Yesterday, there was an article by Aliya Schneider in the Register-Star about the most recent proposal from the Galvan Foundation: "Galvan makes City Hall offer."
The following excerpts from the article are of interest:
Mayor Kamal Johnson said Galvan's proposal is a better financial decision for the city than renovating the City Hall building on Warren Street, but added he is wary of the city relinquishing ownership of the 604 Washington St. lot. He said he would prefer to lease the 2.4-acre vacant lot. . . .
"If they [Galvan] would still be willing to gift the city that property (400 State Street) and sign onto a long term lease, as well as possibly develop the property into a parking lot, I think that's the best-case scenario for the city," Johnson said. "We're getting a lot out of it."
The Galvan Foundation maintains moving City Hall to 400 State Street "is projected to cost significantly less than other options explored by the City of Hudson." It's unclear from the numbers Galvan published exactly how much they project it would cost the City, even after the $1 million grant and the donated construction drawings and environmental reports.
Back in 2007 and 2008, when the Hudson Area Library owned 400 State Street and was pursuing its restoration, the cost for restoring the building and improving its functionality as a library, a process that was to be carried out in phases, was estimated to be between $8 and $10 million.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
Please note that the existing City Hall
ReplyDeleteonly contains a portion of the City
government. The Code Enforcement office for example is in a non-accessible separate building. All of the functions of City government would be under one accessible and maintainable
roof.
All I can think of when I read Galvan's numbers is "wanna lease a library?" If anyone can remember that far back (must be all of 8 years now), Gallway and his various alter-egos have a long history of playing 3-card monte with the City, and the Council (and now the Mayor) have a long history of being the mark.
ReplyDeleteHaving elected an executive with precisely no management experience, and re-elected a Council that is unique in its collective lack of basic work experience and run by a would-be dictator who himself has no executive or managerial experience, we come to a place of ad hoc decision making with no direct connection to what's important for the city, just what's important for the Mayor's boss. From the cheap seats, it resembles little more than "hey kids, let's put on a show." No planning, no strategic thinking, no leadership. Just sycophantic kowtowing to a special interest: the purveyors of poverty as a growth business.
Thank you. Been mumbling threes very thought since the election. No management experience. Maybe no intro to economics. No corporate or biz experience. It’s serious problem.
DeleteAgreed. The same dog and pony show over and over, with the taxpayers and the city always being the loser. It's a self-perpetuating boondoggle. No one EVER learns. Sick of it. If we can see it, why can't they?
DeleteIf the numbers Carole conveyed are in fact reality, I don't at present understand how these numbers "pencil." Presumably that will be elaborated upon in due course.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which numbers you are questioning, Steve. Galvan's numbers are those they provided; the feasibility study numbers are a matter of record; and as for the previous numbers for the restoration of what was then the library, I was on the library board at that time and chaired the building committee.
DeleteBy "pencil," I mean if the numbers you conveyed are true, I don't understand how this action plan makes any financial sense for the City. It seems facially absurd, suggesting that maybe there may be more to the puzzle. It is either that, or we have an innumeracy problem. I don't question that you did in fact accurately convey the numbers that were published elsewhere, either now or in the past.
DeleteMving into a 200 year old building is a really bad idea. My primary memory of reading the newspapers in the library there is that the building smelled of must. But my number one concern is whether the garbage bag vending machine without a sign on it would move to the new city hall. It fits so well in front of the present city hall, it would be a shame to see it go.
ReplyDeleteJohn's observations are correct. So Galvan bought a crumbling building, realized that the cost to rehab it is prohibitive and now want to "gift" this to us for something of value. Nothing about this makes any sense. I realize that not all city functions are in City Hall but they need to be? The cost of coming into compliance with ADA is manageable in the current building. It is also centrally located. Again, John's observations are depressingly correct.
ReplyDeleteThe article quotes the Galvan rep Dan Kent as saying they have no plans for the firehouse dirt lot. Yet they are desperate for parking for their planned development a half block away. The article also quotes our Mayor expressing his preference to lease the lot to Galvan in the hope that they turn it into a parking lot. A parking lot for whom, do you suppose? For residents of the Galvan development, of course.
ReplyDeleteB Huston
According to Galvan's plans for their entire development, there will be 9,000 sq ft of retail total, divided into 9 units, or about 1,000 sq ft each. That's 50 feet by 20 feet, which ain't much. So we are supposed to trust Galvan that 9 small retail spaces which may or may not be filled will put 63 people to work, or about 7 workers in each store, making a living wage? Doing what and selling what? And where do the patrons of all these micro-businesses park their cars when they want to shop at the Galvan mall? B Huston
ReplyDeleteIf you want a disaster - here it is !
ReplyDelete“We’re getting a lot out of it”. That’s a great quote, considering we are not getting a lot out of it.
ReplyDelete