Yesterday, the Hudson Industrial Development Agency (IDA) held a public hearing on the Galvan Foundation's requests for PILOTs and other financial assistance for the two apartment buildings it proposes to build on North Seventh Street.
It's estimated there were about fifty people present, but only a dozen spoke. The majority of the speakers expressed support for the project. Of those in support, four were from the Hudson/Catskill Housing Coalition and three have known associations with the Galvan Foundation. Those in support of the project spoke of displacement, loss of diversity, and homelessness.
 |
| Quintin Cross, senior policy adviser for HCHC, holding a handmade sign that reads "Protect the People." |
An interesting observation was made by someone who identified himself only as "Jack, a resident of the Second Ward." He declared his support for the project but also noted that, because the organization owns so much property in Hudson, "Galvan has control over what will happen" in terms of the future development of Hudson.
It's not too late for people to weigh in on this issue. Written comments to the IDA will be accepted until the end of the business day tomorrow, Friday, August 13. Comments should be directed to Mike Tucker at mike@tuckerstrategies.com.
Gossips got a preview of one of the comments being submitted--this from E. J. McMahon, senior fellow and founder of the Empire Center for Public Policy:
I think PILOTs can be effective and justified when properly implemented. In the ideal case, a community wants to attract a new major employer, but its current tax rate is quite high because the base is, say, mainly residential and lacks much commercial activity. A PILOT coupled with a sliding abatement—e.g., property tax moves up in 10 steps to 100 percent by year 10—is a way to entice a potential major employer and taxpayers to come in and sink roots.
In this case, the PILOT appears to be simply subsidizing something that would have happened anyway. If the project is truly viable for Hudson, it should be able to go forward without a tax break subsidized by other property owners in Hudson.
The final sentence in this statement merits repeating: "If the project is truly viable for Hudson, it should be able to go forward without a tax break subsidized by other property owners in Hudson."
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
I could not attend and sent the following to all members of the IDA.
ReplyDeleteDid they acknowledge receipt of written comments at the meeting?
Dear IDA Members:
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tonight’s public hearing regarding the applications for PILOTs for 708 State Street and 75 North 7th Street.
Please accept this email as my public comment.
I am opposed to both of these developments (and to the overall plan for the “District” ) on several grounds.
The development itself is not in keeping with other architecture in Hudson. It also lacks sufficient green space and parking for the proposed residents. These are both significant issues.
With regard to the PILOTS, I see no reason why the City should grant a PILOT for a commercial development of market rate housing. This development will create a need for services from the City, such as schools, police, fire, DPW etc, without providing the tax revenue to support these services. I see no reason for the property tax payers in Hudson to subsidize a real estate developer’s commercial project. Either they and their investors see this as a good long term investment or they do not. I do not want to be one of their “investors” with no return on my investment.
Neither of these projects will provide any substantial long term employment opportunities for local people. Nor will either of them generate any significant tax revenue in the form lodging tax, sales tax etc.
With regard to 75 North 7th street, I do not see this as a viable solution to the housing problems facing the poor in this town. I believe that there is a need to address the housing needs, particularly of the current residents of the substandard public housing in Hudson. I would favor a structured city plan that replaces this housing. The current project appears to be proposed without any long-term urban planning on the part of the city. While the SHAP has admirable goals, translating this into a plan that can be implemented requires thoughtful urban planning to ensure the cohesiveness of this small city as a whole.
For these reasons, I am opposed to the granting of PILOTs for either project. From a city planning perspective, even with private investment, I am opposed to the city ceding control of development of an entire block in our city to a private developer.
Thank you for your attention.
Well said.
DeleteGovernment at its best is the place where communities come together to accomplish things that individuals alone can not. To do public works and ensure that no one gets left behind.
ReplyDeleteAs the leader of a libertarian think tank E. J. McMahon is likely opposed to anything and everything of that sort.
Insisting that the only worthwhile projects for a community are those that would happen through unbridled capitalism is not a surprising viewpoint from the Empire Center but it's certainly not a vision of community I'd want any part of personally.
Whether or not this specific PILOT for this specific development is worth the costs in foregone tax receipts is a debate worth having, but the idea that capitalism will somehow solve the community's housing crisis if we just get out of the way and let it do it's thing on its own is absurd. We need to come together as a community and act together to find a solution.
Woodhull, your comment makes several assumptions that are not, I believe, supported by the facts.
DeleteFirst, you assume that the McMahon argument is for "unbridled capitalism." It's not necessarily as the statement doesn't go far enough to describe the type of market forces it means (though it's likely the same market forces that are driving up housing prices -- demand to live in a nice place). However, the Galvan proposal is a form of unbridled capitalism. Specifically, its a modified form of robber-baronism: first you create a "crisis" then you propose yourself as the only savior -- but needs everyone else's money to make it work. Moreover, the Galvan plan seeks to perpetuate a model of never-ending need with no opportunity to build equity and a tangible interest in a community, generational wealth than can be passed on.
The other assumption you make is that there is a housing crisis in Hudson. I see no evidence of this. Yes, there are more people who want to live here than can. This is true in many small, nice places. Because demand outstrips supply does not equate to a crisis. Nor does the fact that housing costs are rising: they tend to over time. For now, they're rocketing up; recall 2008 when they dropped like stones. Real estate, more so than most other markets, has fairly predictable and rather periodic boom/bust cycles due to the time lag for new inventory to meet demand.
This does mean that rents are rising in Hudson, and probably in Greenport, too. But no one has a guaranty that they can live where they want. Everyone who lives in Hudson now displaced someone to live where they are -- either directly or through their parents. That's the reality. You can rail against the injustice of it (though I don't see it): it's just the reality of a market based economy. I was born in Manhattan and lived in Greenwich Village most of my adult life until I was displaced -- and ended up in Hudson where I bought an existing home from an existing family. How'd you get here?
THIS:
Delete"However, the Galvan proposal is a form of unbridled capitalism. Specifically, its a modified form of
robber-baronism: first you create a "crisis" then you propose yourself
as the only savior"
I received a response from Rebecca Woolf, pointing out that neither of the proposed buildings is market rate. She informed me that "The first project is mixed-income including 1/3rd market rate; the second project is 20% permanent affordable and the balance is capped at 130% AMI."
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues with this whole project is that the definitions keep changing. At one point, one of these buildings was described as market rate. It is impossible to know what Galvan will actually do.
She also pointed out that Galvan owns both lots. That does not give the right to design an entire city block.
Thanks for post address to send comments. I sent an email to the IDA Board this week and now have also sent it to Mr. Tucker. In opposition to the project of course.
ReplyDeleteSince we're all sharing:
ReplyDeleteLadies and Gentlemen of the IDA,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed PILOT for the Galvan project before you.
While there is certainly an ongoing issue of housing affordability in Hudson, granting a PILOT to Galvan will only exacerbate the high tax burden of existing residents, paid directly through property taxes or indirectly through rent, with no clear corresponding economic benefit. Low-income residents often need and absolutely deserve robust social services, and the City of Hudson is ill-equipped to provide these services without significant budget increases to fire, police, and other services.
Moreover, there is already a strain on existing physical infrastructure, from traffic to public utilities, and this project will exacerbate these problems without providing tax revenue to fund upgrade projects, leaving taxpayers footing the bill.
Galvan has stated that their PILOT proposal is based on a percentage of Area Median Income. So far as I can tell, the numbers provided by Galvan through HUD are based on the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, from which only data collected in 2019 is currently available. There were just under $100M in real estate transactions in the last year in Hudson alone, and the turnover countywide, as I have been told by real estate professionals, tracks much the same, with many new buyers coming from downstate, where wages are historically higher. If these trends track, the AMI number will be going up significantly by the time construction is completed, leaving many of the people this project purports to house priced out. Until the HIDA has a better handle on the recent demographic shifts in Hudson and Columbia County, they should avoid committing to any long-term agreement.
There are other ways to fund affordable housing that don't involve such generous handouts to wealthy landowners, including a small tax on homes sold above the median price being taxed at a small rate (say 1-2% of the selling price) going to fund new housing initiatives or infrastructure investment. Tax abatements for accessory units along the alleyways of Hudson would alleviate traffic concerns and spread affordable housing throughout the city, as recommended by the Strategic Housing Action Plan (which should be absorbed holistically and not cherry-picked for talking points.) This would also help create wealth in the local economy, increase the tax base, and spread the tax burden more equitably through the Hudson community.
I myself was displaced in early 2021 by housing prices, so I do understand the struggle of those who are trying to stay in Hudson, but cannot in good conscience support a plan that does long-term harm to the community and drives up the cost of home ownership at the expense of a very dubious short-term benefit.
Finally, I would ask the IDA to consider asking Mayor Johnson to recuse himself from this process, as Galvan is his landlord, unless he can provide sufficient evidence that he has been paying market rate for rental of his current residence, as there is an obvious conflict of interest that degrades the public's trust in local government.
Respectfully,
John P. Kane
John:
Deletejust one quibble with your post. In my humble opinion, it does not matter whether the mayor is paying $1 for $5000 per month. He is in a tenant/landlord relationship with a developer that has significant business with the city. He should recuse himself.
I am wrong and you are right. The mayor should recuse himself from discussing or voting on this project or PILOT, full stop.
DeleteJohn a well written letter but you write
Delete"granting a PILOT to Galvan will only exacerbate the high tax burden of existing residents"
How much in taxes are the properties currently generating? The tax burden will not be exacerbated but the project (hopefully) will result in tax relief over time.
If I'm not mistaken, Charlie Millar, that was the argument put forward during urban renewal: the subsidized housing to be built would generate more tax revenue than the buildings and houses that were demolished to make way for it.
DeleteCharlie:
Deletethe fallacy in the argument re how much tax is currently generated is that it does not take into account the fact that the families living in the 3 current houses do not generate the same need for services that approx 140 units would generate. None of the presentations about the financing of these projects adequately address the issue of the cost of services the city and school district.
Mr. Miller please explain how tax breaks for the wealthiest will, somehow, result in tax relief for the City and its taxpayers? I can’t figure out what you mean.
DeleteJust curious--- why hasn't lack of parking come up in these arguments against this development? Is there some new solution which actually addresses those needs? Thanks for any new info !
ReplyDeleteParking requirements were done away with citywide a few years ago, I believe in 2018. Restaurants along Warren St were continually having to ask for variances from the ZBA because there was some rule that required a parking space allotment for every two seats in the restaurant. It was an outdated rule that did need adjusting, as it created an unnecessary bottleneck for small businesses trying to get going.
DeleteThe Common Council, seeing that a scalpel was required for surgery, reached instead for a hammer, and eliminated all parking requirements in the city, full stop. Whatever their justification at the time, the City now can't say to someone trying to develop property that they need to create parking solutions that weren't already established as necessary in the code.
This is a great illustration of why it's so important for residents to engage in meetings, ask questions, and hold public officials accountable.
OMG that is idiotic because if this project happens with these kinds of numbers, parking will become a crisis in this part of the city.
DeleteGALVAN is the CRISIS
DeleteBad governance is the crisis. Galvan is just playing the game.
Delete