This could have been predicted. Kitty's Restaurant LLC, Montgomery Street Projects LLC, Hudson Steel House LLC, Basilica Industries LLC, Basilica Arts LLC, South Bay Railyard LLC, and Our Hudson Waterfront have filed an Article 78 petition "for a judgment to annul, vacate, and in all respects void the City of Hudson Planning Board resolution to grant site plan and conditional use permit approval" for Colarusso's dock operations. The petition, which was filed on December 19, can be found here.
Lawsuit translated for a Hudson audience:
ReplyDeleteImagine you bought a historic building on Warren Street. The Code says you can "continue using the building, but only with the facade as it existed in 2011."
You ask the Planning Board for a permit.
The new Planning Board hands you one that says: "Approved: You can continue using the building." (Notice they deleted the part about "the facade as it existed in 2011").
Because they deleted that one specific phrase, you now legally claim you have permission to tear the entire front off and replace it with a glass skyscraper, ignoring the historic rules.
The lawsuit is the reasonable neighbors protesting; "You can't just delete the historic rule to let them do whatever they want"
Regardless of what happens here... Theresa Joyner's hot mic comments as PB Chair will be devastating for the defense.
And the City of Hudson will lose funds to a legal process that would not have been necessary if a more capable Planning Board had been appointed by the mayor.
And the Colarusso folks, long-time employers in the County.... guilty of the "crime" of wearing American flag shoulder patches on Warren Street in the 2020s, will continue to have business uncertainty.
The cost of an inexperienced mayor (Kamal) and his political appointees, continue beyond 2025.
This petition seems to hinge entirely on the Planning Board's refusal to get the ZBA involved in determining what the extent of Colarusso's operation in 2011 was. There is not much else in there.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if this petition would fare any better than last year's. It feels even flimsier.
You’re misreading the petition. Its most salient point is encapsulated in its second cause of action. The omission of the final clause of the code section at issue is fundamentally in error and reflects an overreach by the pathetic PB. This petition is not as weak as you think it is, Max. Where it is weak (as a kitten) is the inclusion of OHW as a petitioner. They have zero standing and will be removed as a petitioner if Colarusso asks. Perhaps a strategic “discard” for the petitioners? Either way, ACS fucked up when they rebuilt the bulkhead. The City fucked up (via the PB) when it’s corrupt as shit chair rammed the resolution through. Welcome the chickens — they’re home to roost.
DeleteTassilo/Max, let’s make this interesting.
DeleteWe (Hudson Common Sense) have no direct role in this lawsuit.
We are simply Hudson property owners who have to live with the consequences of (bad) local governance.
You, conversely, are a Greenport property who frequently opines on Hudson matters where you have no direct skin in the game.
The problem in this town is that talk is cheap. And your spectator sport is our tax reality and wasted time.
The voices of tax-paying residents and non-residents are treated equally, and the input of experienced experts is given the same weight as random opinion.
It creates a lot of noise with zero stakes. Budget and policy is divorced from facts and history.
So let’s fix that.
We are challenging you to a $1,000 bet on the outcome of this Article 78.
If the Planning Board’s resolution is annulled, you pay. (We will take that $1k and give it to Dept Heads to buy a nice lunch for hard-working City Hall workers).
If it withstands the challenge, we pay you $1k (or equivalent Euros into your European account for your trips home).
Are you confident enough in your commentary ("it feels flimsier") to back it with cash, or is this just more free advice from the peanut gallery outside city limits?
John, I read the second cause of action as a consequence of the first, namely the refusal to refer the question of the existing use in 2011 to the ZBA. The petition then claims that that lead to what constituted a legislative action by the PB.
DeleteIs this not the correct way of reading this petition?
Hugo: I opine on many things which I have indeed no stake in. But I find it funny that this objection is only ever raised when I opine on the ACS dock. As a reminder, that is a company headquartered in the town I am a resident of. Would I therefore not have a stake in that particular matter?
Generally, each cause of action stands alone. Often, some element of one claim may overlap with that of another.
DeleteMax, your refusal to take the bet suggests you lack conviction in your own statement.
DeleteWe will weigh your future opinions accordingly.
You became a U.S. citizen to gain a vote and true skin in the game. Congrats!
If you care so much about Hudson, you should move here and do the same.
Our stance on non-resident influence is consistent regardless of the issue. We may hold you to a higher standard precisely because we agree on more issues, than say the Zanotellis or random FB mob Greenporters.
Hah, the standards you hold me to are entirely immaterial to me. 😅 And once again, this is a question that concerns Greenport and therefore me.
DeleteIt's true that I lack conviction in my ability to predict the outcome of a legal proceeding. It would be a truly magical skill for anyone to possess; very useful, too.
This, by the way, applies to you as well. Only fools have full confidence in their ability to be right - and to predict the future. Don't be a fool. 😉
That is the fundamental difference between us, Max.
DeleteYou speak with projected confidence.
But when challenged, you admit you lack the conviction to back it up. When we make recommendations, we mean them. But we do so sparingly and we also check the facts and carry receipts.
Predicting the outcome of a lawsuit is not magic. It is a multi-billion dollar global industry called Litigation Finance.
The world is uncertain and we deal in those uncertainties. Making careful judgments based on past performance and imperfect information is not foolishness. It is called finance. And it pays a big chunk of NYS taxes.
It is called deduction. It is called reasoning.
The only fool is the one who speaks with confidence when he actually has none.
Merry Christmas!
Actually, the difference is Max used words like "seems" and "feels", because (at least in this instance) he seems to understand that his opinion isn't necessarily reality. In other words, he isn't a narcissistic ideologue.
DeleteMax - I think you'll find that now that Kamal is on his way out--the connective issue between you and "HCS"--your usefulness to them has run its course. You either agree with "them" or you're wrong.
Tom, this isn’t about loyalty to a person, but to reason and common sense. Or at least preferring a Planning Board that follows the law and doesn't make laws.
DeleteHudson (any town) works best when we objectively analyze facts and align based on the merit of the issues, rather than defaulting to blind fealty to political party, race, gender or birthplace.
Max is smart, yet supporting Colarusso based on shared residency rather than the law treats the Planning Board like a sport.
If anyone wants blind team loyalty regardless of the facts, they should stick to the NY Jets or FC Bayern Munich, or the Buffalo team if they’re a glutton for punishment.
p.s. maybe healthy disagreement will make the Greenport FB Mob no longer label us all as "foreign billionaires."
Tom, I very much enjoyed your analysis of the current situation and I agree with it. HCS and I are only partially aligned and it's been very clear to me for a while when my comments are appreciated and when they are not.
DeleteWon't dissuade me. HCS will realize that while Kamal has lost the election, his platform, talking points and spirit will still be around for the foreseeable future. I think this is a good and necessary thing even if Kamal was really bad at making them happen.
In his defense, Hugo has been rarely wrong when pointing out the blatant incompetence that has been running rampant in Hudson for years now. And he also knows that running a tight ship is not in conflict with any specific policies that are being proposed.
Digging up the dead horse again to be floggd. I so over this issue.Colarussos has been aroiund a LOT longer than any of the petitoners who most likely fold after a few years like so many projects lately.
ReplyDeleteNot quite.
DeleteColarusso has done great work in the County for a long-time and funded many local projects, but only bought the commercial dock in late 2014 from Holcim.
Which only sold (firesale to Colarusso?) after the St. Lawrence Cement factory was stopped by state authorities.
The Planning Board is supposed to act in the best interests of the citizens and taxpayers of Hudson. Would someone please explain to me how the Colarusso gravel dump and industrial truck route serves our best interest? ~ PJ
ReplyDelete^ exactly this. May Colarusso's days be numbered in Hudson. I have seen massive trucks spit dust on runners along the waterfront and on 23B and it is infuriating. Not to mention how fugly their chain link fencing is.
Delete