Recently, a reader reminded me of a press release issued by Mayor Kamal Johnson and Michelle Tullo two years ago, on September 21, 2022. The purpose of the press release, which can be found here, was to announce that Kearney Realty & Development and Hudson River Housing had been selected to develop new housing for low- and moderate-income households on three parcels that belonged to the City of Hudson. Rereading the press release two years later, one sentence struck a false note, particularly in light of the proposal for Mill Street that is being fast-tracked through the Planning Board.
We heard from the community that people prefer smaller buildings scattered across different sites, which allows for more gentle density that fits with the surrounding neighborhood and allows households seeking affordably priced housing more choice in the neighborhoods they live in.
Smaller buildings? Smaller than what? Granted the buildings proposed for Mill Street are smaller than the destined-to-be demolished Bliss Towers, with its nine floors and 132 units, but the two buildings to be called Mill Street Lofts will have a total of 70 apartments, which makes the project bigger than the 63-unit building now going up on North Seventh Street.
Most stunning in this sentence is the clause "which allows for more gentle density that fits with the surrounding neighborhood." What is "gentle" about increasing the population density of Mill Street by 600 percent? And in no way is what's being proposed something that "fits with the surrounding neighborhood."
When the Planning Board was considering Question 18 on the SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form, "Consistency with Community Character," Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, asserted that the "community" with which this project should be compatible is "not just one block but the whole area . . . the high-rise and everything around that lower part of Hudson." Looking at a Google map of the area shows that Bliss Towers--"the high-rise"--is the anomaly in "that lower part of Hudson" and probably shouldn't be used to justify a decision about the compatibility of another out-of-scale building being proposed for the area.
What has changed in the past two years to make Johnson and Tullo abandon the notion of "smaller buildings scattered across different sites, which allows for more gentle density that fits with the surrounding neighborhood" when it comes to Mill Street? Or were they being disingenuous, parroting the language of good urban planning, when they crafted that press release two years ago?
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
Local leaders in Hudson seem to hope the public will forget about their past statements.
ReplyDeletePlease don't refer to them as "leaders"! None of them are leading us anywhere in a positive direction.
DeleteTrust little of what comes out of the mouths of City Hall. Mostly, they are amateurs. Rob Perry shows a picture of one of the new crosswalks on Paddock, telling the council and the public that DPW installed it using "expensive and labor intensive" plastic decals. Actually, both of the crosswalks were made with inexpensive paint by someone using stencils. But who?
ReplyDeleteLate last year, on two occasions, Margaret Morris tells the council and HPD that the lack of a NO TURN ON RED sign at the new and improved Stewart's intersection has made things dangerous and the sign needs to be reinstalled. 6 months later she tells the council that she was told by DPW that the intersection was designed to be safe and that turning right on red into moving Green Street traffic is not a problem. Nobody questions her that if nothing changed at the intersection in the past 6 months, how can it magically be safe now. Our City Hall is becoming rather Trumpian -- they say whatever they want.
The mayor full of beans?! I’m shocked. Shocked.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the obnoxious imposition of oversized and out of place apartment complexes into low income neighborhoods has become so normalized and routine in our fragmented society, that people who should know better don't even realize when they are doing it to themselves. Isn't there plenty of space behind Galvan Field, or the courthouse for an apartment building? With the second building proposed on 7th street and the multiple new buildings being proposed by HHA, is yet another apartment project even necessary? In most small historic type towns, the mayor, planning and zoning boards would regulate and restrict this type of developer land grab, rather than solicit and encourage it.
ReplyDeleteGalvan's 2 apartment buildings on 7th, the Pocketbook on 6th and Galvan's hotel on 4th would never have been approved if the off-street parking requirements for developments had not been removed. And now the Planning Board wants the requirement to be returned. There is no such thing as sane, smart, coherent or consistent planning for the future of Hudson.
ReplyDeleteFor example: The Common Council/Parking Study Committee is hoping, at great expense, to be rolling out new parking kiosks this year on 4 blocks of Warren that currently have no meters as well as in all 4 downtown parking lots. All the meters in the lots will be removed. This is a major municipal project without anyone at the helm.
At a recent council meeting, Tom Depietro said that the Parking Study Committee's "theory" is that the increased revenue from the kiosks will allow the city to THEN hire a parking supervisor and create a much-needed parking department. When asked at that meeting when that might happen, Tom could not even venture a guess.
It's all beyond belief. A committee of 5 people, 2 or 3 who do most of the talking and none of whom are qualified, all who are already overburdened, not employed by the city full time nor have the time to do any of this, are leading the way. Leading us straight to the bottom and wasting our money. The term LEAD BALLOON comes to mind.