In June, Gossips published the link to an op-ed written by Hudson resident Ron Bogle, which had been published in Rural Intelligence: "The Cost of Getting It Wrong at the Hudson Waterfront."
Today, in the runup to the special meeting of the Planning Board on Wednesday, which will be devoted to discussing Colarusso's application for a conditional use permit for its dock operations, Gossips has the good fortune of publishing a second opinion piece by Bogle.
 |
| Photo: Rich Volo |
A Time to Listen, Not Dismiss
by Ron Bogle
As a resident of Hudson, I believe that our small city's greatest strength lies in its people. Over the past several months, residents have raised a wide range of concerns about the proposed expansion of industrial operations at the waterfront. Hundreds have expressed their concerns through letters, signatures on petitions, and comments in public meetings. All were united by a shared concern for the future of our community and waterfront. What we've witnessed is a passionate, informed, and civil exercise in local democracy. This is not just about one meeting or one application—it's about the future of our city and the kind of place we want to be.
That’s why I was deeply troubled by comments made during the August 13 Planning Board meeting. In attempting to defend the integrity of the Board’s process, a troubling distinction was drawn between those who participate publicly and those deemed to have more “legitimate” concerns: “We do consider our public, but sometimes we have to know who our public is. Just because the loudest is always not the majority… You got people that have financial interest in something, and then you have people that really, you know, have a concern.” Earlier Board comments cautioned that members should base their decisions on facts rather than “personal opinion or outside influence.”
It is disturbing that the Planning Board seems to be dismissing the very community they are sworn to serve. Whether intended or not, such statements create a false—and deeply unfair—distinction between those who speak out and those whose concerns are supposedly more valid. In truth, the vast majority of those who have testified, written letters, or signed petitions have no financial stake in the outcome. What they have is a stake in Hudson—as parents, as neighbors, and as tax paying residents committed to responsible stewardship of our waterfront. After all, Colarusso has a financial stake in the outcome of this process—so, clearly, having a financial stake is not disqualifying.
These remarks suggest that some voices in our community are to be regarded as legitimate and others as illegitimate—a distinction that strikes at the very heart of the Board’s responsibilities. The job of a Planning Board is not to judge the worthiness of public input based on perceived motives but to ensure that all community voices are heard and respected. That is a commitment its members promised to uphold.
More importantly, the questions raised by the public do not exist in a vacuum. They are grounded in the legal obligations of the Planning Board itself. Hudson’s zoning code includes over 30 specific ordinances that must be applied to the conditional use permit application currently under consideration. These are not mere suggestions; they are the legal standards for consideration of all conditional use permits. The idea that public sentiment should be dismissed as “outside influence” ignores the fact that public concern and local law are aligned in this case. It is not enough to simply rely on consultants and attorneys. The Board has a duty to interpret the facts in light of the code and the long-term well-being of the city.
Any reasonable resident would agree that each Board member is responsible for making an informed, independent decision. But in the same spirit, it is also true that public participation—especially from those with historical or technical knowledge of the issues—should be treated as a resource, not a nuisance. We are not on opposite sides of the table. The Board and the public share a common goal: a healthy, vibrant, and lawfully governed waterfront that serves the whole city.
Indeed, a core purpose of any public hearing is to gather relevant information—especially from those with subject matter expertise. For example, during the reopened hearing, an internationally recognized expert in air quality measurement identified significant air quality risks around the waterfront area. This was not merely a personal opinion—it was a scientific observation supported by credible data and should prompt the Planning Board to require formal measurements before any decisions are made. This kind of expert input underscores the critical value of public comment and validates the hearing process itself.
It’s worth remembering that the original public hearing on the current application lasted a full year. The recent reopening lasted only two sessions—May 6 and July 15. At a minimum, the volume and substance of recent public input should warrant more—not less—engagement from the Board.
No one questions the difficulty of the task facing the Planning Board. But the question now is whether they will see the public as a partner in this work or as an obstacle to be managed. For the sake of Hudson’s future, I hope they choose partnership.
Bogle is the founder and CEO of the National Design Alliance. He is the former president of the American Architectural Foundation and a managing partner in the Mayors' Institute on City Design, in association with the National Endowment for the Arts and the United States Conference of Mayors.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Great op-ed by Mr. Bogle. I especially agree with his assessment that Theresa Joyner’s statements “create a false—and deeply unfair—distinction between those who speak out and those whose concerns are supposedly more valid.” I have observed over the past few years that this type of belief—that some people’s opinions, motives and even reasons for being in Hudson—are more valid than others. This type of mindset seems to be popular with Mayor Kamal Johnson, his allies and supporters, and even his appointees, like Ms. Joyner. The belief that some citizens motivations and their pursuit of happiness is not equal and as virtuous as other citizens, and therefore the scales must be tipped to favor the virtuous. Many times it’s nativism, grievance politics, and discrimination, masked under the guise of justice and equity—yet it’s anything but that.
ReplyDeleteExamples of this mentality can be seen often:
- Some residents get unfair and punitive “Welcome Stranger” tax assessments, while other citizens withhold paying the city taxes for years, while the mayor shields them from consequence.
- Residents of some neighborhoods are “othered” and accused of lacking “community™️” simply for not being regulars at the “correct” events or social circles.
- Self-titled “5th Generation Hudsonians” write instructional guides for newcomers that encourage them to sit down, be meek, and pay tribute to the “correct” nonprofit/socail organizations. And if you happen to give up and get driven out, you can cleanse yourself of the sins of migration by giving your house away to the “right” people.
- And the last example is the subject at hand, where the Planning Board Chair herself is seemingly dismissive of the motivations of actual Hudson residents, her own neighbors—for their quality of life, their breathing, their property values, and their shared recreational spaces. All to seemingly favor a Greenport based company and their supporters, a relatively small group who mostly live outside of Hudson—as well as diminishing the business interests of other Hudson based waterfront area businesses, many of whom have actually been there before Colarusso bought that property, around a decade ago.
Imagine the irony of a Planning Board that considers actual residents as “outside influence?” This is no suprise when we’ve seen several examples of Tom DePietro (also a believer in some-residents-are-more-equal-than-others mindset) coordinate and welcome real outside professional astroturfing organizations like Tides Org backed For the Many to come to contentious council meetings to shout down actual Hudson residents and their representatives on the council. Thankfully the voters are tired of this type of divide and conquer thinking and want to support candidates that want to represent all of Hudson. But one question of the many questions we’ll be left with: how much money will Ms. Joyner and Mayor Jackson cost us in the long run with avoidable lawsuits and lost opportunity costs?
*Mayor Johnson (last sentence). Autocorrect on mobile and typing too fast ;)
DeleteIndeed. Last year October we gifted copies of George Orwell's Animal Farm to City Hall / Common Council.
Delete"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
https://www.instagram.com/p/DBKVvTBRKq2/
Thank you for sharing this opinion — it is both concise and an excellent explanation of why Hudson citizens are frustrated with the current state of the “planning board” and the eons of time it takes to make informed decisions that are for the good of the entire community.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Mr. Bogle, but I wish you would go back to Peter Spear's last neighborhood discussion (with Nicole Vidor) and see my comment, here, I hope -- https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2025/08/breaking-news.html?showComment=1755796423576#c393211896624090718. It was a wonderful suggestion that Hudson get involved with our schools. I hope you follow that up. --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteConcentrate on the parkland already under control, fix it up and then use it as examble of the dock area's potential, I never understood why people have animosity towards Colarusso's presence but sy nothing about the monopoly the Motorized Boat Club has thers. The northern part is locked off by an ugly chain linked fence with padlocks and the club is impossible to bhecome a member,
ReplyDeleteThe Hudson Power Boat Association is a private organization that owns the land on which it sits. Membership is limited by the Association's ability to provide slips to members and new members have to be nominated by current members. A significant number of slips as well as fueling privileges are extended to government agencies (I'm almost certain at no charge). Much of the shoreline on both sides of the river is in private hands and inaccessible to the public. I don't know if you've ever been north of the north fence along the river but it's basically a skinny right of way next to the tracks to which the floating dock is anchored; again, this is private land. I'm sure it must rankle some that it's not a park, but the association has owned and stewarded that land for literal generations during years when the river was being actively poisoned and had no defenders to speak of. With Furgary now in public hands perhaps that's a good place to give access to waterfront in a way you'd like. Furgary couldn't defend itself and its death is a loss but maybe you can make something out of that. Or you or another person or the city can make an offer on the Association's land, if that particular spot is so important.
Delete…Or the city could do what Red Hook is doing and just eminent domain the property, which was acquired in 1950 for $150. I’m not saying I think that should happen, but don’t give anyone ideas :)
DeleteUnion Jack -- your ignorance of how eminent domain works is only exceeded by your snark.
DeleteThe HPBA purchased its lands when no one else wanted them. The river was an open toxic sewer, the entire HH Waterfront Park was an industrial dump. The price for the land reflected the demand for it.
The only people who were willing to take a flyer on it was the HPBA members. Based on a strong love for boating and the river itself, they purchased the property and improved it substantially.
If the City of Hudson were to attempt to ED the club's property, the purchase price would be nearly impossible to calculate -- how can you price an unavailable asset?
Beyond that, the HPBA is made up of your neighbors. You may not know who all is a member but that doesn't change the fact. Like any private club, we have our own qualifications for membership which may be summed up as "not an asshole, not a convicted felon, keeps their politics pretty much to themselves and is willing to donate their labor to the club." You don't need a boat to be a member (I don't own a boat).
There's another fact of which I'm sure you are unaware: though the HPBA is a not-for-profit and, therefore, exempt from having to pay property and school taxes, we still pay all the taxes due on the property the club owns. At the same time, we do provide no-cost dockage for first and emergency responder vessels. And we sell our gas to whomever needs it on the river. We provide dockage for transient boaters visiting Hudson, and open the club house several times a year to the public for a variety of events including Flag Day and tea dances.
Relax, counselor, I was merely joking about the situation in Red Hook, which is quite a controversy there. Maybe I wasn’t that clear and because I was following Chip’s negative comment, but I don’t think or want the city should eminent domain the PBA. And we all know that the city could not afford to ED the driftwood floating in front of the PBA. And yes the PBA is a constructive nonprofit, especially in contrast to the parasite “nonprofits” that gravitate to our city. I’m sorry if my sarcasm was lost in my snark. Especially to someone that’s one of the best in the business (I say that with appreciation and not sarcasm, to be clear). My only question is, are sail boats allowed? Or do you all prefer to avoid yacht club vibes?
DeleteSailboats are allowed, yes.
DeleteI can answer the question about sailboats, Union Jack. I know that one of HPBA's most stalwart members owns a sailboat not a powerboat.
DeleteExcellent! I was raised by dock rats. Sounds like a good time!
DeleteTo answer your last question, in a round-about fashion, the PBA is a boat club, not a yacht club. And sailboats are welcome.
Delete