A story that Gossips reported on June 5, "Hudson's 'New, Exciting Commercial District,'" was picked up by Roger Hannigan Gilson and made the front page of today's Times Union: "Developer scraps affordable units after losing state tax credits."
Mayor Johnson is a member of the IDA and will be voting on the tax breaks despite being a Galvan tenant. Though he recused himself from the IDA vote for tax breaks on the first apartment block, Johnson said he had consulted with the city attorney and will most likely not recuse himself this time, since there is no financial benefit from his participation, he said.
We are fortunate to have Roger still writing about local issues, but for him to claim that Galvan demolished two houses instead of the actual three is a bit disappointing.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that one of the three houses was historically significant and shouldn't have been demolished? Did Craig Haigh issue a demolition permit when he shouldn't have? Is anyone at City Hall paying attention to anything other than themselves?
Yes, Galvan demolished three houses not two. And yes, one of them was included in the National Register Hudson Historic District. https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2022/05/what-will-be-lost.html. Galvan hired a "preservation specialist" to do an alternatives analysis that was submitted to SHPO to justify the demolition of the house and its accessory building: https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hpc-and-depot-district.html. One may agree that the house "shouldn't have been demolished," but it didn't happen in the way you suggest.
DeleteNo amount of lawyering can instill ethics in those without.
ReplyDeleteSurely, once the Governor reads this article she will quickly see to Galvan getting a check. She might even come down for a photo handing it over in front of a bulldozer.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, everyone wants lower housing costs, renters and owners alike-- but there must be other, more direct means to address this problem than letting developers run rampant, plowing down houses, paving over parks with blacktop and converting every community garden and open space into apartments.
Regardless of the Mayor's assertion, the issue is the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, and it does indeed appear that he is conflicted, given that Galvan Foundation is his landlord. It is astoundingly obtuse for him to pretend otherwise. No financial benefit from participation? Then I suggest the Mayor disclose the terms of his lease with Galvan, if he sure there is no issue. Is his rent market rate? The question is germane to this negotiation. If he would rather not have people question his propriety, then he should recuse himself. If ethics matter to him, then he should recuse himself. Otherwise, he appears astonishingly naive at best, and absolutely corrupt at worse. - John Rosenthal
ReplyDelete“The appearance” of a conflict is the standard for attorneys. The NYS law as to elected officials is not as stringent. It requires an actual conflict (this the mayor’s recitation of the low legal bar). Of course, the higher bar applicable to attorneys is the standard that should apply to elected officials, too. This case is a clear example of why. The city isn’t helped by the fact that Corporation Counsel, while a very nice guy, seems to enable rather than counsel. The fact that the mayor is obviously ethically compromised is also a rock in our collective civic shoe.
DeleteI have spent all of my adult life as a journalist and appreciate more and more Thomas Jefferson's wonderful comment, to the effect that if "had to chose between newspapers or a democracy, he would chose the former." Thank you, Carole, for keeping the importance of information -- good and accurate information -- as a hallmark of Gossips. But it is a lesser-known rule of journalism -- and one of the more important rules -- that a reporter use anonymous sources only as a last resort. The best defense against corruption is light. Galvan has survived this long in Hudson mostly by operating in the dark. --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'Transforming the Historic District' - I don't think so. You were one of the lucky ones, a few upscale houses restored to balance his portfolio. What about the Historic Library going to rack and ruin? A lot of his large 'Work in Progress' signs don't mean much, they've been there forever. Some of his buildings have sat empty for 10 years or more. It is more private buyers restoring the whole Historic District and the antiques dealers before them.
DeleteGo and look at his properties on the https://columbia.sdgnys.com/disclaimer.aspx Every one is "Wholly Exempt" . I just finished renovating a Galvan that someone purchased. Open any wall and you find a mess, from structural issues, to electric, to plumbing, it's poorly done, and not up to code.
DeleteThis comes as no surprise to many of us who have been predicting this exact thing to happen. Why? Because Galvan never acts in good faith. They have poor public communications and outreach so they always seem secretive. And when they are forced to submit a plan for something, whether it be for the Historic Preservation Commission, Common Council or IDA, they always change their plans in a way that seem like their intent was to always just do what they want. They are a bad actor. They created housing scarcity by warehousing properties. They've let historic properties be demo'd by neglect. And they drain our tax coffers with their PILOTs and phony non-profit exemptions. I've been skeptical by nature of orgs like Spark, but at least they do seem honest in their intent to help the less fortunate and they actually give money to people.
ReplyDeleteEven Galvan's usual supporters are getting fed up. In the mentioned article, Quinton Cross is quoted saying the one point the IDA needs to consider when Galvan returns with their hand out: "...why should we get such a big (tax break) for something that’s not coming to fruition. Why should you benefit from a community resource when you’re not providing what we thought you were going to?”
So then why does the mayor continue to hold water for them? This is why everyone thinks he has a conflict of interest. They put a former mayor, Scalera, on the payroll. What are they doing for the current Mayor? If Mayor Johnson would like to refute this once and for all, just show us your current and past leases with Galvan since becoming a public servant. I'm not a lawyer but I would think that providing lower-than-market rent to a public official be considered a "gift" above nominal value in violation of NYS Public Officers Law section 73 & 74. But who knows, maybe someone should consult the Attorney General's office for more clarification.
I'm not sure what you are trying to articulate with such a pointless hypothetical sketch. First off, some of us are not "extremely online" and have held office or volunteered in the community. Also, what is being asked is quite simple: the Mayor should act ethically. Is that such a ground shaking statement? As to your hypothetical, I'd rather deal with reality. The Mayor has a lease agreement with the largest property owner in Hudson, a billionaire real estate developer, Eric Galloway. That billionaire developer is seeking to gain tax breaks on a project that he could build through his for-profit businesses, but he would rather leverage ZERO dollars of his own fortune toward the project and ask the community to bear a substantial cost. His organizations lack transparency and tend to threaten critics. Rather than recuse himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict, the Mayor would rather advocate on behalf of his landlord's benefit, inviting controversy and casting a cloud over the project. There is an acute housing crisis locally. Rewarding a real estate developer with a well-documented lack of transparency and a market position in Hudson that largely discourages outside developers that build affordable housing at a scale, is not a sound policy. Furthermore, advocating for their benefit in such an ethically compromised manner is even worse. No need for hypotheticals here, I will take what is happening now, and ask that the Mayor do better.
DeleteHudsonite (why not "Hudsonian?"), It's easy to reflexively accuse any opposition to bad development as nimby, but not all of us are. I'm for the Boulevards. I'm happy that the Apartments of Distinction were brought back into use (which are near my "backyard"). I think 11 Warren should have been redeveloped into mixed use and that the original developer who wanted to buy it from Galvan had a good plan. I'm all for smart development to increase the housing stock where it fits into the neighborhood character and doesn't ask taxpayers to foot the bill for their investments, with PILOTs or other exemptions. I'm actually fine with this "Depot District" apartments, except for the PILOTs. More housing is fine. There is a demand for it. So much that we don't need every other resident to be burdened with higher property and school taxes, and higher rents, to cover the costs of adding new residents.
DeleteHowever, the current mayor, administration, planning board, etc, is in the business of picking winners and losers to social engineer the city. Also, their motivations on who they support lack full disclosure. Furthermore, all other executive management of city departments, infrastructure and advocacy on behalf of the residents and businesses has fallen by the wayside.
Everyone likes to repeat that there is a housing crisis. I just did a quick search on Trulia, 62 market rentals came up in Hudson. 23% of Hudson residents are also living in poverty and renting in some form of low income housing in Hudson. That's quite a high percentage. So what's the crisis? If rents are too high enact rent controls, rent caps and regulate the greed of landlords. Why not, the government regulates and artificially deflates the cost of all kinds of things, why not rent?
DeleteRecusal is a very easy thing to do, public officials do it daily. If you don't want to deal with certain questions about potential conflicts or arrangements, recuse yourself from the process. It is the right thing to do, and shows integrity and deference to good government. If the project stands on its merits, it will advance and be better served by the act of recusal. Show some leadership, Mayor.
ReplyDeleteI applaud your optimism, John. But that ship has sailed.
Delete