After an executive session that lasted for half an hour, the Common Council voted unanimously to place the amended sidewalk legislation on the councilmembers' desks. The most recent version of the legislation can be found here. This is just the beginning of the process of enacting the law, and at last night's meeting, the Council heard staunch opposition to the law from residents of the Fifth Ward, the "suburban" part of the city, where, for the most part, there are no sidewalks.
Paula Taylor questioned the veracity of DePietro's statement, wanting to know why enforcing the current code would not satisfy the DOJ and asking to "see it in writing."
Hutchings and Taylor were the principal voices of dissent. Hutchings repeatedly returned to the question of why he should pay to correct a situation that he did not create and why he should have to pay for people who neglect their property. Taylor wanted to know what the penalty would be if the City did not comply with the DOJ's requirements. She also questioned the timing of the proposed legislation, saying she only found out about the law the day before, when her daughter sent her an article. "I didn't read about it in the Register-Star," Taylor said, adding, "I read it every day. I don't buy it. It's not worth it." She also seemed to question the City's priorities, asking if Warren Street would be the first street to have its sidewalks repaired and commenting critically, when the DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) was mentioned, "Everything is about the waterfront."
Councilmember Margaret Morris explained, as she has before, that the alternative of bonding for sidewalk repairs would be far more costly. The increase in property taxes needed to pay off the bond would far exceed the annual $100 sidewalk fee, and given the 2 percent cap on property tax increases, the City would have to reduce programs and services in order to pay off the bond and not exceed the cap. She also reiterated that the burden of paying off a $5 million bond would be borne only by property owners who pay taxes, whereas the sidewalk fees would apply to all property owners, including the county and not-for-profits. She argued, "We all benefit from sidewalks. We all benefit from not being penalized by the DOJ. . . . We all benefit from us taking this approach. We should look at this more as a community."
The contention over how best to address the problem of the city's sidewalks is not over. The Council has yet to vote on enacting the law, and there is the possibility of a permissive referendum. Last night's special meeting can be viewed, with the exception of the first half hour, on YouTube by clicking here.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK
Carol,
ReplyDeleteI usually find your entertainment blog useful in letting people know what is going on around town, but next time try telling all the details. I also offered an alternative solution to this unfair disgrace of a law. Stop with the socialist defense of an unfair tax that simply rewards people who thumb their nose at the most simple laws of common decency. There were numerous questions I asked, not just the ones that may or may not fit your narrative.
The 5th Ward objection to a fee structure that would solve the sidewalk problem is beyond ridiculous. There are some people who have no children-- do we exempt them from paying school taxes? Of course not, because a public education system is part of the infrastructure of a decent society. Everyone uses sidewalks in the City of Hudson, so it's only fair that the maintenance cost should be borne equitably. Apparently some residents showed up last night to grumble about paying their fair share of sidewalk maintenance; I wonder how they arrived at City Hall? My guess is that they walked on sidewalks maintained by property owners like myself, yet they want to avoid the most minimal obligation to help pay for those sidewalks. And how many of the 16,000 people who show up for Winterwalk on Warren St. are 5th Ward residents who are too cheap to contribute anything?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the annual fee would only amount to $130, which is dirt cheap. Anyone who is reluctant to pay that tiny amount to improve conditions in our community is sorely lacking in vision and civic spirt. And further, there is a good chance that the Federal authorities who enforce the ADA disabilities statute will impose significant penalties on Hudson for failing to comply, which could end up costing all of us whole lot more than $130. If we lose millions in federal grant money by failing to comply with ADA we're going to look damn foolish for trying to save a few bucks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePeter, I offered an alternative measure. I even agreed that a one time fee might be necessary to get this project jumpstarted. We should absolutely not be funding projects that exempts people raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly from paying for maintenance of their property. It should be replenished by them repaying the city for fixing their neglect. It would be a perpetual fund that would self maintain once established. Making this a social welfare project is not the answer. Last night accomplished what the city needed to do avoid the federal litigation, I agree this was the right thing to do. Now it is time to fine tune it to make it fair for everyone.
DeleteAn equitable tax is a good idea as you say, everyone uses the sidewalks. However, like the school tax, this is not equitable or fair. Many residents in Hudson have kids in school and live in apartments, they pay no school tax. They use sidewalks, but will pay no sidewalk tax (we can disguise it as a fee, but it is a tax.) If you want to apply it equitably, tax everyone, include all renters, businesses and residents alike. As usual, the burden falls on the property owners to finance the schools and now the sidewalks.
DeleteIf you read the legislation is also is not a $130 fee, for some it is $200, for others $100, based on what? Foot traffic? That makes no sense. This is a disguised way to make property owners on Warren Street (who the council assumes have higher incomes), pay more than those in other areas who are assumed to have lower incomes. If the city wants to engage in social engineering, preferential taxation and wealth transfer they should be upfront about it and not base it on arbitrary conditions like foot traffic, as the number of people that walk on a sidewalk has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of it's repair. Most of the sidewalks on Warren Street are also in pretty good shape compared to the side streets, so this is also a way to get property owners on Warren to finance the repair of those in other parts of town deemed "low income", although there are many living in these areas that are very wealthy. It is a bit tricky and underhanded. Most likely, once the law is enacted and the extent of repairs is revealed (since govt. always gets overcharged for everything), the annual fee will go up and up. So get ready to dig deeper into your pockets.
Since some 5th Ward residents are reluctant to chip in a lousy $130 to help with sidewalk maintenance on the basis of fairness, I can offer a suggestion. The downtown district in Hudson generates a huge amount of sales tax revenue, and a % of that is returned to the City. The 5th Ward generates almost nothing in sales tax revenue, so it seems grossly unfair that those of use who own downtown properties (and maintain our sidewalks) should be asked to share sales tax revenue with a ward that isn't pulling its own weight. Let's come up with an equitable formula that denies the 5th Ward any benefits from the sales tax generated by the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteAnd assessed property values in the 5th Ward are significantly lower than those in the core city, so that ward is also making less of a contribution to the property tax base. The 5th Ward is primarily a residential area that is not making a big contribution to the economic well being of Hudson; one would think that the very least they could do is toss in $130 to the benefit of one and all.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteSince when is a community chipping in to pay for public amenities "social welfare?" Is the Post Office in that same category? How about our roads, tunnels, bridges, etc? How about public schools? Libraries?
The problem here is that some of us are getting whacked for very high property taxes while also being asked to pay for sidewalks that are used by everyone. Anyone who walks anywhere within the City is using infrastructure that is being paid for by some of us. How is that fair?
If 5th Ward folks are going to balk at an annual fee of $130 to better our community, then we have a real problem. Some of us have taken huge financial risks and invested every last penny in an effort to rebuild this tired old town, so it's mighty disappointing to see some residents quibble over small change.
Since there seems to be such a wide gulf between the priorities of some 5th Ward residents and those of us in the core city, I wonder if a split has ever been proposed? Something like the happened in 1837, which is why we have Greenport. Maybe the best solution here is to let the 5th go its own way and annex itself to Greenport. I'd be fine with that solution, as Hudson would be relieved of a large chunk of real estate that isn't making much of a contribution to the economic base of the City. Greenport has low taxes and very little zoning, which might suit 5th Ward folks just fine. What do you think?
If 5th Ward residents ever decide to mount a sidewalk construction campaign that would make it safer for school children and the elderly, I will put up the first $130. I promise not to show up at City Hall and piss and moan about that little donation.
ReplyDeleteLet's do some simple math, shall we? $130 divided by 12 = $11 a month, or about 3 1/2 pennies a day to have sidewalks around town that aren't life-threatening hazards. To Peter's point, we pay school tax so that that everyone's kids get an education, whether we have school-age children or not. We pay city tax so that everyone's streets get plowed and fixed, whether we need a car or not (some downtown residents don't even own cars). We fund a public library for everyone, whether we like to read or never pick up a book. Sweet Jaysus, I could go on forever. That's not socialism; that's having a basically functioning society.
ReplyDeleteMany streets in the 5th Ward do indeed have sidewalks. There are 4-5 streets that do not. Perhaps all of the streets ought to have sidewalks especially because our schools are in the neighborhood. Sidewalks would promote walking as transportation and exercise in general and would be safer for pedestrians and drivers alike.
ReplyDeleteSome of the streets are wide and could support sidewalks and tree lawns. It would be good for the environment and for the health of the residents. Oh, and property values would go up.
I know that the main problem that needs to be addressed are the neglected, non-uniform exiting sidewalks. This might be an opportunity to ALSO remedy the lack of pedestrian safety of those streets in the city that without sidewalks where people are forced to walk in the street.
Hilary
Hilary,
DeleteIf they include installation in every neighborhood as part of the plan, with a target completion date, I would gladly accept the fee.
This is copied and pasted from the proposed law, "The annual maintenance fee for non-developable lots and sliver lots is $0; for lowfoot-traffic lots it is $100; and for all other lots it is $200."
DeleteJust so you know, it would be good to read the proposed rules before commenting on it. Some property owners pay nothing, others $100, others $200, no one pays $130. A future council can also raise or change the fee structure anytime it wants by amending the law with a vote. It will be raised, guaranteed, along with new fees (taxes) that may be added at their discretion, like the business inspection fee that was imposed a few years ago. If you want more money, just create a new tax and call it a fee. Why not create an annual tax exempt, non-profit status maintenance fee and charge them all a few thousand to make up for property tax loss, or an annual maintenance fee on all properties with a PILOT? These would be good fees to impose.
Actually, P. Winslow, $130 is not an inaccurate number. The Council is considering a three-tier fee structure: an annual maintenance fee; a frontage fee; and a fee for square footage.
DeleteAlthough, as you pointed out in an earlier comment, we have no information about how or by whom a sidewalk will be deemed high traffic or low traffic, I expect that most areas of the city, other than Warren Street, will be deemed low traffic, and hence the $100 fee will be the rule rather than the exception.
The frontage fee is $30 for lot frontage (street frontage) of 55 feet or less. Since the standard lot width in most of Hudson is 26 feet, even property owners with double lots will be paying just $30 in frontage fees. The $100 maintenance fee and the $30 frontage fee add up to $130. That's where the figure being cited comes from.
Then there is the square footage fee. It wasn't clear if the Council intended to include that, but at the meeting on Wednesday it seemed they were, to make larger buildings and apartment buildings bear a greater cost. The Register-Star reported today that the fee would be 15 cents per square foot. I believe that is an error. At the meeting on Wednesday, Councilmember Mohammed Rony said, and Crystal Peck, counsel to the Council, confirmed, that the fee would be 1.5 cents per square foot. So, for example, the square footage fee for a 3,000 square foot house would be $45.
Thanks for the correction. So likewise the $200 is just a base fee to which other fees will be added.
DeleteHas anyone calculated how many Galvin Foundation Properties will be paying this sidewalk fee? None?
ReplyDeleteA side thought.....It is amazing to me how we can spend so much time discussing a $200.00 fee and have absolutely no problem giving property exemptions away.....Just saying....
Now look at me ranting.
Tim and all,
ReplyDeleteI really do think that adding sidewalks where the city does not have them (this is mainly, bit not only, in the 5th Ward) should be a serious part of the conversation and on a 5 year "repair and construct" sidewalk plan.
I will never understand that some streets/neighborhoods were planned for no sidewalks from the "get-go" and got past a planning board. For some of these streets it will be likely that a sidewalk could be accommodated on one side OR the rother, but not both.
Of course any new construction should include appropriately large bio-swales or tree lawns and be designed appropriately for the hydrology and good water capture.
Best to all,
Hilary
I know friends and family that won’t visit Hudson after tripping and fracturing a foot or toe on a broken sidewalk. Safer and consistent sidewalks would improve the housing value and reputation of the whole community. The citizens of great cities like Paris know that maintaining their older city center benefits the entire metro area. The Hudson sidewalk system is not working now. Improving the sidewalks will help us all.
ReplyDeleteTo be equitable, I would think an annual fee would be fine - after all the sidewalks are brought up to code. Prior to that the city should simply start fixing the sidewalks and adding it to the property owners tax bill. Once all repairs are accomplished an annual maintenance fee would be certainly be fair.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea, have the deadbeat property owners pay to fix their own sidewalks AND have the 5th Ward and other properties without sidewalks (even some on Union ST) get up to code and put in their own sidewalks as well. I commend that the current effort is trying to make a fair system, but you all know that it will be poorly managed and cost way more than proposed. And who do you think would get the big contract to do the work? The same company that ruins our streets with dump trucks and sues the city. What a comedy
ReplyDelete