Thursday, August 27, 2020

Compromise Is Not an Option

That seemed to be the message that emerged from last night's Common Council Legal Committee meeting. 

On Tuesday, the latest draft of the legislation to regulate short term rentals (STRs) in Hudson was posted on the City of Hudson website. Reaction from various sources seemed to indicate that the new version was something that was generally acceptable to most people. At the beginning of last night's committee meeting, committee chair John Rosenthal optimistically opined, "I'm pretty sure we're about at the last draft."

The meeting began with a PowerPoint presentation meant to provide the data that justified the committee's sense of urgency in adopting the STR legislation. The presentation can be found here. It begins with a quote from Hudson's Strategic Housing Action Plan, which was adopted by the Common Council in 2018.
Another issue associated with Airbnb is the pressure it puts on the long-term rental market. A property owner may find that renting their property or part of their property to numerous short-term visitors through Airbnb is more profitable than renting to a single tenant with a traditional year-long lease. This is more likely to occur in popular tourist destinations where the property owner can charge a premium during popular times of the year and weekends. In some communities in the Hudson Valley, properties are being purchased for the express purpose of converting it for use as a short-term Airbnb rental. Taking property or rooms out of the long-term rental market reduces the housing stock for local residents and puts upward pressure on the price of the remaining long-term housing units. 
The PowerPoint presentation included information about properties now registered to operate as short term rentals (STRs) and an inventory of rooms currently available in hotels and bed and breakfasts in Hudson--accommodations that would not be affected by the law. Of interest among that information is that the Galvan Initiatives Foundation, which sees providing low- and moderate-income housing as part of its not-for-profit mission, "has registered, but may not be operating, 7 STRs with a total of 12 units." It was suggested by Council president Tom DePietro that the number of units registered by Galvan was closer to twenty. The remainder of the presentation was what Rosenthal described as "a raft of data from other communities" about the impact of STRs. The data related primarily to New York and Los Angeles, and it was all pre-pandemic.

When the discussion turned to the latest draft of the legislation, it focused on the amortization period, the time STRs that currently exist could continue to operate after they have deemed illegal by the proposed legislation. That would apply to all buildings operated as STRs that are not owner occupied. The latest draft of the legislation sets the amortization period at five years. The discussion began with committee member Rebecca Wolff declaring that she wanted the amortization period to be two years instead of five, arguing, "Five years is an extremely long time in the life of this city's housing issues." She described the situation as "very serious," spoke of an "urgent housing situation," and asserted "the character of the city is even more urgent." 

Committee member Tiffany Garriga introduced a more draconian amortization period: six months. When advised by city attorney Jeff Baker that six months was too short for constitutional review, Garriga conceded, "One year is as far as I'll go," warning that, if the law had an amortization period of longer than one year, she would not support it. Rosenthal talked about community buy-in, stressing, "Some of the people who will be affected by this law live in this community," but Garriga would have none of it. She declared, "My people get knocked around. Now we want to make concessions for the very people who did that to them?" Rosenthal responded, "I want to do something reasonable and not invite rancor." During the meeting, Rosenthal spoke, in vain, it seems, of wanting to avoid rancor. 

Responding to the claim of urgency, Rosenthal explained that a longer amortization period would not result in any new displacement attributable to STRs, because only STRs that were registered and operating before the moratorium, that is prior to February 2020, could continue to operate after the legislation was adopted. Wolff, however, insisted, "If we allow existing STRs to continue for five years, this town won't be recognizable," and declared, "I want properties [now operated as STRs] to be returned to long term rentals quicker."

When the meeting was opened to comments from the public, the number of people demanding the shortest amortization period possible seemed to be in the majority. There was also some exchange of judgment about the tenor of the meeting. Elizabeth Dickey told Rosenthal he needed "to move in the direction of respectfulness." Rosenthal responded, "We have to get to a point of compromise rather than going back to rehash something already settled." He added, "We are trying to weigh the effects if we get challenged"--that is, if the law faces a legal challenge.                

Zia Anger asserted that "Airbnb is entirely antithetical to community," and someone identified only as Alex complained of people "taking housing stock off the market to use for personal profit." Monica Byrne called for a respectful discussion, saying it was not right demonize people and criticizing "yelling between and yelling at elected officials." Someone identified only as Anya, who had earlier revealed that she was afraid she would lose her apartment, objected to with she called Byrne's "tone policing," because "for some people this is a roof over their heads."

Some interesting points were made during the discussion. Peter Meyer argued that with this legislation the Legal Committee was "chasing after an illusive and wrong problem." He identified the real problems as landlords who own multiple properties, many of them vacant, and property taxes, which are so high that many people need to monetize their property in any way they can to afford to pay the taxes. He insisted, "There is no evidence that this legislation will do anything to lower rent in Hudson." The only basis for this is the notion that more available rental units would force landlords to be competitive in their pricing. Gossips recently learned of a one and a half bedroom apartment somewhere on Warren Street renting for $2,000 a month because presumably that's what the market will bear. If having more rental units available would change what the market will bear remains to be seen.

Steve Dunn advised an amortization period "that gets us past the next election"--that is, the next local election in November 2021. He also expressed the opinion that "the shorter the amortization period, the more vulnerable the law will be for repeal."
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK

21 comments:

  1. I've seen this time and time again in Hudson: government agencies/committees work and work and work -- spending much of the time not responding to questions -- then claim everyone is exhausted from working on it so much and declare a compromise, as if it should please everyone. In fact, the committee never provided any evidence that the Hudson housing market is "hurt" by AirBnBs, much less that the proposed solution -- limiting their numbers -- would alleviate the unaffordable housing challenge, much less neighborhood degradation. Meanwhile, the Council is spending no time going after the main culprits of high-priced rentals: inequitable property assessments, new homeowners paying lots of money for homes, and large, out-of-town property owners who warehouse dozens of apartments. The Council has wasted a lot of time and the public's money chasing the AirBnB windmill and more than likely, as happens more often than not, since no one bothered studying the problem, we'll never know if this "compromise" worked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The word I used was "repeal," not "appeal." The more Draconian the law, the more it will be subject to being placed on the chopping block if and when there are personnel changes on the Council after the next election, particularly if it engenders anger and bitterness. The long knives will be out.

    There is a phrase that a law school professor of mine way back when phones were plugged into the wall and mostly black, used in class from time to time - "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered." Those who want to go for the max, might push the law over into the hog category.

    Attendees interested in trying to calm the roiled waters were relatively thin on the ground last night. They were there, but the atmosphere in general was pretty tense. The atmosphere in Hudson in general seems pretty tense and overwrought these days - more so than at any time previously in my six years here in Hudson.

    This too shall pass. That is my hope. We all live in relatively close quarters and interact with one another. Therefore personal animus and hostility takes much more of a toll than in a more anonymous big city. It degrades the quality of life here.

    Anyway, in this case, may calmer heads prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to agree with Mr. Meyer on this: there is lower hanging fruit to go after to support affordable housing in Hudson without penalizing law-abiding property owners. If the data supports a fundamental change to the relevant local law(s), then it should be done. The data, of course, should be relevant, too (though doesn't seem to be the case per the article). So, again, I agree with Mr. Meyer: absent a compelling showing of an immediate and on-going harm, why expend all this energy and angst on the b&b issue? Why not go after the warehousing? It's an obvious problem and alleviating it would likely provide additional housing stock in most cases. Following Mr. Meyer's route, the Council would leave the tax generating base in place while reducing blight and creating more housing. This would at least not hurt the City's finances while meeting 2 of the strategic plan's and housing plan's goals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to me they don't really care about the data, and will only use it in a limited or altered form to suit their agenda. An agenda motivated by a much broader web than housing and driven by an economic and cultural resentment of Hudson's growing tourist economy, upscale businesses and homeowners. The goal of course is to reverse engineer the economy of the City to make it more amenable to those of the social benefit dependent class. Am I a cynic? - well, lets wait and see what's next.

      Delete
  4. The current council members have a deep lack of knowledge of about finance and expenses.

    they seem to think their ideas will magically drive down housing prices. i am afraid that will not be the case. prices are going up up up in New York State, even in a crisis.

    Further, the State may be going into desperate financial straits that will put even more pressure on Hudson's own problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was encouraged to become a homeowner at the age of 30. Growing up in Hudson, I have seen that there isn’t any housing stock for those who actually want to own property. I was lucky and was able to buy my current home through a family friend. Fast forward to now, where I am attempting to buy the house next to me do that my aging father will have an affordable place to live. The current owner downright refuses to sell to me, quoting that he would rather sell to his friend who’s going to convert it to an Airbnb- although this person offered the same amount as I. For the last three years I have been trying to buy it and it continues to decay as he waits for the “perfect buyer”. My opinion is that yes, this does affect my neighborhood in a cultural way. I no longer see children playing outside, neighbors conceding over coffee, or any of the like. I see strangers and eyes prying over my fence, never to see them again. All fine and well but I feel like I’m living in an external hotel, just without boundaries in a large building.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make an excellent point. So much is made about STR’s vs. LTR’s, but not as much talk about all of the houses in Hudson that used to be owner occupied year round and are now either STR’s or for weekenders. I’ve always said that living in Hudson feels like living in a deserted hotel complex. There are so few children or families here. When you look at old photos of Hudson the contrast is amazing. It was a vibrant community full of baseball teams and bands and clubs and churches and parades and PEOPLE.

      Delete
    2. i dont knowhow long you have lived in Hudson, but 25 years ago everyone was warned not to go west of 5th Street because you would get mugged. the stores on Warren St were all abandoned, and the City was both dangerous and loaded with drug addicts. and the remnants of the prostitution trade.

      Gee, I remember the "good ole days".

      Delete
    3. I know, I know. I meant the photos I see on www.photobygibson.com from the 40’s and the 50’s. Hudson wasn’t always the terrible place you describe. In fact you often speak about the founders and the Dutch and the Quakers and the work ethic, all of that. I know, I know, there was always the vice but it was also a real community full of real people.

      Delete
    4. I’ve lived in Hudson for 30 years of my life and I have seen both the good, bad, and the ugly. I was never mugged west of 5th street, followed home by a random stranger or had any fear in my heart of getting shot walking by Bliss Towers aka the “High Rise”. I grew up on lower union street with many working class Irish and Italian families who worked hard and kept their properties neat and tidy. Not all of Hudson was bad as you described.. now those houses are unaffordable to people such as myself who make 80k a year and I am by no means “poor” or “rich”. For the working middle class, there isn’t any housing stock at all! Homeownership has died in this town for us millennials

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. There were pockets of violence like anywhere in small river towns during the early and late 1990s. It was a social and economic problem, not necessarily a whole Hudson problem. Let’s get this straight ... Hudson needs to focus on the education system here and the unemployment not just tourism and cool eateries. Holst, you’re quite right- Hudson wasn’t always quite terrible as one would like it to seem. It wasn’t what others would deem as cool or “trendy” back then- it was just a regular town really..

      Delete
    7. Tourism IS a sustainable industry. Tourism is just about the only reason that Hudson is not a ghost town. Tourism brings jobs.

      Delete
  6. Shouldn't this have all been addressed YEARS ago? YEARS AGO? Some people called out the problem with AirBnB taking over the City and were poo-poo'ed. Back then they said that legitimate places to stay - hotels, inns and b&b's - were already in place and that the AirBnB properties were undermining those places for people to stay. Well now the chickens have come home to roost and the City has created a genie they can't get back into the bottle. Seems to me whatever legislation is going to be written is too little too late and, as others have said, will be a thorn in the City's side from now on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Years ago ?? Airbnb is the new connected sharing world. What happened to cutting edge Hudson where. Smart early adapters used the internet to sell antiques and everything else.

      The Cool factor of the new group is much diminished.

      The discussion here is becoming really provincial. Hudson benefited from all this change and renewal. It was a dangerous place to live. The only East thing to do here was buy drugs.

      Delete
    2. The urban renewal did not benefit everyone that lives here. Hudson focuses too much on tourism and not on bringing sustainable industry to the area, what about tech jobs or trades? Is tourism sustainable in the off season? Do you think that every person that lives in this town only wants to work in hospitality, to serve the nouveau rich that come here and use this place as their play ground? Sure there are great establishments here that I love to frequent, but there hasn’t been anything here that was implemented to promote diversity in small business ownership! If you don’t have money to open a business here then, it’s too bad, so sad. Troy NY has established a Land Trust Community Bank to promote home ownership, to revitalize blighted neighborhoods at an affordable price to the buyer. They also have provided small business grants and reduced rents in popular areas such in what would be comparable Warren street. There is much more a sense of community there then in Hudson NY.

      Delete
    3. It is my understanding that there was not even a lodging tax, or a tourism committee until a few years ago, and if I remember correctly as soon as some money came in from the tax, (that was supposed to be reinvested in promoting tourism), the council redirected the funds into other areas like the youth department. So how has there been a focus on tourism? The tourism, hotel, and retail businesses of Hudson have been established by the hard work and investment of the entrepreneurs without the help of anyone. Likewise, the blighted areas of Hudson are being revitalized right now, on their own, by individuals, without the help of Land Trusts. Before the taxpayers of Hudson are burdened with the social and economic costs of a politically motivated policy intended to stifle a specific business, they should put some facts on the table. How many low income, subsidized apartments currently exist in Hudson, relative to the population and land mass? And now does this compare to other cities and towns in the area? Everyone wants to help the less fortunate, but this is the collective responsibility of SOCIETY, not that of the taxpayers of one individual town. Are there less kids in Hudson? - sure there are, there are less kids everywhere, people are having less kids, it is a national trend. Government policy needs to be based on statistics and facts, not on narrowly focused, personal political agendas.

      Delete
    4. Attracting “high tech” jobs requires a skilled workforce. And hudson ain’t got one. As an employer I can speak to this directly. It seems most of the local youth with ability split as soon as they can. Add to that the high incidence of trustafarians who are attracted to the city and the viable employee pool is shallow and small.

      Delete
  7. For some reason everything in Hudson seems to get framed in binary mutually exclusive terms, and it’s unfortunate and divisive. A. Gomez is absolutely correct that there is a ton Hudson could do in terms of supporting home ownership programs, supporting small locally owned businesses, helping community members access resources to open businesses and have Warren st be more representative of the community. Quality of education for our young people is essential. John Friedman’s point about labor is also completely accurate, most small businesses in the city have a hard time finding the qualified work force they need. There is a huge amount we can do to productively build together rather than constantly framing things as divided forces with mutually exclusive goals.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Agree with you completely, Monica Byrne.

    ReplyDelete