The Common Council's decision to opt in to New York State's Good Cause Eviction Law was the topic of a report on News 10 tonight: "Hudson 9th locality to opt-in to Good Cause Eviction." The report includes comments from Vicky Daskaloudi, councilmember from the Fifth Ward.
Let's see how much attention Hudson is paying this time.
ReplyDeleteFor The Many and their spokesperson Brahvan Ranga cannot be accused of not being transparent. Thus spake he: "This is only the first step. There is additional legislation that we are pushing for on the local and state level that will further help address the housing crisis".
So back they will be with new legislation in tow. It's anyone's guess what it will be but we can narrow it down quite a bit by looking at https://forthemany.org/our-work/housing-for-the-many/.
A bunch of those are at the state level, e.g. Expanding Rent Stabilization which as it stands currently isn't applicable to Hudson without changing the underlying ETPA.
Others can be enacted at the municipal level such as Homes Are Not Hotels. Some of those sound harmless such as the Tenant Opportunity To Purchase Act but in reality can turn any multi-unit building into public housing.
Given that there's barely been any reactions on FB about the passing of good-cause eviction, I will for now assume it's still Hudson business as usual.
They may transparent in their tenacity, but not much else. For instance, who funds them? They are a subsidiary of the Tides Advocacy, a “dark money” organization that basically obfuscates their support.
DeleteAlso, to what are their end goals? They say their initiatives will not hurt small landlords, property rights, or the tax paying base. But their language used on social media and partner organizations point to Marxism. They use communist dog whistles (our “comrades,” etc), and the local Hudson Valley Communist Party was with them at city hall (look at the Instagram account “hudsonvalleyny_cpusa“).
These people are part of a well funded national movement that are using a “bottom up” strategy (much like the Tea Party movement of the past), they see the Hudson Valley river towns as particularly vulnerable because (ironically) recent gentrification had replaced conservative and moderate minded locals with more progressive transplants. But, unlike NYC, there’s not enough organic political engagement to pick up on the fact that these groups push an illiberal agenda. What’s liberal about bullying local public servants? The berating of council member Merante, a visually impaired senior, was reminiscent of a Maoist struggle session. It’s a shame our leaders feel that they have to hide from the debate, not only recuse themselves, but to remain absent from the entire meeting. Kudos to Margaret Morris for having the courage to do her job and try to discuss the merits of the law. And boo to our council president, who coordinates with these groups with their campaign schedule for another Tommy DP-style double team rush job. And as soon as the deed was done, the mob rudely storms out of city hall to take their trophy pictures, just like they did after the Gaza resolution. They could care less about the rest of the meeting or the city itself. We’re just a check mark on their regional scorecard.
And yes, the real estate lobby was also astroturfing. But they are very transparent about their intentions and support base. Although one would think, if they are cynical enough, that they should actually support this bill. Most of our privately owned rental stock is not large buildings, but smaller multi family homes, 2-4 units. Any new large buildings in the works (like Galvan Depot Luxury or Mill St.) are exempt. All this will do is push more rental buildings to be sold and renovated to an owner occupied single family. A boon to real estate brokers, and those who actually enjoy the improvements of Hudson’s neighborhoods will actually prefer this. Newsflash: taxes and rent will keep increasing.
Union Jack, you're preaching to the choir here. Every time an organization calls itself "grassroots" there is something sinister afoot. For The Many are not some lovable plucky underdogs. They are exceptionally well funded by sources that have never set foot into Hudson, nor do they care about this specific locality, nor its tenants.
DeleteThey have essentially weaponized a bunch of young and idealistic (thus energetic) people to carry their message around. Hudson with its peculiar demographics was always a soft target and easy to conquer.
What baffles me is that this isn't more transparent to a wider audience in Hudson and that they let it happen. But being associated with the "progressive" agenda is nowadays the prized social currency. Even if you are as boring and dull as Purnhagen and DePietro, it still must be beneficial to run with the cool kids even when, behind your back, they laugh at you.
I dare not make a specific prediction as to what effect all of this will have on Hudson real estate. It could boost the conversation from rental to non-rental properties, it could lead to a rise in short-term rentals or it could even do nothing. Whatever it's going to be, my advice to anyone thinking about investing into real estate is to not do it in Hudson. More ill-advised legislation is comings its way. Buy in Ghent, Claverack, Greenport, whatever instead. All these places are as of yet safe from this craziness. Property taxes are lower, too, and there's no sidewalks in disrepair for which you now have to pay a yearly fee.
I by the way agree with your assessment of the various political players in this. Margaret was the one beacon of light and reason (and courage) - as she always is. Dominic undeservedly got the short end of the stick. When he explained why he recused himself it almost sounded to me as if he might have otherwise voted yes. Given that recusal wasn't strictly speaking required makes this even more commendable.
Rich and Vicky were just pragmatic, methinks. If you were already voting no (which I suspect they would have), why not just recuse yourself if given the opportunity. It was the smart thing to do.