At the Common Council meeting last night, the proposed local law amending the zoning to allow eating and drinking establishments in R4 districts was not placed on the aldermen's desks. Instead, Council president Tom DePietro told the Council the legislation would be discussed further at the next meeting of the reconstituted Legal Committee, but when that meeting will take place has not been announced.
Alderman Ryan Wallace (Third Ward) noted that, given the hierarchical structure of Hudson's zoning code, any change to what is allowed in R4 districts will affect the levels below. To this, Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) responded, "That's the point. If we are going to create opportunities, let's do it!" Alderman Jane Trombley (First Ward) commented, "I imagine there are a lot of ways to make that happen." Alderman John Rosenthal suggested that Local Law No. 9 of 2017, which was never enacted, would work faster to achieve the goal. Trombley agreed.
The question of what course of action will be pursued to resolve the dilemma of 61-63 North Third Street will be discussed when the Legal Committee meets.
Another new law that made a sudden appearance this month without any vetting in public was an amendment to the code prohibiting evictions without cause. The proposed law appears to have been modeled after the good cause eviction law passed in July by the City of Albany Common Council. Gossips believes copies of the Albany law were passed around to members of the ad hoc committee pursuing inclusionary zoning at its meeting on Wednesday, August 4, but the law was not discussed at that meeting.
At last night's Council meeting, Trombley suggested that the proposed law "has not been thought through" and said it should be discussed in the Legal Committee. Wallace said the law could be made much stronger, noting that there is no penalty in the law for taking multi-unit buildings and making them single-family again.
Garriga, however, insisted that the Council had to act on the law now. She told her colleagues that she gets calls about illegal evictions all the time, describing scenarios where locks are changed and belongings put out on the street when tenants are away. She asserted that the victims of such evictions "don't know their rights." She said of the proposed law, "It is straightforward, and it needs to be passed right now."
Jeff Baker, counsel to the Council, advised Garriga that no law can solve the problem she was describing--that of tenants not knowing their rights. Garriga asserted that the Hudson/Catskill Housing Coalition "will empower tenants."
The Council voted to lay the proposed law on their desks, but DePietro assured the aldermen, "We can talk about it in the Legal Committee."
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
Wouldn't it be novel if alderwoman Garriga tried to actually solve a problem rather than simply string words together which have no relation to one another? Illegal evictions are, perforce, already illegal. The proposed law won't do anything about that except enlarge the definition of what's "illegal" -- like making a market-rate return on investment.
ReplyDeleteIf some members of the Hudson Soviet have their way, no rational landlord will be left in the city. Well, no solvent landlord anyway.
Yeah, I don’t get the purpose of this law outside some kind of general pleasantries.
DeleteAlso, WTF about making it illegal to convert homes to single-family?
If that had been a law a lot of the stores on Warren Street wouldn't exist, as half the stores when I came had curtains in the windows and people were living on the ground floors. It was recommended by Roberta Gratz in her book about "Main Street" that the ground floors be returned to their original function - and that is what eventually happened.
DeleteDoubt they could prevent someone from converting a mulit to a single family without inspiring a bunch of lawsuits. But then wasting taxpayer money on lawyers and legal fees seems to be the routine these days. Maybe they can spend a bunch of money on consultants to analyze that.
DeleteWith regard to the amendment relating to eviction without cause, the term exorbitant is not defined. The stated purpose of the law is to protect tenants from "exorbitant" rent increases. It would seem that to enforce this law some definition would be needed. Nowhere is there an acknowledgment that the rent increases might be related to the tax increases that we have all seen over the last several years. If a landlord is faced with an increase in school and property taxes, that increase will flow down to the rents charged. Perhaps there is a relationship between the increased cost of housing in Hudson to the increases in taxes?
ReplyDelete'Perhaps' ? Of course there is. When one's taxes go up to $22,000 a year on a building the cost has to be defrayed somehow.
DeleteJennifer, the "perhaps" was intended to be tongue in cheek regarding something that is so blindingly obvious as a factor, and yet is never mentioned. Instead, the city continues to consider projects that will increase cost and burden for the existing taxpayers, without providing reasonable tax collection from these projects to cover the new costs to the city.
Delete