Last Thursday, the Planning Board granted site plan approval, with conditions, to the controversial Mill Street Lofts project. The resolution that was passed by a vote of 4 to 2 can be found here.
Today, the Register-Star reports the news: "Hudson planning board approves Mill Street affordable housing project."
The article quotes Adolfo Lopez, assistant director of Greater Hudson Promise Neighborhood, who declared his strong support for the project. Lopez said of the project:
This is one of the few opportunities we have to use city-owned land for real affordable housing for people who are already part of this community, or for the many children and families formerly part of this community who have been displaced.
This sentiment was heard over and over from defenders of the project in public comments. Exactly how Lopez defines "real affordable housing" is not known, but the notion that these apartments will be for "people who are already part of this community, or for the many children and families formerly part of this community who have been displaced" is a myth. As everyone learned last Thursday, tenants for the apartments will be chosen by a lottery, a process that cannot prioritize current and former residents of Hudson.
Mr. Lopez is clearly a member of the poverty-industrial complex and, as Gossips points out, delusional or full of shit.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully disagree, John.
DeleteI only met Adolfo López twice, once in town, once at that meeting. He seemed sincere. We disagreed on policy but agreed on the problem. He was open to questions and willing to engage. That already puts him ahead of Kamal, who in my experience avoids honest dialogue and never writes anything down for a reason... Except, bizarrely, when he keeps on sliding into people's DMS while in a committed relationship in a very small town. 🤦♂️
🤝 Adolfo was direct, kind, and willing to talk like neighbors. I left wishing we had more time to walk through the Mill Street plans and see where wires got crossed.
So no, I would not say he is “full of shit.” More likely, like much of Hudson, he may be misinformed on the Mill St development (based on his quote above)
🛡️🚨 but in his defense... the real AMI numbers were only shared at the end of the meeting for the first time, after everyone spoke. Almost all the vocal supporters in that room were led to believe by someone that the housing would be for very poor current Hudson residents‼️ Two even said/believed this will be for the 7th St.Park "unhoused" folks.
When the truth was revealed, half of the speakers (including Kamal) had already left and the other half didn't understand or didn't have the integrity, or we're not given the opportunity by the chair, to update their positions. The planning board forcefully closed the meeting and process.
I would be surprised if more than two existing Hudson families end up in that building if it ever gets built.
Were we actively misled... about the flood risk. About the deed. About the zoning variance. About the 1st World War sized flood trench that will now cut through that entire area....About how many Hudsonians were ever going to live there.
Or do people just pay less attention to the details when it's not their own money?
Why was the city's Housing Justice director not there when this is about housing and justice?
(Adolfo, if you are reading this, happy to walk Mill Street with the architectural plan in hand. Or reply here with your take.)
🎯 That said, John, you are dead right about Hudson’s poverty-industrial complex.
DeleteHowever well intentioned, the “housing at all costs” crowd treats dissent as heresy. Just look how Tom DePietro's wife, who was re-appointed by City Hall to review Welcome Stranger property taxes, falsely accuse her husband's political opponents of being 'anti-housing' as an election year dog whistle. (She is a lawyer from Westchester, and should know better.)
"Free" housing is a secular religion, and its clergy are professional organizers and advocates, subsidized by the rest of us.
Locals act like Hudson is the only town in the country with these problems, and that the ONLY solution is ill conceived public housing with a high probability of becoming another Bliss Tower...
The Greater Hudson Promise group got its seed funding from the federal government. It does do some good work, but it is overtly political and boasts several conflicts of interests.
Their “day of action” coincided with the final public hearing on Mill Street. Suddenly, half a dozen new, t-shirt color-coordinated voices showed up with moral, not data-driven, arguments. Their statements could have been said about any housing project in any town in America, in any of the last 30 years.
Imagine if Mill Street residents opposed to the project held their annual employer dinner across from City Hall that day, along with a large nature conservation group, and a public integrity / flooding think tank, and then all marched over in unison in matching shirts to lobby the PB for hours, alternating between emotional outbursts and personal appeals, and legalese.
People would lose thier minds if that happened. But it did. When tax-funded advocates do it, many of whom no longer live here, it is called “community engagement.”
John, you are right... about it being a coordinated grift, even if some participants are not aware of their role in it.
🧭
Why do so many Hudson youth aspire to be local politicians who turn victim narratives and fixed mindsets into public funding and coercive laws on neighbors...
Why don't we produce more Madam C.J. Walkers and Jake Walthours who grow the pie, champion growth mindsets, and take personal responsibility, thereby uplifting everyone around them without encroaching on their neighbors' liberties.
It is actually quite common these days, for press pieces advertising political and special interest agendas, to be presented disguised as journalism. It’s a method of manipulating the pubic commonly used by both parties.
DeleteBetter to stick to the facts. According to a current AI query, Hudson currently hosts 566 affordable, subsidized housing units. This is in keeping with the current resident poverty rate of 22.1%, which would be 1279 residents, in 566 units, out of a current population of approx. 5790.
According to census data estimates, approximately 1,565 Hudson housing units were occupied by renters, so over 30% of Hudson’s rental housing is currently subsidized. I was unable to find a single small NY city or town with such high percentages. For comparison, Albany has 13% of it’s rental stock subsidized, Poughkeepsie 18.6%, Kingston 5.9%, Newburgh 11.9%. Smaller cities and towns with populations around 6000 generally have much lower percentages.
Based on these statistics, it’s hard to imagine any logical reason for the local government to be actively promoting and participating in the expansion of subsidized housing in Hudson. At this point, where designated park land and city property is being given away at a discount to developers, concerns among local residents about an industry of poverty don’t seem unwarranted or made up.
Affordable, subsidized housing is a good thing and Hudson has done quite a lot to provide it. It's not unreasonable to question the benefit of adding more, or to ask local government why, with such high percentages, the community is now being expected to provide it, without being labeled a NIMBY or some kind of crackpot.