy of Hudson and on tax revenue. Monica Byrne predicted, "The impact is going to be large," and called for "actual data, actual facts." She asked rhetorically, "Should something that is going to be so impactful be something decided by the Common Council alone?" and concluded, "If there is data, it must be transparent and available."
Rasner returned to the question of an economic study, insisting that the moratorium was intended "to provide time for a thorough economic study to understand the impacts." Wolff denied that there was a specific promise to do a economic study, but there is evidence to support the notion. In the minutes from the Legal Committee meeting on September 25, 2019, when the topic of discussion was the nine-month moratorium, which ultimately was vetoed by Mayor Rick Rector, John Rosenthal is quoted as saying, "The freeze would allow lawmakers to analyze the potential economic issues presented by regulation of STRs" and "would give lawmakers time to figure out how the STR fits into the regulatory framework and the potential economic consequences of regulating them." The "Purpose and Intent" section of the moratorium also makes speaks of review and analysis of impacts:
The Common Council has become aware of the need to fully review and analyze the current state of short-term lodging and also the impact of "airbnb" type lodging within the City of Hudson. It is the concern of the Common Council that although such short-term lodging may provide housing and economic benefits to some individuals and businesses in the area, they may also have a negative impact on the quality of life for the citizens and neighborhoods of the City.
The Common Council of the City of Hudson wishes to address the issues presented by short-term lodging in a careful, prudent and comprehensive manner, rather than on an ad hoc basis, with the goal of adopting appropriate Zoning or other Land Use Laws or by amending its current Laws to properly regulate the same.Wolff responded to the concern about economic impact by saying, "The argument why this law is detrimental has to do with tourism dollars," and insisted, "Economic impact has to be a secondary priority to quality of life." When John Darby asked, Why are you opposed to using any data?", Wolff replied, "It's question of time. The more time it takes, the more people leave, and it gets sadder and sadder." When concerns were raised about the loss of jobs that might result from this legislation, Wolff said, "It's a fallacy that people employed in tourism wouldn't get other jobs" and called upon the business community of Hudson "to develop jobs that are more sustainable than tourism."
Given that the version of the law is a draft, Wolff was asked when the final law would be ready and would the community have ample time to comment on it. She said the law would go to the full Council in August or September. When Darby asked her what would be changed, Wolff answered, "I can't really go into that."
Presumably whatever changes to the law are contemplated will be discussed in the Legal Committee, which meets tomorrow night, Wednesday, July 22, at 6:15 p.m. The link to access the Zoom meeting should be published tomorrow on the City of Hudson website. (Scroll down to the calendar.)
As a point of information, the moratorium on establishing new STR facilities was passed by Common Council in February 2020, and it went into effect when it was filed with the Secretary of State, which happened on March 6. That means the moratorium will expire on September 6, 2020.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Ms. Wolfe sounds like one of the most dangerous people in Hudson: empowered, free from data or any other meaningful determinants of need or meeting a policy goal, unconcerned with basic economics or the ramifications for her constituents (let alone the rest of the city).
ReplyDeleteThe idea that sales taxes will make up the difference between the pre-pandemic lodging tax and a statutorily-constricted STR market is both laughable and enough to make you weep. If we didn't need the lodging tax, Ms. Wofle, why do you think a) it was enacted and b) it's such a matter of concern for those who understand municipal finance? Don't worry -- I don't actually expect an answer (or, at least, not a cogent one).
Another point to consider as we discuss the city's population: a significant reason for the decline is that what were many multifamily homes have become single-family homes. And homes that used to house 4 or 5 people now routinely house only 2 or 3.
Of course if this draconian and thoughtless bill becomes law it will surely reduce the number of STRs in Hudson. Which will contract the food and beverage industry here. Which will put many people out of work. Which will drive them out of Hudson. Which will force up the price of housing as their old MDUs become single family homes . . . for the wealthy. Economics is a bitch.
I AGREE with John!! Wow, he is so right. Ms. Wolfe is pushing her own personal agenda against the wishes of the many! NOT OKAY. Overwhelmingly, citizens, that have contributed to Hudson's growth are vehemently against this law. It is fundamentally anti business; the negative ramifications of this lackluster law will be felt for years down the road and will hinder the future growth of Hudson as a place to live, work, and invest in!
ReplyDeleteYesterday in the HDC meeting Ms.Wolff admitted (let slip) that she wrote the current proposed STR Legislation 2 1/12 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously very disturbing since she only began her term in January of this year!
It's disappointing that the sensible draft that I assume John Rosenthal and Tiffany Garriga put together last year - with almost 12 months of intense public discussion - was sat on for 12 months- then discarded and replaced entirely when Rebecca came on the scene- with the current DRACONIAN punitive draft- that goes as far as to prevent residents from renting their own homes when they are out of town for a weekend once a year.
Watching this train wreck of democracy and disregard for how the the legal process should be working in a small town is painful and horrifying!!!
Shame on the current Legal Committee and Common Council President for letting this happen!!!!
What dose this tell us. Dont trust the Wolff is sheep clothing .This woman has some serious psychological issues that would take a team of Doctors to analyze. Poet manque is not to be trusted.
ReplyDeleteCan i ask what qualifications Ms. Wolff has with respect to economics and business ?
ReplyDeleteDid she study economics or business development, upon which the City of Hudson was founded two centuries ago ?
And may i point out that "feeling sad" is really not pertinent to the economics of anything.
I, too, may feel very sad that the Common Council has devolved into a "feel fest" of bad ideas, but i hope that common sense will return to the discussion and that small business people in Hudson will be able to operate their STRs.
the founders of Hudson were practical people and a return to that would be really helpful in today's economically challenged world.
Glad I'm not a resident of the First Ward! RW certainly has a bee in her bonnet about tourism. For the past (almost) decade Hudson has developed into a destination for visitors from all over the world. Well now that money has dried up, gone. Warren Street (and beyond) is seeing how well residents can sustain the businesses that depended on those tourism dollars. Just take a look at the number of closings: Two Note, Vico, DeMarchin, Bee's Knees, Willas Cafe, and others may soon follow. If RW thinks this isn't equally "sad" then she needs to have a better understanding of economics. Excepting the restaurants, maybe she should ask some of her friends when the last time was that they shopped in any of the stores in Hudson. She may find their answer "sad".
ReplyDeleteCan we keep the comments here respectful and avoid personal attacks? If these posts and comments are read widely, personal attacks could backfire and get people like Rebecca Wolff on the Common Council to dig in their heels and resist any reasonable arguments in opposition to the residency requirement in the proposed STR law.
ReplyDeleteI think Rebecca Wolff and other people concerned about low-income renters in Hudson have their heart in the right place, but it seems obvious they don't fully appreciate the economic toll the residency requirement in the proposed STR law would have on the city's economy, and they don't seem much to value the unfairness to and burdens that would be placed upon non-full-time resident homeowners, who actually do very much contribute to the city's economy and community -- many of them are weekend homeowners who visit as often as they can and spend widely on local goods and services while in Hudson, and all of the people who would be affected by the law spend a great deal of money when purchasing local goods and services to fix up their homes and rent them out. This economic activity provides employment opportunity for many people.
There is also an obvious, inherent unfairness in requiring non-full-time residents to bear the burden of making Hudson a cheap place to live, if the law’s residency requirement would even do that. If, unfortunately, there are many low-income residents in Hudson who find it difficult to afford housing in Hudson given the economic growth and resulting increase of housing costs in the greater NYC region in recent years, the solution seems to be (1) to work to increase employment opportunities in Hudson so they can continue to afford the cost of housing in Hudson, and (2) increase the amount of available housing stock, or low-income housing specifically, by actually building more housing, which will bring down housing costs. The proponents of the law who see the residency requirement as a solution to higher housing costs seem to have unfortunately fallen into the trap that well-meaning progressive liberals often do, which is to oppose economic growth in the mistaken belief that this will help low-income tenants. Ultimately, everybody suffers: full-time residents who end up having to pay more in taxes to pay for the city's services, weekend homeowners who are arbitrarily deprived of an economic use of their homes but still pay the same taxes as full-time-residents, low-income renters who lose out on economic opportunities – everybody. What’s needed is to be able to convince the people on the Common Council of this.
Another thing worth noting: during the HDC meeting, I asked Rebecca Wolff, if the proposed law is intended to stop investors from buying up homes with the goal of exclusively renting them out as STRs throughout the year, then why does it punish second homeowners who actually do stay in their Hudson homes most weekends, participating in the community and supporting local business? Why shouldn’t second homeowners be able to rent out their homes for a reasonable number of days a year? She seemed not to have even thought of this and even seemed to believe this was a reasonable request, but her only argument in opposition was speculation that it would be difficult to enforce a reasonable cap on the number of days people could rent out their homes as STRs. That seems dubious to me, especially given that many other cities around the country have such caps. Ultimately, while I don’t there should be restrictions on people being able to make economic use of their homes, I think if there have to be regulations on STRs in Hudson, an obvious middle ground is to allow everybody, both full-time-residents and second homeowners, to be able to rent out their homes as STRs for up to a reasonable number of days a year.
-Mark S