Sunday, December 19, 2021

Meetings of Interest in the Week Ahead

In the week before Christmas, there are only two meetings: one on Monday; the other on Tuesday.
  • On Monday, December 20, there is a special meeting of the Hudson Industrial Development Agency (IDA) at 12:30 p.m. The subject of the meeting is the project to redevelop the Pocketbook Factory and its application for financial benefits. The IDA is expected to vote on the project at this meeting. Click here to access the Zoom meeting.
  • On Tuesday, December 21, at 6:00 p.m., the Common Council holds its regular monthly meeting and its final meeting of 2021. New on the agenda is a resolution naming the City of Hudson as the lead agency in the SEQR process and authorizing the mayor to submit the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 for the BRIDGE District Connectivity Improvements Project. The first paragraph of the resolution states: "WHEREAS, the City of Hudson authorized and approved the BRIDGE District Connectivity Improvements Project." The plans for this project have not been seen since October. In September, David Lustberg of Arterial said the final plans would be presented to the Common Council in December, so perhaps there will be a presentation at Tuesday's meeting. He also said there would be a second presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission, but that hasn't happened. Click here to join the Common Council meeting on Zoom. 

And that's it for the meetings this week.


  1. What a shame there was zero progress after nearly a year’s efforts by tireless residents working with (/on) the Supervisors and Aldermen to get LafargeHolcim to pay property taxes on approximately 13 acres of land it owns in the City of Hudson. (It does pay tax on the land, but to Greenport instead, and at a lesser rate!)

    So much for getting rich corporations to pay their “fair share.” Nice work, phony Progressives.

  2. For what it’s worth, below is a draft resolution prepared by residents and submitted to the council in September. But the real failure to launch a request to the county - which is all that’s required - was due to the dithering of the outgoing 1st Ward Supervisor who achieved nothing but excuses for 9 months.

    Perhaps a more revenue-hungry Common Council will be more motivated to ask the county to correct a circumstance so imbecilic it could only happen in Hudson.

    Draft Resolution submitted to the council, September 2021:

    [1] Whereas in the 1970s, the County Supervisors redrew the tax map;

    [2] Whereas for tax purposes and henceforth, approximately 13 acres of a property which straddles the geographical boundary between the City of Hudson and Town of Greenport would no longer pay property taxes to the City;

    [3] Whereas the City continues to lose tax revenue to the Town of Greenport for acreage located within the City;

    [4] [Here state a request that the Board of Supervisors redraw this irregular tax boundary so that Hudson may collect property tax for LafargeHolcim’s city property.]

    The Board of Supervisors are the only entity with the authority to redraw this tax boundary, but Hudson residents will have to want it. Do you?