Tuesday, May 4, 2021

News from the IDA Meeting

At today's meeting of the Hudson IDA (Industrial Development Agency), Dan Kent, vice president of initiatives for the Galvan Foundation, announced a change to the building proposed for 708 State Street. Originally described market rate apartments, the building is now being called "workforce housing," affordable to households with moderate and middle incomes. The changes, Kent explained, were made as a result of conversations with Tiffany Garriga and Rebecca Wolff, majority leader and minority leader respectively of the Common Council, both members of the IDA.

Kent told the IDA that 20 percent of the apartments at 708 State Street would now be affordable to households earning 80 percent of AMI (area median income) and rents would be capped at 130 percent of AMI for the rest of the apartments. He also outlined the beginning rents for the building: 
Moderate Income (20 percent of AMI)
    • One bedroom  $1,120
    • Two bedroom  $1,360
    • Three bedroom  $1,560
Middle Income (not more than 130 percent of AMI)
    • One bedroom  $1,350
    • Two bedroom  $1,525
    • Three bedroom  $1,725
Kent also assured the IDA that when leasing the apartments preference would be given to people for whom the apartment would be their sole residence not a pied-à-terre in Hudson. Leasing support, he indicated later in the meeting, would be provided by Galvan Asset Management.
  
When asked about the rents in the the building across the street--75 North Seventh Street--which has always been described as affordable housing, Dan Hubbell, attorney for Galvan, shared the following chart:






Kent told the IDA that the NYS Homes and Community Renewal funding application was expected to be released sometime this month, with a six to eight week deadline for submitting applications, and a PILOT agreement was needed to meet the threshold requirements. The next opportunity to apply for HCR funding would be in January 2022. It is not clear if, with the changes to the plan for 708 State Street, the financing for that building, as well as 75 North Seventh Street, would involve HCR funding.

Mike Tucker reported that a financial consultant who is the former executive director of the New York City IDA will be engaged to review the projects. Chris Chale, legal counsel to the IDA, suggested that a public hearing take place sometime in June. The IDA agreed to have a special meeting on Tuesday, May 18, at which time Galvan is expected to present its application with all the modifications that have been made since the application was initially submitted, and a public hearing on the project will be scheduled.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK

21 comments:

  1. How does a project of this magnitude get so far along and involve so many agencies and departments WHEN THERE IS CLEARLY NOT ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL CARS IT WILL ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. It happens when people like Tiffany Garriga, with her infinite wisdom and venerable leadership skills, says "we need this project. Worry about the parking later." It's all kind of frightening how things operate in Hudson (soon to be Galvanville). Rank amateurs making decisions that will affect Hudson for years and just maybe ruin Hudson. Bill Huston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill,

      I don't think Tiffany is acting the amateur. The City of Hudson through Local Law 2 of 2019 made it official City policy not to require off-street parking. I understand your consternation and concern, and potentially, the City did not perform comprehensive planning to ensure that future development would be consistent with that Policy, but I think Tiffany and her colleagues are visioning a future for Hudson that isn't car-dependent in the way it is today, and as an urbanist, I can't help but agree. Requiring surface parking a) isn't a particularly socially positive use; and b) ends up inflating the price of housing. Since the city is trying to promote affordable housing here the policy seems to make sense. The vision of Hudson as a dense, walkable, urban community just doesn't seem to be one you can believe in.

      Delete
    2. Bill:
      a dense urban community without cars in a 2 square mile radius does not seem practical, unless the residents are remote workers who order their groceries online. If this is the vision, where are these low to middle income families going to find employment? There are not jobs within Hudson to support 150 families. If they plan shop for groceries, they will need cars. If they are working outside Hudson, they will need cars. Sad but true.

      Delete
    3. my post should have been addressed to Matthew, not Bill.

      Delete
    4. Seems to me if the people of Hudson want to convert their small, quiet, developing tour-glam city of 2-3 story historic buildings into a dense urban community that's their choice, but it really should be a choice of the people, based on referendum, not the choice of a few council persons who may long for a more urban setting. What is being proposed is not a small project, but an intentionally transformative, large scale project that will set the stage for additional developments of a similar character. Do you want to preserve the scale and ambiance of the city, the very things that made it attractive, or intentionally change it's character? If someone really wants to live in a dense urban environment there are other options, Albany, Newburg, the Bronx, Newark, Baltimore, Detroit, plenty of places with lower rent and urban density.

      Should not the residents of Hudson have a say on whether they want to urbanize Hudson or retain it's character? The Council does have a tendency to act on the pressure of small groups of political activists, many who do not even live in Hudson, who make proposals, petitions and organize vocal mobs to storm meetings. They also are individuals who have personal issues and agendas that do not necessarily represent the interests, welfare, or the will of the majority.

      Delete
    5. I agree with P. Winslow and M. Morris. I would add that presumably this is the will of Hudson residents given these officials are elected, or duly appointed by electeds.

      Delete
    6. Matthew - How does not having a parking lot for over 150 cars make Hudson less car dependent? You and others are conflating issues. People buy cars because they need them, wherever they have to park. When 150 new drivers are competing for spaces with me and all my car-owning neighbors, things will get real ugly real fast. Parking is fairly tight around here already. The proposed development, while maybe necessary, is far too large for the neighborhood. This is obvious. B Huston

      Delete
    7. Matthew:
      beg to disagree re this being the will of Hudson residents. I frequently write to the CC, the Mayor and my representatives on the CC regarding my positions on various city issues. Only one ward rep ever responds. My experience is that that our "representatives" do not seek input from constituents. Once elected -- frequently unopposed and by a small percentage of their wards -- they see themselves as unaccountable and do not make any attempt to find out what their constituents want.

      Delete
  2. “Workforce housing”. Hmmm. I think that we all deserve to hear a clear definition of what that means exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Workforce Housing ? for what jobs ? there are none in Columbia County and there wont be soon.

    Worker Housing is reminiscent of the Communist block countries that parroted the concept but never provided any work. Sounds good -- isnt needed.

    Another huge social experiment in making Hudson the next South Bronx !! Can we keep it a small town ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it's at all helpful, Holst and j kay, I think in the language of income-based housing, the categories of "moderate income" and "middle income" are classified as "workforce." The income categories are determined by percentage of AMI (area median income).

      Delete
  4. Three bedroom apartments for families with kids. PILOTS so no school taxes are paid. Math is fun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You’re right, “some taxes paid”

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

      Delete
  5. This is deja vu all over again, except larger. Their last proposal was withdrawn because no agreement could be reached re the PILOT. Now they have changed the market value proposal to workforce in order to strengthen their case for a PILOT.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another raw sewage dump. DEP should really look into this and there should be an environmental impact study before any new apartment buildings are constructed.

    New York Sewage Pollution Right to Know

    UPDATE

    Issued: 05-05-2021, 13:37:37
    Affects: New York - Columbia - Hudson


    The Hudson (C) STP, NY0022039 is issuing this notification.

    Discharge location: 2 Dock street, Hudson, NY

    Location details:

    Waterbody affected: Hudson River

    Discharge description:

    Potentially impacted public areas: Other -

    Discharge date and time: 05-04-2021 00:49:55

    Discharge duration: 03:54:21 Hours

    Discharge reason: Weather Conditions - Rain event caused high flow to system. CSO’s will discharge intermittently throughout duration of event.

    Steps taken to contain discharge: Ensure all pumps are running to full capacity

    Volume/rate of discharge: 490,000 Gallons Actual

    Treated state of discharge: Partially Treated with Disinfection

    Additional information:

    For more information on the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act visit SPRTK.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The bottom line is that Galvan is dedicated to using its neighbors' tax dollars instead of its own and proves it by changing State Street to AMI-indexed only leases to justify its quest for yet another PILOT. It wants its neighbors to pay its profits and it's unconscionable. Rather than dedicate themselves to actual sustainable housing, it will only "invest" if it can get a PILOT. Clearly the industry of poverty at work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are there any amenities for this project beside a new bar. What do all those kids do in the evenings. Is there a play ground or tennis courts, a pool? The lack of parking is intellectually insulting. I've refereed to this project as a slum in waiting before ... convince me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another raw sewage dump, this time 1.47 million gallons.

    UPDATE
    Issued: 05-06-2021, 09:15:45
    Affects: New York - Columbia - Hudson

    The Hudson (C) STP, NY0022039 is issuing this notification.
    Discharge location: 2 Dock Street, Hudson, NY
    Location details:
    Waterbody affected: Hudson RIver
    Discharge description:
    Potentially impacted public areas: Other -
    Discharge date and time: 05-05-2021 00:00:01
    Discharge duration: 10:05:20 Hours
    Discharge reason: Weather Conditions - Rain event caused high flows to system. CSO's will discharge intermittently throughout duration of event.
    Steps taken to contain discharge: Ensure all pumps are running to capacity.

    Volume/rate of discharge: 1,470,000 Gallons Actual

    Treated state of discharge: Partially Treated with Disinfection
    Additional information:
    For more information on the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act visit SPRTK.

    [Disclaimer: Daily and/or termination reports will be provided for ongoing discharges. Wet weather CSO do not need to report daily nor provide a termination report. The information provided in this message is accurate at the time of report using existing systems and models.]

    NY-Alert Support - NYAlertSupport@its.ny.gov
    www.Alert.ny.gov

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes to all these comments! The woeful lack of adequate parking PLUS the sewage issues which this project would create are truly a disaster in the making !

    ReplyDelete