Friday, February 4, 2022

Selecting a Development Partner

Last night, the committee formed to select a development partner to help the City implement its Affordable Housing Development Plan met to begin its task. The committee is made up of Mayor Kamal Johnson, Council president Tom DePietro, Commissioner of Public Works Peter Bujanow, First Ward Alder Art Frick, Mayor's Aide Michael Hofmann, and Housing Justice Director Michelle Tullo.

There were eleven responses to the City's RFQ (request for qualifications) for a development partner, and prior to the meeting some ranking and culling had occurred. As a consequence, at last evening's meeting, the group considered five responses:
  • RUPCO 
  • MPACT Collective and Pennrose
  • Home Leasing
  • Kearney Realty & Development Group and Hudson River Housing
  • Xenolith Partners
After discussing the responses from each group, the committee decided that four of the groups--all but Xenolith Partners--would be invited to make presentations. Xenolith Partners was eliminated primarily because, in their cover letter, they expressed interest in only one of the potential parcels: 604 Washington Street, the vacant lot across from the Central Fire Station.
Bujanow expressed the opinion that MPACT was "too large a firm for Hudson," but DePietro suggested the MPACT could "oversee the whole thing and bring in others." DePietro noted that Home Leasing "relied on PILOTs a lot," but Hofmann said he was struck by a project the group had done in Rochester that was "geared toward having a real social service to it." DePietro said that Kearney, which is offering its model of loft apartments for "those involved in artistic or literary activities," had "really studied Hudson," to which Frick countered, "I thought they did a good job of reading the Wikipedia page about Hudson."

In the end, it was agreed that the committee would hear presentations from four groups. In the list below, each name is a hyperlink to the group's response to the RFQ:
Bujanow agreed to schedule the presentations, all of which would take place on the same day--a Saturday.

Correction: Michael Hofmann has informed me that the Home Leasing project in Rochester he said he had been struck by was not the project described on page 13 of Home Leasing's response, which included "subsidized housing and supportive services for homeless ex-offenders," but rather the project described on page 16 of the document, where 21 of the 72 apartments are "set aside for Trillium Health, who provides subsidized housing and supportive services for formerly homeless individuals with HIV/AIDS and frail elders." The entire meeting can now be viewed on YouTube. Hofmann's comments about Home Leasing can be heard at 27:23.   


  1. It seems a toss-up between DiPietro and the mayor’s secretary as to who is less capable at this process. Why listen to Bujanow — who has literally decades of experience in public construction — when they can just say whatever comes to mind as if it were fact?

    City Hall is still a vacuum when it comes to relevant experience, knowledge and ability.

    1. Roger that! But how to get more qualified people into city hall, if there are any?

  2. "Hofmann said he was struck by a project the group had done in Rochester that included "subsidized housing and supportive services for homeless ex-offenders."


    1. perfect homeless ex offenders when will they build housing for the sex offenders also. that is a really winning combo for Hudson.

  3. WHY ? why is the City of Hudson developing
    "affordable" housing in a City with no big supermarket with low prices, and absolutely no public transportation system ?

    Actually, subsidized housing is "legally" supposed to be built in communities with public transportation and reasonably priced food stores like Shop Rite. Hudson has none of these.

    Tax payers in Hudson should look at what they are paying now and double their tax bill to know what it will cost them once all of this "affordable" housing is built.

    Hudson currently has a group of independent business people running their own businesses.
    they will all be squeezed out.

    the City of Hudson needs taxpaying entities on its lots to pay the freight. its a great town but it will not stay that way if all these 1970s style developments get built. the town was not founded on this kind of construct.

    1. Agreed. Hudson is already burdened with too much subsidized housing, and the rest of us are getting the bill. We don't need any more! What is wrong with our city government that they are even entertaining such a development? Argh!

  4. Why indeed? Do we really need housing for
    ex-offenders. Are they out of their minds. How much need is there really - for homeless, for seniors, for whoever. Are we going to advertise far and wide for people as was done in the '70's. This government is off the wall.

  5. Having both the mayor and his asinine assistant on the committee is over the top. They should have asked Dorothy Heyl to come along as well.

  6. A Saturday Zoom meeting at 5pm or later, I presume? Remember a few months ago the oh-so-worthwhile Bujanow/Depietro LET'S SOLARIZE THE LANDFILL EVEN THOUGH WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO meeting where 3 solar companies presented their pitch starting at 5 pm on a Friday night and ended at around 7 pm? What, you didn't attend that one? Just as well, sneakies Pete and Tom are no longer pursuing their scheme. It was a complete waste of everyone's time. That seems to be the M.O. with this circus troupe at City Hall.

  7. Every time the housing issue comes up, I wonder-- have any of the social justice warriors taken the time to survey our existing situation? Having lived here for 32 years, I'm pretty sure Hudson is already doing more than its share to accommodate the economically disadvantaged. Our goal should be to improve the housing standards for those who already live here.

    1. Exactly, Hudson has 23% under the poverty line, compared to 13% for the state average. About 12% of residents are 50% below the poverty line, compared to 6% for the state average. Compare this to 19% below and 9% at 50% below for Kingston, or 19% below and 8% at 50% below for Poughkeepsie. Hudson has more impoverished residents than most cities in the area, and these are the people already living here. The woke crowd will jump up an down claiming this is a racial issue, but it isn't, as most of the poor folks in Hudson are white. Hudson is already carrying a heavier burden in terms of caring for the underprivileged than other areas, so why the fixation on building more subsidized housing? It seems to be something of a competition among the well to do, liberal white woke folks to see who can expunge the most perceived historical guilt, as they mistakenly see this as a race based economic correction, when there are actually two times more whites in Hudson living in poverty.