The Hudson Industrial Development Agency (IDA) held a public hearing this morning on Galvan Initiatives Foundation's request for a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) and other financial benefits for the building proposed for 75 North Seventh Street--a 75-unit building that will be primarily market rate.
The meeting started out with Dan Kent, the familiar face and voice of Galvan, making the case for the building and the IDA's support for the building. It would grow the local economy, bringing 192 jobs during construction and 27 after and $24.5 million in capital investment. It would increase the tax base, bringing $2.9 million in property tax revenue over the next twenty-one years. It would address the housing shortage in Hudson. Kent's presentation can be found here.
On the topic of "Addressing the Housing Shortage," responding to the recent Pattern for Progress report, which indicated a need for more units affordable to households with incomes of 50 percent or less of the AMI (area median income), Kent argued that "unrestricted units [i.e., market rate] also deserve support to . . . reduce the likelihood of more duplexes and triplexes being converted into single-family homes." This seems bitterly ironic given that, for the past decade and more, Galvan (or one of its previous iterations) has been acquiring houses that had been divided up into apartments, emptying them of tenants, keeping them vacate, and is now restoring those buildings as single-family homes and selling them for tidy sums or installing their own employees in them. Nevertheless, Kent asserted that "Galvan has long been committed to addressing affordability in Hudson."
When it came time for public comment, the first four or so comments seemed to have been orchestrated by Galvan. Joan Hunt, of Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood, talked about her group's work in providing emergency assistance to renters and said she supports the initiative "because it means more affordable housing." Joseph Pomeroy, who serves on the Columbia County Fair Housing Advisory Board, spoke glowingly of Galvan's role in providing affordable housing in Hudson and elsewhere in the county. Someone else gave testimony to the good work done by Galvan for people with special needs, referencing, it seemed, Galvan's support for Camphill Hudson. Tina Sharpe, of Columbia Opportunities, while acknowledging her group's long-term relationship with Galvan and admitting she would like to see more housing for lower incomes in Hudson, praised Galvan and declared her support for the project.
Interestingly, Kris Perry and Daniel McCabe, whose Crescent Garage project was granted a PILOT by the IDA earlier this month, both spoke in support of the project, saying they recognized there is a housing shortage in Hudson.
Abdus Miah, county supervisor for the Second Ward, spoke of people losing their jobs, losing their homes, and having to leave Hudson. He said, "We need housing," and declared his support for "any low-income housing."
The spirit of the comments seemed to shift when Vicky Daskaloudi, councilmember from the Fifth Ward, reminded everyone, "This is not an affordable housing project." The majority of the units--55 out of 75--are market rate. She asserted that Galvan was asking Hudson taxpayers to absorb close to $2.5 million in foregone property tax in the next fifteen years. Daskaloudi pointed out that it was not only young people who were finding Hudson unaffordable, it was also retired property owners who were having a hard time paying their property taxes. She warned that approving this PILOT would set a bad precedent. "What happens," she asked, "if we have four other developers asking for the same type of PILOT for market rate housing in the future?" She urged the IDA not to approve the PILOT request.
Quintin Cross, of the Hudson/Catskill Housing Coalition, said he wanted to speak about the project "from a tenant's standpoint." He told the IDA, "We need the right housing, and we need the right people doing the housing." In his opinion, Galvan was not the "right people." He said he had talked with people living at Crosswinds, the housing complex on Harry Howard Avenue recently acquired by Galvan Housing Resources, and learned that, since Galvan has taken over, rents had been increased by $120 to $150 a month. He also spoke of a Galvan tenant who had to provide her own handicapped access to her apartment. Cross called for a full review of how Galvan is "showing up" for tenants. He ended his statement by saying, "I'm all for housing. I want this project to be approved, but I don't want it if Galvan is in charge."
Revonda Smith, chair of the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, also spoke out against Galvan. She said members of her family lived in a building that Galvan took over--presumably one of the buildings that had been owned and managed by Columbia County Housing Resources which is now Galvan Housing Resources. She told the IDA, "What Galvan has done to my family has been nothing but awful." She called Galvan "a hot mess," and urged, "We need to cut ties with Galvan," before being overcome with emotion.
Mayor Kamal Johnson and Randall Martin, both of whom serve on the IDA, might have countered the comments from Cross and Smith by sharing their experiences as tenants of Galvan, but of course they didn't.
Written comments on the proposal will be accepted until the end of the business day on Friday, March 28, and can be submitted to mtucker@columbiaedc.com.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
These buildings are so far out of scale for this town it is ridiculous. More people, more traffic, more stress on city infrastructure, and little to no tax relief benifits for the city residents. The looming castle viewed from the 7th St park is a monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteGreat article and detail.
ReplyDeleteA few observations…
The schism between the usual “nonprofit” folks is interesting. I completely understand and have also heard about Galvan from tenants perspective, but I bet there is more to the story about why the honeymoon has ended for some.
But what all of these special interest groups need to understand is that Hudson has more than its fair share of low income housing compared to every other community in the country and probably the most between Kingston and Albany, which are much much larger cities. There needs to be a balance and the middle class of Hudson cannot financially support more low income housing which is really just a cover for wealthy developers. This particular project barely pretends to have any below market rate apartments.
Again, the first building is basically complete and is being marketed by a local real estate agent. Why are the rents not publicly listed? Because they will be high and they don’t want it to hurt the optics of this pilot request for the second building now before the IDA.
Until Kamal Johnson and Randall Martin recuse themselves or disclose their leases I will just assume they are compromised.
For a person that has never been elected to any office in Hudson Randall Martin holds an extraordinary amount of positions and power within the city and county. He’s like a modern day Robert Moses, except he hasn’t built anything.
There is a demand for rental housing in Hudson and there are plenty of other private developers that would be happy to invest here, paying their own way, not asking other property owners to subsidize them… if they weren’t kneecapped by the Planning Board. But that’s another story.
Union Jack has it right, IMHO. Any discussion of housing in Hudson should begin with an analysis of the present situation. I don't have the data, but it seems clear that we already have a situation where a very high % of our housing units are affordable / subsidized, much of it built in the 1970s. Is it good policy for us to host an even higher concentration of economically stressed residents? I think the priority should be to provide the best possible housing for people who already live here. ~ PJ
ReplyDelete'Any discussion of housing in Hudson should begin with an analysis...'
DeleteYes, that would be the report that Carole linked to in this very article.
'I don't have the data...'
It's in that report.
'...economically stressed residents..'
A good chunk of residents are economically stressed due to housing cost burdens because *there aren't enough affordable rentals* in Hudson.
Galvan cherry picks what they want. Yes, that report states that Hudson needs housing for all income levels. It also states that the biggest gap between supply (units) and demand (households) is at the lower end of the market, not in $2400 a month one-bedrooms. In fact, that report states that there is NO supply gap at the upper end of the market, and a shortage of *nearly 700 units* for households earning 80% and below of AMI. 700 units.
There is a real disconnect amongst people in this city regarding who actually lives and works here. There are far more households earning 80-100% of AMI than there are earning over 130%, because *that's what local jobs pay*.
I agree that we should provide the best possible housing for people who already live here; but you need to provide it at a rent they can comfortably afford. 80% of AMI, for one person, is $57,800. That's your teachers/nurses that everyone likes to hold up as 'who we should be building housing for'. They get 15 whole units with this project. And people act like it's ghettoizing the city and this proposed building.
Our housing issues wouldn't be nearly as terrible if locals cared half as much about their neighbors as they did the neo-liberal mascot of the moment. Maybe there could be a Workers Deserve Housing Rally in between whatever mass protests are scheduled next. Or maybe folks can read any one of the numerous housing studies published over the last 10 years. We don't need more studies; we need more units.
And Galvan, for their part, is full of it. No single entity is more responsible for removing housing units from Hudson's inventory than they are. In a city that was serious about its vacant building policy, they wouldn't even be allowed to acquire properties anymore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThey didn’t seem to have issues building the first building. I assume these workers are commuting in.
DeleteThe fact that Kamal and Randall T. Martin are not only present at the meeting but sitting at the front and center with the mic—despite living in Galvan housing and not disclosing it—is already questionable.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the 501(c)(3) organization that Kamal effectively controls and steers funding towards, advocating on Galvan's behalf. Add to that other recipients of Galvan funding or similar tax breaks also speaking in favor of Galvan, and the ethical absurdity becomes downright farcical.
One could hardly blame European or Asian (as in, from those continents) immigrants for thinking they had landed in a corrupt, third-world town.
Kamal - you live in an almost $1m Galvan House and your household takes in more than $160k per year from the City of Hudson.
And then you use "affordable housing" and trot out long-time Bliss residents when it suits your benefactors as a populist rhetorical appeal to divide the town as an "us vs. them".
While Quintin Cross's statement was an interesting and welcomed change in historical alignment with Kamal... and many observers feel refreshing and fair, it is odd that the tone changed only after Hudson/Catskill Housing Coalition leaders (like Claire Cousin) stopped living in Galvan housing in the 1st Ward. Or maybe there was no connection and the timing purely coincidental.
But it does beg the question... if Kamal and Randall (and other "affordable housing" leaders in town from HHA did not live in Galvan Housing at some undisclosed rate... would they also change their point of view on Galvan's tax breaks?
One thing is for sure... Randal and Kamal's political opponents this November are not in Galvan's pocket. They pay their fair share of taxes. They are aligned, and have "skin in the game" with other residents and tax payers.
As someone said about our new president, "Corruption in public." --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteThe idea that we need more housing for a small city with a declining, not increasing population makes no sense. I went on Zillow just now, 63 rentals are available, I'm sure there are more not on Zillow. The problem here isn't needing more apartment buildings. The problem is the rents are too high, for everyone who rents. The solution is to regulate the amount of rent people can charge.
ReplyDeleteHere is a simple formula for a local law. No residential unit under 1000 sq ft. can rent for more than $1 per square foot monthly. Above $1000 sq ft, landlords can add 50 cents per square ft. This will solve the problem. It will also increase the amount of rentals, as landlords will make more money by breaking larger apartments into smaller sub 1000 sq ft. units.
That would be great as long as property taxes are regulated to 50 cents per sq ft.
Delete'The idea that we need more housing for a small city with a declining, not increasing population makes no sense.'
DeleteYou have to understand that 'household size', aka 'how many occupants live in a given unit', is a thing.
Wealthier residents are more likely to occupy two-bedroom apartments by themselves. Multifamily properties being converted into single family homes reduces units and potential occupancy. And most obviously, short-term rentals and part-time residents further choke the supply of units for permanent locals.
In 2010, we had 90 fewer units than we did in 2023 (3485 then vs. 3575 now). HOWEVER: we had more occupied units in 2010 (2844) than in 2023 (2729). That's a 5% drop in occupancy. That matters.
Essentially all the gains we would have seen in available housing units have been wiped out (and then some) by displacement and second / income-generating homes.
Your local law idea will guarantee that more rentals turn into single family homes, exacerbating an already untenable situation.
The first problem, just like before making the STR law, and all the other policies around housing is that the city never does any type of vacancy/inventory study of housing. They say it’s because of the costs, but that’s never stopped them from hiring a consultant or doing a study in any other subject. They don’t want to know the real data because, why bother? They will just harp on with general sentiments about there being a “housing crisis” etc, and real data might get in the way of their hysterics. And now the developer allied nonprofits are pushing this NY REST act, which will basically allow upstate communities to declare a housing emergency based on vibes and not data.
DeleteTo your second point, price controls do not work. Every economist and peer reviewed study has proven this. If you restrict price you reduce supply. Want local and tangible proof? Look at all the recent posts on the local Hudson and Catskill Facebook groups from tenants complaining about having to vacate after their lease because their long time landlord decided to sell and the new owner is not interested in renting it out. Just since these two communities enacted Good Cause Eviction, and selling is one of the few ways to escape its restrictions.
The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.
Union Jack - let's cut through some of that BS.
DeleteAnyone who doesn't think Hudson, the county, the state and the country are currently experiencing a housing crisis is willfully--perhaps performatively--ignorant. Choose any metric you'd like; housing costs have skyrocketed, especially when compared to wage gains. Supply is down almost everywhere. Last year there was a 20% increase in homelessness. But sure: 'hysterics'. Strike one.
NY REST Act: let's take a look at the actual language of this bill.
"The municipality may, after considering publicly available data and holding public hearings, declare a housing emergency based on (but not
limited to) factors that measure overall housing supply, vacancy rate
for housing accommodations, the availability of affordable and habitable
housing accommodations, rent burdens for tenants, or other measures of housing affordability such as the local or regional homelessness rate and the need for regulating rents in that locality.
-- In the alternative, the municipality may declare a housing emergency
based on a study of vacancy rates in rental housing, pursuant to a proc-
ess that is unchanged by this bill."
Not appearing: "vibes".
Actually appearing: data.
Strike two.
"Every economist..." I'm going to stop you right there. There is almost* NOTHING that "every economist" agrees about. This is a ridiculous statement that does more to illustrate a given worldview than it does the actual world. You can literally just Google 'the case for rent control', and find dozens of peer-reviewed articles published in economic journals making that point.
Strike three.
*about the only thing you'll find consensus on among economists is Henry George's 'single tax' (aka, 'land value tax'). Economists from completely opposite perspectives--from Milton Friedman (hardcore free marketeer) to Joseph Stiglitz (hardcore Keynesian)--have called it "the perfect tax" or, in Friedman's terms, "the least bad tax" (incredibly high praise for a tax from Friedman).
What is a “permanent local?” You either live here or you don’t. Some folks own (or rent) more than one home. People move in, people move out. If your work causes you to move, or your temperament is such that you like to move, should you be penalized in terms of housing? If so, why and how? When does one earn the status of “permanent local?” Does being more subject to inertia or having more kids than your neighbor confer dispensations in your scheme and if so, why?
DeleteJFK - someone whose primary residence is in Hudson, ie, 'the dwelling a person lives in for the majority of the year'.
DeleteTo what 'scheme' are you referring, other than 'we need more units that our local workers can afford'? Is that a controversial statement to you? Do you think we don't need housing for the local workforce? Do you think we need less than we have?
I assume “permanent local” is just part of the patronizing “noble savage” archetype that these self-appointed saviors assign to some of the people that live here. They want to call them indigenous, but don’t because I guess that would sound too ridiculous. The same self-appointed saviors are almost always transplants that think of themselves as the virtuous and good ones, while anyone else is a gentrifier. But rest assured, they always know what’s best for us.
DeleteTHM -- You are quoting what? I know it's not a relevant statute, as NYS doesn't define a primary residence except as the place a person intends to return to. So a NYS citizen may have multiple primary residences (though can only vote from one). Anyway, I get that you're making this up as you go along -- which is fine -- but please don't pretend that you're citing authoritative sources. And a "scheme" is an ordered thought and I'm referring to your concept of benefitting your imaginary beast, the "permanent local."
DeleteUnsurprisingly, your assumption is incorrect. If you'd read the response to Friedman, you'd have already known that. Residents who live here full time rather than snowbird or spend half their time in their NYC apartment while AirBnBing their Hudson unit; that's who I consider 'permanent locals'. If you prefer a different descriptor, then great.
DeleteYour point about transplants knowing what's best is interesting, though. Perhaps you can take that up with some of the people who purchased million dollar homes in the past 5 years, and seem to be bursting at the seams with ideas about What's Wrong With Hudson. Meanwhile, I'll remember my friends and neighbors who have left over the years because their (local) wages were dwarfed by (local) rent increases.
There's no 'us' in Hudson, just like there's no 'us' in any city, town or village. There are multiple communities and cohorts with differing needs and motivations. Increasingly, the community of working class* renters is being driven out of the city. That's the cohort I fight for, and the cohort I belong to. I understand that may conflict with the needs and motivations of some of my neighbors, and I'm fine with that.
You are of course free to attack the character of those trying to make the city more livable for the people who have jobs in and around the city. It is however an interesting strategy to undertake after being disproven on facts and data. Appeals to emotion are a common fallback when appeals to reason are impossible in the face of reality.
*working class meaning 'earns between 60 and 130 percent of AMI'
Friedman - I'm sure you're good at whatever it is you do, but you're out of your depth here.
Deletehttps://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/file/pit_definitions.htm#domicile
In any event, I'm not even sure what you're arguing; are you nitpicking a descriptor of your neighbors, or are you denying that there's a housing crisis for low and moderate income earners? Is it both? Can you explain why you're against a 'scheme' that benefits the people who work in the city you live in?
I didn’t see your reply to John before my last post because of the lag time for when comments are approved. Fair enough, you meant weekenders and the like vs full time residents. My assumption was incorrect. And yes, everyone has an opinion.
DeleteAlso, using Airbnb as a bogeyman doesn’t really work anymore. Hudson has enacted strict STR regulations for almost 5 years now. You have to be a resident and rent out a space within your primary tax parcel. No longer can outside investors buy up a bunch of properties and turn them into hotels, which I’m fine with. I think that’s fair and still allows residents to make some money on spaces that can’t be rented out full time, and help them pay the high property taxes in Hudson. Since that law was passed the number of STRs have been cut in half and continues to decrease. Many have been sold off as now vacant weekend homes, the lodging tax revenue is tanking, and surprise, rents still go up.
DeleteI’m not a NIMBY, I’m all for building more density in Hudson. A multi unit building was opened right next to my single family home and I welcome them. I am against middle class families subsidizing developers via pilots, especially for mostly market rate buildings. Hudson is also an artificially small city geographically and there is plenty of cheap land to build for workers within a 10 minute drive.
The fact is that Hudson is now considered a desirable place to live and the demand exceeds supply. The only way to change that is increase the supply or reduce the demand. The only way to reduce the demand is to: increase crime, make the schools worse than they are, or bring back heavy industry. Some seem to be taking that route.
THM — actually I’ve been practicing law for thirty years. You? You are pointing to a tax statute to make a point about election law? Interesting but not too persuasive. And I’m not arguing. I’m asking you questions that you’re not answering.
DeleteFriedman - I've been in housing finance and development for 25 years. The internet says you specialize in 'corporate law'.
DeleteNobody is trying to make a point about election laws. What are you even referencing?
Which questions have I not answered? You keep referring to 'a scheme', when I've offered no policy prescriptions, just a general goal of 'more housing that the local workforce can afford'. Why is this so triggering for you?
I suppose I'll address your "unanswered questions", as mystifying as they may be.
I've defined my descriptor of 'permanent local' for you. If you don't like the specific words, that's fine. If you don't like that they don't have a legal definition, that's fine too. This isn't a court room, I'm not trying to pass a law, and I haven't suggested a single policy prescription.
"If your work causes you to move...should you be penalized".
No. Of course not, and I didn't suggest that. What is the A to B of your question. I'd argue that if your work caused you to move--say, to Hudson--and your only options were housing cost burden yourself or drive until you can rent, then that's a penalty. What other penalty are you conjuring?
"Inertia and family size..."
Again, I can only make a guess at what you're referring to here; I'm assuming long-term tenancy and household sizes? Yes, I believe that there shouldn't be an incentive for landlords to turn over their units, so I suppose in your mind that might be a "special dispensation". Most people would call that "neighborhood stabilization", but to each their own.
Re: household sizes - it's interesting that you jump straight to 'number of children'. Whistle heard. What I actually referenced was wealthier renters individually occupying units built for multiple tenants. Is that their right? Of course. Should we pursue or maintain a housing strategy that enables this effective reduction in housing units per resident? I don't think we should.
If you ever want to take a stance on the issue of affordable workforce housing in Hudson, you could answer--just one time--the question of whether or not you think we need it. As a former elected official and architect of the proposed charter reform, I think it would be interesting to know how you feel about one of the most important issues in the city/county/state.
Hi THM -
DeleteThis thread is too long to catch up on all the nuances... but... I am not unfamiliar with the "dismal science", or some of the economists you referenced... and...
1️⃣ Three areas of research and policy within economics that have ~95% agreement amongst economists are 1) Rent Control (centralized housing/pricing meddling is bad for housing quality and quantity), 2) Free Trade (is good economically speaking, leaving aside national security interests), and 3) that Lawful Immigration (has a net positive effect). In fact, percentage wise, it is almost as settled, or supported by the same extremely large majority of usually diverging experts (93-95%) in the respective fields, as scientists who believe global warming is real, and that humans have had a non-zero influence changing the climate at an accelerated rate.
Obviously these issues carry different emotional valences and thus get treated differently in the press.
2️⃣ Then… it is possible for America to have a housing crises in one part, and less of a crises in another. And soon an oversupply in a large part. Especially if everyone wants to live in one part that, due to regulation, is building more slowly or not at all.
📰 See here: https://www.wsj.com/economy/housing/housing-market-location-florida-new-jersey-e5b96208?st=GwjTdr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
[Email me if you don't have a WSJ sub and the free gift article link does not work. But please those still reading this old thread, check out link and the Northeast vs. other geographies; time on market, sentiment, seller to buyer ratio.]
It is true that in the northeast there is a housing shortage… and it is also true that it is mostly due to national factors. And others parts of the country are now approaching an oversupply.
The few things that Hudson can do to increase housing it has NOT done, under Kamal's leadership.
THM - if you like price controls, and coercion of private property rights so much, why don't you live in Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela?
3️⃣ I will write more at length about this later…. but this whole "not from here" … "I had a friend who was pushed out due to prices" syndrome... it is so parochial, or should I say provincial, since Columbia County is supposed to be more rural.
It is so comical that Kamal can stand at an immigration rights rally on a weekend and chant something like "no human is illegal", and "all are welcome"... and then turn around on Monday and say "outsiders" (meaning his political opponents who have high standards and SAT scores) are to blame for everything and must be stopped.
In a way… everyone has been "displaced"... at least by the current Hudson-centric definition…. Megan Markel (double threat victim; "female", "POC", was displaced from Frogmore Cottage by the Queen... some rich person was "displaced" from Tribeca and moved to Rhinebeck, some Rhinebecker was "displaced" and moved to Green County, and on it goes.
DeleteWho decides which "displaced" person gets unearned public assistance? And for how long? Who gets sympathy?
4️⃣ The word and concept: "displaced", originally referred to refugees and IDPs (internally displaced persons) due to CONFLICT, VIOLENCE, DISASTERS, AND PERSECUTION. Not "the gays and CIDIOTs gentrifying the place". Though if you want to Kamal (born in Westchester County), that is your business.
Humans "forcibly displaced", are around 120 million people, per UNHCR (2024).
Anyone not earning enough in a free market economy, who then lose their rented or owned home is very sad, and regrettably, but it is not the same as a pogrom, Rwandan genocide, or a hurricane or large fire destroying all the homes in the county.
In fact, every human in the world, even the 1000 people that own apartments on billionaire's row in Manhattan… all deep down, have been economically displaced when they were younger, or currently feel (as weird as that may sound) economically displaced because no matter how much money they have they simply cannot get access to a home on Bishop Avenue (Billionaires' Row in London) or Indian Creek Island (Florida Island of billionaires). Shall we call that Displacement Anxiety Disorder (D.A.D.), common among ultra-wealthy who fear being locked out of high-status enclaves they don't own property in. 😉
I kid.
5️⃣ But let's just go back to basic arithmetic, as a young man from Hope, Arkansas, once said…
Where are the most expensive cities/towns in America:
Atherton, Manhattan, SF, Beverly Hills, Aspen, Indian Creek Island, Nantucket etc.
And what do you think they all have in common… originally…. water, mountains, and/or zoning/layout, serve as natural scarcity mechanisms. I.e. They are boxed in, usually on partial islands or peninsulas, unlike spatially open, geographically unconstrained, and lightly regulated cities like Houston, Vega, Phoenix, Dallas
🤔
Hudson, and its geography and regulation is more like the expensive cities and towns that are boxed in, therefore increasing scarcity.
Hudson is encircled by the Hudson River (West), The Town of Greenport (North, East, South), and low hills, protected lands, and rail lines (east).
THM — of course we need workforce and middle class housing in and around Hudson. I’ve never argued otherwise. I just take exception to line drawing that creates arbitrary and meaningless distinctions among people in the name of policy. It causes grief and leads to no improvement.
DeleteFNI / HVV - You're not going to teach me anything about housing. Citing a Chicago Booth study isn't particularly persuasive; they are after all an offshoot of the University of Chicago, home to the Milton Friedman school of 'Free Market' theology. If you love the free market and that ideology so much, why don't you move to Chile? Meanwhile the countries with housing and land use policies more up my alley tend to rank in the top 10 of the Happiest Places on Earth.
DeleteDredge up as much historical esoterica as you'd like; none of it helps the people struggling right now, within a stone's throw of your front door. And you can spare me the pity party for millionaires displaced by billionaires. Give me a break.
Dear THM -
DeleteAh, the mark of all great thinkers... and how I ironic... of course you would fall prey to the genetic fallacy (fallacy of origins); when someone rejects or accepts a claim based solely on its origin (source) rather than engaging with the claim’s truth, logic, or supporting evidence.
And a source you referenced yourself, to boot.
And I do not need to move to Chile because of my "love" for the "free market "... I already moved - on a decades and centuries scales, with some small backwards steps from time to time, followed by forward lunges - to the source and protector of free markets; America.
And I did not dredge up "historical" esoterica"... unless if you mean to say that genocide and real displacement from war and famine is "esoterica". Quite the opposite; I referenced a 2 day old WSJ story about the current and next year's real estate market.
re: Pity Party. Almost everyone in Hudson is extremely privileged, earned and unearned, by global standards. And if they are not... well here in Hudson, thanks to our high property tax dollars, and the various NGOs, they have nearly limitless state and private support to lift themselves up.
Whatever you paid for your education... you deserve a refund.
You may enjoy "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling.
Hope you have a great week and enjoy the freedom of this extraordinary nation.
Really? Your solution is to ghettoize Hudson? That seems . . . very retro.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why we are having this discussion AFTER the building is built. But I already know the answer: corruption. No sane or serious community would have allowed it. Period. The Historic Preservation Committee puts applicants through endless queries -- on paper! -- before any dirt is disturbed. Galloway seems to enjoy an amazing dispensation from such common sense procedures. And normal conflicts-of-interest considerations -- the mayor lives in one of his buildings! -- would have called immediate attention to the problems. And after this wholesale violation of permit procedures in throwing up this monstrosity, they have the gall to ask for a PILOT? A payment in lieu of taxes? This is the reward for corruption? More corruption? The answer? VOTE. Throw the bums out. --peter meyer
ReplyDeletePete - this article is about an entirely different project. The building that is nearly completed now is not the building that is the subject of this PILOT application.
DeleteHousing, like food and certain medicines, is not an optional expense. It is essential for survival. Allowing these items to become become marketable commodities is inhumane. The system is also rigged. A person who can not afford to buy a property can pay more in rent than the cost of the mortgage payments to buy the same building. The unregulated rental system is abusive. Local government should step up and put a cap on rents.
ReplyDeleteGot to give it to Hudson where one can be both be a “housing is a human right” person as well as being a NIMBY.
DeleteUnion Jack, as someone who applied for funding to convert a double garage in my backyard into a low income apartment, I don't think I would qualify as a NIMBY. I just have a problem with constructing more human warehouse buildings in city parks and turning over city property and tax abatements to organizations that have a history of neglect and abuse of it's tenants. Creating well designed and appropriately located public housing that provides quality living space for people, that is in scale with and doesn't have negative impacts on existing neighborhoods is a good idea in my opinion. I suppose in Hudson that makes me a NIMBY.
Delete