Given the marathon Planning Board meetings of the past, this is news. Last night, the Planning Board got through its six-item agenda in just ninety minutes. But speed alone is not a good measure of a Planning Board's efficacy.
Early on in the meeting, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle reported on this effort to establish collaboration between the Planning Board and the Conservation Advisory Council and the Planning Board and the Historic Preservation Commission. At the CAC meeting last week, it was suggested that Nathan Woodhull, who was recently appointed to the Planning Board and up until that time served on the CAC, might serve as the liaison between those two groups. Last night, Bogle reported that Woodhull that agreed to do that. He also asked for a volunteer from the Planning Board to serve as liaison to the HPC. Peter Spear volunteered to do that. Bogle explained, "The role of the liaison is informal. It's not a new layer of bureaucracy. It's just to keep the dialog open between these three groups, so that, when projects may overlap or somehow relate to more than one of us, we can share contact and collaborate together."
 |
| Ron Bogle at last night's Planning Board meeting |
The history of affordable housing in our country is not always a great story. Our first efforts in the mid-century were to create monstrous, institutional structures that were not welcoming and friendly to the folks that lived there. And they were not good for the cities they were in, because they created restricted areas of living for people living on low wages or in poverty. The DNA that were in those early designs still gets carried forward, and we need to be thinking of places of dignity, places of pride, places of belonging.
People who live on low wages and affordability may not be able to take as many vacations as some of us, may not be able to see the beauty of the country around them. They only have their own town, and we believe that they deserve to have beauty just as much as any of the rest of us, and that's a guiding philosophy that I hope to carry through this project, but the problem is that DNA gets carried forward.
If you look at Bliss Towers you can see that it carries the DNA of the early '60s affordable housing movement, and we've now learned, having lived with it for over 50 years, that there are so many things about that design that really diminish the quality of life of the residents and frankly doesn't really belong in the community. It feels like something that got parachuted in--the architecture, the design, the scale, the appearance.
I think we need to be sure that we do not carry forward the DNA, or at least minimize it as much as we can, of those early 1960s projects. The folks that built Bliss Towers I'm sure were dedicated civic leaders who thought they were doing the very best for their community, but the fact that it's been there for fifty years. . . . I think probably it started out not being that well constructed in the beginning, but it lasted fifty years, so that should give us pause that we are making a decision as we deal with this process to build housing that will probably be with us beyond 2075, 2080, 2090. We are building a site that will serve multiple next generations of Hudson residents, families, children grow up, their children may grow in this facility. So it needs to be expedited, but it also needs to be done with thoughtful consideration about what this new piece of Hudson looks like and how it's going to define so many lives in our city. So we need to do better than to just follow past models.
The current best thinking for affordable housing emphasizes the human scale, integration into existing neighborhoods, dignity of design, durability of materials, sense of home rather than a sense of an institution, and we also need to overlay green design as we move through the next fifty, sixty, seventy years. We need to be thinking about sustainability. We ought to look at US Green Building Council guidelines and other national guidelines that might help inform our thinking. Taking time to get this right is our most important job at the Planning Board. . . .
I would conclude by saying we're not going to talk about the design tonight, because we don't have a lot of information yet. We've seen your elevations. But I will tell you we have work to do, because there's an awful lot of the mid-1960s DNA still existing. We need to look at it, we need to study it, and we need to understand what does it feel like to be a human being and a family living in that space. How do we make it the best possible experience for them? We cannot simply do what we've done in the past. but look at the paths forward in terms of how we think about investing our time, money, in these people's lives and in our community.
Bogle's entire statement can be heard here, beginning at about 24:20.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
A coup de grâce to the Joyner era of mindlessness. Thanks, mayor Ferris. Thanks Mr. Bogle. Finally, thoughtful leadership at the PB.
ReplyDeleteNIGHT AND DAY! What a difference.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate the Planning Board's recognition of the importance of housing, I am unaware of any provision in the Hudson City Code that allows any project to be fast-tracked over another. I encourage this Planning Board to bring deficiencies in the existing code to the Common Council so that the Code can be updated. This has been discussed in the 25 years I've been in Hudson, but action has been missing.
ReplyDeleteIf the Mayor were to do nothing more, and there is good reason to believe from the reconstituion of the Planning Board that he will, than this one almost catclysmic act, he will have established his reputation as an elected leader serious about the well being of our city.
ReplyDeleteAnd a big hand to Ron Bogle for identifying DNA as an important social and cultural fact of institutions and communities. What a rare, empathetic insight, a complete view of what can be achieved. To overlook that would be to disadvantage generations of Hudsonians whose quality of life can be addressed right now. It is a worthy aspect of the project’s challenge.
We’re lucky to have Bogle’s steady hand at the Planning Board, but let’s be honest: he’s inherited a mess.
ReplyDeleteThe Kamal era left landmines (not intentional perhaps, just incompetence, which is just as bad) everywhere, and it’s not just the parking nightmare.
Remember the RestoreNY grant?
It was used as a "rubber stamp" fait accompli in the press and with investors for this whole project, and anyone who questioned it was labeled "racist" or "anti-housing," even though the grant didn't even legally apply to Bliss and was never submitted. Dodson, you have never explained this or taken ownership of that fiasco and what you put the City through, and Lil Debs, who lost the money.
Now... HHA/Bliss/Hudson is in the home stretch, and the HHA Commissioners are hiding behind executive sessions, meetings are no longer recorded and broadcast punctually etc..
If we’re going to do this, we need to use common sense.
> 0. Bogle is right: the "architectural DNA" of public housing matters. It’s not just about walls, it’s about how people live.
But residents, the mayor, and the Common Council should also consider:
> 1. Bliss 2.0 ignores settled federal HUD learned wisdom and official guidance.
For decades, the experts have known that "big, concentrated public housing" is a failure. HUD suggests scattered-site, mixed-income housing. By doubling down on the old 'warehouse' model in a single ward, the City is choosing de facto segregation over the pro-integration scattered-site model that HUD actually recommends.
> 2. It hurts the kids' future.
Best practices show that when it comes to concentrated public housing, where a kid grows up determines, largely, where they end up.
The Data: "Opportunity Insights" at Harvard/Chicago/Seattle found that kids who move from high-poverty projects (like Bliss) to better neighborhoods (other parts of the County, or even other Hudson wards) before age 13 earn 31% more as adults.
The Proof: A study with HUD on the HOPE VI program confirms that mixed-income communities break social isolation and help kids succeed.
https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/hopevi/
NPR Overview if you are short on time: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/28/nx-s1-5691692/hope-vi-public-housing-opportunity-insights-raj-chetty
Basically, Bliss 2.0 keeps kids in a poverty trap rather than spreading families across our five wards, or the County, where they’d have a better shot.
BTW - this is also why the City of Hudson Youth Center year-round programing, by going on defense and doubling down on what is not working, is not an engine of integration for the entire city, but an engine of continued separation.
> 3. The budget math doesn’t add up.
Concentrated housing means more calls for HPD and more pressure on HCSD. The school district is already struggling despite spending roughly $40k per student.
Is the Common Council ready to hike the police budget without new property tax parcels? Is the school district ready for a surge of at-risk students in one spot?
> 4. Bliss 2.0 is building in a "Red Zone" in terms of 'opportunity" and "mobility". See for yourself look at the Opportunity Atlas.
In a county of 60,000 people, the 2nd Ward is one of the only "low opportunity" zones. Why are we concentrating our most vulnerable neighbors in the one spot in the county and City with the worst outcomes?https://www.opportunityatlas.org
- Will the Mountco executives live there?
(Who were banned from building in Manhattan due to quality issues and labor violations)
No, they’ll be in Westchester / Scarsdale with their millions of profit from this project and take black chauffeur cars to visit Common Council meetings.
(Literally, you can't make this up, at least pretend and take the train Joel, or drive yourself, you would save HHA money).
Will the current and former HHA Commissioners, Cousins, Zachos, Black, or Dodson actually live in Bliss 2.0?
( 2/2)
ReplyDelete5. Who is actually in charge of the money and maintenance and why will this time be different?
Bliss 1.0 was a decades-long disaster of missing money and zero repairs. Who was held accountable? Nobody.
Where did the money go? Didn't a local philanthropy step in to pay back rents right before dozens of people were about to be evicted? Will they have do this every few years? Did Bliss get a contractual arrangement for that financial aid for the 2030s?
We’re using the same system and the same people, and expecting a different result.
When something is not working you fix the core issues, you don't double the size of the problem's source.
~
A skeptic would say that some segment of Hudson social progressive class needs Bliss 2.0... they need to keep the poverty industrial complex going because who else would give FOHY, Kite's Nest, the City of Hudson Youth Center etc. material and photo ops to keep on raising millions to take care of "The Community™".
This is why African leaders have started saying no to the aid industrial complex and missionaries.
Why not follow decades long research and outcomes on how to minimize the problem instead of exacerbating it.
If we really cared, if we really wanted a city of opportunity, greater equality, we'd have the courage to do the right thing.
~
And bear in mind, if Bliss 2.0 was 1x, 2x, or 5x its current size it would have near-zero impact on most of our Hudson Common Sense editors... it might raise taxes on the middle class (see point above about HPD and DPW) and the philanthropists who "help" Hudson are all global citizens...
We make this point out of concern for the current and future residents of Bliss, who are pawns in a profit-making boondoggle, and as an appeal to reason and common sense.
⚠️ Mr. Bogle, we press upon you to select reading that you see fit on the landmark Supreme Court case Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority and circulate it to the Planning Board.
This case established the "metropolitan remedy" and paved the way for Section 8 housing because it proved that concentrating public housing in specific "zones" is a violation of civil rights.
Are we not repeating the mistakes of Gautreaux fifty years later here in Hudson?
By doubling down on the old "warehouse" model in a single ward, the City is choosing de facto segregation over the pro-integration, scattered-site model that HUD experts actually recommend.
The core takeaway of that case was that "site selection" cannot be used to isolate low-income residents from the rest of the community. If we move forward with Bliss 2.0 as currently designed, we are ignoring a half-century of legal and social progress in favor of a model that has failed everywhere it has been tried.
HCS -- insightful. The yardsticks all show that what is planned is unlikely to achieve its stated goals.
ReplyDeleteIt's the poverty-industrial complex going about its business.
Indeed John.
DeleteBut would it not make sense to first fix the failing HCSD school before growing it's population?
To first get the zoning, taxes, and investment climate to a place where there are more high-quality jobs than people searching for jobs, and jobs beyond hospitality?
To first explore how the County, the City of Hudson, and Town of Greenport will co-evolve when self-driving cars and buses come online in 2 to 5 years and the Empire Service line runs more trains.
The government (of New York) can promise (subpar) housing for votes...
but it can't promise a job, the dignity that comes with it, and the quality of a bottoms up City that evolved over time, vs. topdown centralized planning.
There is a TS quote for everything in NY:
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
When this massive project is done, and if it does not work, like before, will...
- Joel from Westchester at MountCo pay a price after he cashed his millions in developer profit checks?
- Will Jeff Dodson whose salary will shoot way up with the increasing headcount pay a price? Or just leave (like he did to come here).
- The banks and financiers (who are they Dodson?) will "buy" these tax credits to offset their own massive corporate tax liabilities.
- The consultants, lawyers, and property managers will pay no price, they will arguably all make more when this goes over budget, gets delayed, and then needs band-aids.
~~
But the City of Hudson taxpayers and home-owners...
especially the middle class taxpayer, the families who have been here for a century or more, who works 340 days a year, or the fixed income retiree, or the families working in local businesses who have no choice but to utilize HCSD.
They will pay the price in tax dollars and public services.
And how many of them affirmatively voted for doubling or tripling Bliss?
This is how Hudson becomes a city where one half lives on the dole, unable to find work or afford to leave, while the other half lives here part-time, with no need to work or find a job and the means to leave whenever it gets cold.
And the working middle class residents move to Greenport, Claverack, and Kinderhook where they can benefit from Hudson without paying for it.
"...human scale, integration into existing neighborhoods, dignity of design, durability of materials, sense of home rather than a sense of an institution" sounds good, but it seems to conflict with the preface stating the essential nature of the project and promising expedited review. I don't see what is essential about it. Having spent several years part time in Bliss Towers, the problems in the building all seemed related to neglect and lack of maintenance by the management, not the structure itself. The low rise buildings also aren't rotting or falling down, so there is no reason they couldn't be upgraded and restored. I've restored three buildings all much older and in far worse condition than the low rise.
ReplyDeleteReplacing the existing development with something human in scale that integrates into the surrounding neighborhood would be a good thing, but the proposed project doesn't do that, it replaces an out of place structure with similar out of place structures twice the size and with a massive footprint five times the current one. Nothing about the plan integrates into the existing neighborhood of residential homes. So it isn't essential or urgently in need of expedited review. This falls more into the category of an optional upgrade that should be carefully and slowly reviewed with a high degree of skepticism and oversight.