Last week, Adam Bosch, president and CEO of Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress, presented his team's latest reports to the Columbia County Housing Task Force.
Bosch also talked about the effects of in-migration and out-migration. He reported that the average household income for people moving into Columbia County is $166,107 while the average household income of those leaving the county is $68,812. This influx of wealth has raised the AMI (area median income), but the income of renters has not gone up.
Bosch encouraged zoning changes throughout the county to permit more dense housing in some areas but warned against allowing what happened in Orange County, where, he said, "every farm became a cul de sac." He also advocated for different types of homeownership—not just single-family homes on quarter-acre lots. Co-ops and condominiums were mentioned as possibilities.
I'm excited to see that the deplorable state of affordability in and around Hudson is finally getting some traction. Carole, as always, is a few steps ahead of our city leadership, chiefly the Mayor and Common Council President, who have been asleep for as long as I can remember.
ReplyDeleteCouple of months ago I was skimming through slides on housing affordability in the Hudson valley that Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress had put up on their site. They seem to recognize what the real issues here are and don't fall into the TikTok trap of glorifying Hudson just because it has a few cool stores open on Warren St on a Saturday.
That said, the up-zoning they suggest should not be the first measure. The very first thing that the city needs to address is the vacancy rate. It is not correct to propose higher density when parts of Hudson have a vacancy rate of 30% which only serves second home owners to subsidize their property taxes and mortgage payments by renting it out short-term to visitors. Primary residents need to live in these buildings before we consider measures that may change the face of Hudson and its surrounding for the worse.
Margaret Morris is to my knowledge the only Common Council member who is putting the above on the agenda and she can do with some public support in doing so. We also know that there are other members on the Common Council who are actively profiteering off Hudson's lax STR laws, most notably Rich Volo. These folks need to be told that they're a detriment to Hudson.
I really would like to know how you think Rich Volo is "profiteering off Hudson's lax STR laws." He has one STR unit in his home, a home he occupies full-time. That unit is properly registered and collects lodging tax.
DeleteTassilo, I've never seen someone with such confidence in their commentary yet lacking any understanding of what they are talking about. Hudson has a strong STR law. It prevents outside investors from buying property to solely run as an STR. Many local communities with STR regulations still allow limited full time investors with permits. Hudson allows zero. It does however allow residents to rent out spaces on the same property they occupy, which is fair since it really doesn't take away from potential full time housing and the city shouldn't be in the business of telling residents what to do with their own homes. Hell, the author of the legislation, Rebecca Wolfe, took advantage of this. Some residents do this to help pay for taxes and the rising cost of living here, so in a way that help them to be able to afford living here. They are also registered, regulated for safety and taxed. I'd rather tourists pay taxes and ease the burden on residents.
DeleteAlso, what Ms. Morris is trying to do is make sure the current law is being enforced, which is always the prudent route before just making more laws. If you think that it's her wanting to restrict economic activity, in opposition to the mayor and council presidents, well, you have little understanding of the current dynamic.
So, instead of cosplaying as a Hudsonian, lobby within your own municipal jurisdiction of Greenport. They currently have no STR regulations. Maybe even run for town board. Those efforts would be more productive than writing fan fiction about Hudson's elected representatives
Union Jack, you are incorrect on a number of accounts here. Actually, on all of them and I will explain.
DeleteA strong STR law is what NYC has done recently. They require that the host live in the property as it is being rented out to a guest. This has dropped the total number of STRs in the city to somewhere around 8k units. It by the way also prevents institutional investors from getting into STRs.
One pleasant side-effect of this legislation has been that hotel prices have shot up. This would therefore be of great interest to a big slice of Hudson's economy.
Then you claim that STRs allow residents to soften the blow of homeownership here. But those are not the ones doing STRs because as residents, by definition they live in the house. How else do you think the 30% vacancy rate in the Warren St/Union St/Allen St corridor can be otherwise explained?
It's littered with second homes which, thanks to Hudson's barely noteworthy SRT laws, might be lived in for no more than 110 days per year, 50 days of which by the owner. That's over two thirds of a year that a unit is entirely empty and is not available to people and families who are primary residents in the county and who spend more money in the city than any visitor ever would.
Hudson's laws allow a second home owner to subsidize their second home by renting it out short-term. All the while we have a real housing affordability crisis in this county. This is asocial. And now the proposal are coming in that we should up-zone.
I by the way never suggested to ban STRs. A resident here should absolutely be allowed to rent out parts of their house. But they should be a resident.
By the way, I have no clue where you are getting it from that Greenport has no SRT law. It absolutely has and here it is: https://ecode360.com/10606569#10606569
It's in detail a little different from Hudson's but in no way better. That said, Greenport isn't teeming with STRs. Aside from Mt Merino, it's predominantly primary residents with a few second homes sprinkled in.
I had a lengthy phone call with Margaret a couple of weeks ago where we discussed this topic in some detail. I have a pretty good idea what she wants to do and her ideas are very sane.
Carole, the reason why I singled out Rich is because I had interacted with him on this topic, and I think he is wrong. I am not suggesting that he shouldn't be able to rent out his unit as he lives in it. I consider that an entirely fair use of a building. Just as Union Jack correctly pointed out, it softens the financial blows to a Hudson resident if they can make some additional money on the side.
DeleteWhere Rich is wrong is when he says that this brings visitors to Hudson which somehow presents an economic benefit. Well, it brings visitors alright, but it weakens the hotels and it prevents a certain number of buildings from being lived in by primary residents. Those are the people that are here year-round and they would be patronizing businesses on Warren St year-round.
I look at the businesses on Warren St and can't help but notice the churn. With the way commercial rents are, a business can only survive if it is steadily taking in money throughout the whole week. That can only happen if you have enough primary residents.
On the topic of the lodging tax: I actually believe that restricting STRs might be fiscally neutral for Hudson. NYC has seen a massive increase in hotel prices since they reined in STRs. Hudson's 4% are on the nightly rate and if that goes up, so do the tax proceeds.
Consistency, please. Your arguments aren’t stronger because you flip-flop. In your earlier post you noted how hotel rates are up as a result of the STRs. In a subsequent post, you bemoan the negative impacts of STRs on the hotel business. STRs can’t be responsible for both outcomes.
DeleteThe reality is that last summer an open hotel room in Hudson (the city, not the idea) was $600/night with a 2-night minimum. How are the STRs hurting the hotel industry here again? The real problem here are the weddings but that’s another story.
As for Warren Street and commercial churn: the responsibility for that is squarely on the merchants. Poor fiscal planning and lack of entrepreneurial experience is what kills most businesses. Hudson isn’t unique in this way.
Finally, if you do, in fact, live in Greenport then please leave us alone. If you live in Hudson, use your real name — either stand behind what you say or don’t say it. This is our community, not your laboratory for arm-chair economics.
I wrote:
Delete"More people in town also helps local businesses that rely on tourist dollars."
In the interest of transparency/context, here is my full email exchange with Tassilo von Parseval:
https://www.fourthwardhudson.com/2024/08/08/a-detriment-to-hudson/
John, this is my real name, and I always stand by what I say which is why I am not hiding behind an alias as so many others here do.
DeleteI think you misunderstood (or maybe I worded it poorly) what I said regarding hotels: Hotel prices went up in NYC when the city started cracking down on STRs. STRs operate in competition with hotels, and allowing them to do so unimpeded hurts hotels.
I am aware that hotels in Hudson in the summer on weekends generally have few if any vacancies. But what happens throughout the rest of the year? They're not charging $600/night in February.
Same is true for stays during the week. I just randomly checked the Whaler. I can spend two nights from Monday to Wednesday next week and pay 200 bucks a night.
What you ascribe to a lack of entrepreneurial experience can just as well be ascribed to the extreme seasonality of Hudson's economy.
First, apologies for not recognizing your real name -- and I apologize for the assumption.
DeleteAs for the rest of it, you can't compare NYC to Hudson viz. tourism. The reason most of the hotels are packed is weddings, not those coming to sample our culture (not anymore). I don't believe STRs are hurting the hotels or vice versa. There's plenty of biz to go around.
The issue of seasonality is neither new or complex. Thus, any business owner or one planning to be a business owner, has to take this in to account when doing their planning. The failure to do so is, indeed, a failure of entrepreneurial understanding. Seasonality isn't "someone else's fault." It's a part of the local business cycle (in most places), particularly when it comes to tourism and businesses that service (i.e. rely on) that sector.
This is a good point. I think it's also helpful to remind everyone that Hudson is only 2 square miles and housing strategies should be wholistic in regards to the rest of the county. Hudson is really just a dense neighborhood in the larger county. It makes no sense why all the hand wringing to squeeze more housing on the most expensive land in the county when there is so much blighted underutilized space minutes away in Greenport and beyond. It's cheaper, you can build bigger, the roads can handle it. Hudson is just too expensive and needing infastructure upgrades. You cannot prevent the real estate demand, nor can you prevent wealthy people moving in or buying second homes. Use Hudson as a tax base and economic driver, and invest in a better public transportation system to allow people to move between Hudson and the more affordable neighboring areas.
ReplyDeleteWhat John Friedman said -Yes.
ReplyDeleteI think those that do not live in Hudson should leave well alone. I am thankful Volo is my ward’s alder person. As a Hudson resident I don’t want higher density. There is a worldwide housing crisis due mainly to the financialization of housing. Per the UN the world would need to build 96,000 units per day until 2030 to meet demand. Changing local STR laws is a nice gesture but really doesn’t address larger issues at play.
ReplyDeleteAfter making a few comments that he admitted were "unnecessarily harsh on Rich Volo in a way he didn't deserve," Tassilo von Parseval sent me this apology and asked that I post it.
ReplyDeleteApology to Rich Volo
I would like to apologize to Rich Volo who I had recently in a comment described as a detriment to Hudson. This was entirely uncalled for and it's not what he is and not what I had intended to say.
I had initially interacted with Rich in his role as head of the CAC on the topic of how to get more trees planted in Hudson. I always knew him to be a champion of ecological causes and even beyond those concerns, he has been a force of good for Hudson.
That specific comment of mine, as poorly worded as it was, was only in relation to a particular discussion we had on the topic of short-term rentals where we disagreed. Despite that disagreement, Rich remains an asset to Hudson.
Tassilo von Parseval