A group of us worked to find an average of what the combined city, county and school tax bills were for Hudson's living units. We used the tax categories for 1, 2, 3 family and apartment buildings for comparison. We left off the commercial/residential categories as most of Galvan's proposed project is residential. (FYI, adding those combination units would have undoubtedly made the per-unit number even higher, since many of those are on highly-taxed Warren Street.) . . . The short answer is: the average number is $5,366 per living unit of combined taxes paid in the city.At $1,299 a unit, the building, with the proposed PILOT, will start out paying about a quarter (24 percent) of what the average tax payment is for every other household, or living unit, in the city, and the disparity can be expected only to increase over time. One thing the research by this group points out, which is often overlooked in discussions of PILOTs, is that the assessment on the property does not change for the duration of the PILOT. That should resonate with the many property owners who saw their assessments double or triple in last year's reval.
The group makes these recommendations:
- If Galvan (or anyone else doing housing in the future) is going to pay a PILOT, it should be at the same rate as the median unit is paying.
- It should also increase by the same amount that a taxpayer's bill is increasing each year--3%, 4%, whatever it turns out to be.
- A PILOT should be for no longer than 20 years, since no other taxpayers are guaranteed a freeze on their assessments even for that long.
- This number ($5,366) can be used for any new projects going forward, and for renegotiating PILOTs on existing residential apartments as they request extensions: Hudson Terrace, Providence/Schuyler, HHA etc. This number and annual increases will hold true until the next reval and can be updated easily in a few minutes.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Specifically, this type of development costs the city the most amount of money because it is highly concentrated and overly large, with many people consuming all the services that the City of Hudson must provide.
ReplyDelete$ 5000.00 per tenant unit is on the low end of the spectrum of expenses.
Being in the "affordable housing" business is really expensive for the City while the only one who rakes in the gigantic profits is developer Galvan. Mayor Kamal should take a couple of courses in financial budgeting.
Information is power!
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor seems to be in favor of this low income housing. I wonder why it is such a push to force the taxpayers to pay for this housing. Maybe he will be working for Galvan like our other Mayor (Scalera) was or still is. I wonder how much he pocketed during his terms. Maybe Kamal is getting his pockets padded. Shameful but it’s what politicians do.
ReplyDeleteHudson High Grad 2003
I really dont think any pockets are being lined except Galvan's. I think those in power have not negotiated hard enough and are not being paid off. There is so much wrong with this project it is SAD ! (location, parking, sewage & T A X E S) Yet we need affordable housing. It should be planned thruout the city at existing lots or bldgs needing reno which already have sewage and parking.
DeleteI would propose the Council look to ways we might promote development of Accessory Dwelling Units along our alleys, perhaps with a tax abatement in return for either or both renting at a certain % of AMI/foregoing STR in the unit for the duration of the tax incentive. It would help democratize development, keep money in the community, and add potentially dozens of housing units to the city without draining our coffers. Additionally, as per the SHAP, this spreads low-income housing throughout the City.
DeleteTalk to Craig Haigh before promoting residential development in the alleys. Most of them are too narrow to comply with current road width requirements for emergency service access - in particular, fire equipment. There's no point in advocating for violation of fire codes, when success would inevitably wind up in tragedy after it's impossible to get someone out of a burning building, or even put out the fire.
DeleteThat is a reasonable point, and certainly a hurdle to clear. I certainly don't see it as a hard stop.
DeleteCode Enforcement has tended to see it differently, with the poster child being a two story garage that burned on Cherry Alley in 2016, in broad daylight and around the corner from the FD, which struggled to get water on the flames.
DeleteResidential development is legal on the alleys. Mr. Craig Haigh lost that battle (that the residences would be an illegal fire hazard), and many residences have been built on alleys since, starting with mine. That contretemps also involved a dispute as to whether the code required that residences be at least 1,500 square feet. It clearly did not, but the city attorney thought otherwise, which attorney soon thereafter resigned, and the replacement attorney wrote an opinion that it was legal. That was were the battle was joined, over the construction of my residence above a garage on Rope Alley commonly known as 235 Robinson Street. I am sitting in the dining area of that very same apartment at this very moment, sitting at the dining room table pounding the keyboard about 10 feet away from Rope Alley. The reason I know many ally residences have been built since, is that I sit on the Zoning Board of Appeals, and in the ensuing 5 years (man time flies when you are having fun), we may have approved close to 10 such projects as a guess.
DeleteHudson is never dull. I will say that much for what has largely been a dysfunctional city in so many ways. I still love it though: for better or worse, for richer or poorer - until death do us part (which almost happened this year, but that is another story).
Are we, as local residents in Hudson, able to vote against this proposal? I know many people who do not want this housing to be built.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I think you need to contact your aldermen. They are the ones who represent you and should be voting the will of their constituents.
DeleteIs it possible for us, Hudson residents, to vote against this proposal? I know many who do not want this build to happen
ReplyDeleteYes -- at the ballot box next November. Vote for a mayor and council members who have knowledge and experience not just ideology. Vote for working people with knowledge of municipal finance and economics, job creators who understand economies, self-directed people who tackle problems with common sense and capacity, and who have gumption to actually do the work of running the City. This includes sensible affordable housing plans, not pie-in-the-sky.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFunding for this requires community support. If the CC votes to support it, that will be understood as community support. The best thing we can do is contact the agency at NYS and voice our objections.
ReplyDeleteI am working on an email that directs that agency to look at the comments on this blog -- will not copy comments. I will ask the agency to look at the discussions.
There are quite a few issues here.
1. The developer -- issues with past behavior in Hudson; undeveloped and vacant properties; poorly maintained current properties - Drive down 7th and look at what could be perfectly lovely houses that he plans to bulldoze;
2. Burden on current residents to pick up the real cost, calculated in this post, of taxes and services. We are going to be on the hook for 4k per unit for 30/40/50 years
3. This will not be a welcome comment. Throughout my working life I have had to commute to my job - 30 miles to 50 miles each way - because I could not afford to live within walking distance of my office. One was on the upper east side in Manhattan, another in the financial district. For many years I worked in TX and commuted over 30 miles each way. I never considered it my right to live within walking distance of my job. I was glad I had a job. The Galvan post talks about people working on Fairview having a right to affordable housing in Hudson. Why do they not have a right to affordable housing in Greenport, where they work?
As a follow up to this, I grew up in a neighborhood in a European city. None of us ever thought that we were entitled as adults to live within 2 blocks of our parents. Today, even after a reasonably successful career, if I were to return to my city of origin, I could not possibly afford to live in what was a blue collar neighborhood when I was growing up, because it is within 4 miles of city center of a very vibrant city. C'est la vie.
ReplyDeleteI moved to Hudson 10 years ago because it was affordable within my budget. Everyone has a different budget. I needed to be able to get to Albany and Long Island for work. Amtrak was a plus. I could not afford Long Island.
I really do not understand the position that anyone can say that they are entitled to affordable housing within a 2 square mile radius.
This project re-institutionalizes the industry of poverty in the City of Hudson: well-heeled "not for profits" milking the working class who live and work in the city for their own benefit. There is no other beneficiary besides Galvan: the rents are high, the quality of the construction will be Galvan/Galway-grade (i.e. shoddy) and no plan for parking except "suck it up, Hudson." Brought to you by the same "civic-minded" grifters who came up with the county's only "motel" designed as an SRO homeless shelter which relies completely on a sweetheart deal it got with the County.
ReplyDeleteThis project is a perfect example of socialism for the super rich. The government is paying to build it. Galvan's share is tiny. They get this Pilot deal and collect the rent from all those units. If the government is paying to build it, then the income should go back to the government to support, finance and maintain more affordable housing. Not to make Galvan Corp richer.
ReplyDeleteGalvan is borrowing in excess of $6 million over 30 years towards this 22 mill project. It is not tiny but they do need to deal with PARKING
DeleteInformal common council meeting tonight where this will undoubtedly be discussed. Zoom access from city of Hudson’s website
ReplyDeleteHudson thinks poor ... it settles for poor ... its always looking for charity from either the state or the hucksters that float these TROGAN HORSES. I've called this project a GHETTO, I think it fits the term. It's colored with utopian terms, I see it as a potential nightmare place to live. The word multicultural only means I'm going to hate my neighbors music. Political correctness makes it almost impossible to criticize this project.
ReplyDeleteGood work Mary Ann Gazzola, LInda Mussman and Steve Dunn. These figures lift the veil. It's a big rip off as only Galvan knows how to do, sticking it to those of us who live and work here. There are other ways to make affordable housing, as pointed out above. I will write my alderwomen.
ReplyDelete