The extension of the terms of the contract to sell two City-owned parcels to Kearney Realty & Development was a topic of discussion at tonight's Common Council meeting. Council president Margaret Morris read the amendment to the contract, which alters the deadline for closing on the sale from a fixed date to an open-ended one: thirty days after pending litigation is settled in a manner that would allow the sale to go forward.
There was significant discussion about whether or not the mayor could amend the contract without the authorization of the Common Council. Before I could write a post about what happened, I received the following statement from Mayor Joseph Ferris:
In response to discussion about Kearney Group's contract with the City of Hudson at this evening's formal Common Council meeting, Mayor Ferris released the following statement:
The contract closing date was not extended. The amendment simply clarified the current state of the contract and provided the closing will occur pending the Court's Article 78 determination.
The City of Hudson cannot unilaterally cancel the contract. If we were to do so, Kearney Group would have a breach of contract claim against the City and could seek damages for the City's termination.
Corporation Counsel [City Attorney] advised me that since the City was already in contract with Kearney Group, is a named party in the Article 78 proceeding, and has a legal obligation to perform under the contract until such time as a Court rules otherwise, it was necessary to execute the amendment to maintain the status quo.
Much of this was discussed at a March 6 meeting attended by myself, Council President Morris, Mill Street petitioners, and the respective legal representatives.
The Council can debate prior resolutions of support but as this city's mayor, my responsibility is to protect the city and at this point in the Article 78 process, that means doing everything in my power to avoid unnecessary and expensive legal actions whose cost will be borne by the taxpayers.
Gossips' coverage of the discussion of this issue at the Common Council meeting will follow, although reporting on the outcome of today's primary election may take precedence.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
Saying the contract was "not extended," only "clarified," is like Governor's Tavern never calling "last call" and then insisting they never kept the bar open.
ReplyDelete~
The property sale contract to Kearney got an open-ended new life, good until the Article 78 closes the matter.
On June 15, a judge refused to dismiss the Article 78, a major loss for Kearney.
Days later, the contract came quietly back to life.
Nobody made Mayor Ferris sign this, unless Hochul called, and then he still had a duty to the City and arguably no legal authority.
He could have simply let the (Kamal era) contract lapse on its own terms, with no breach and no real risk to the City.
The City's own 2021 housing plan, on page 56, names the flat, city-owned, flood-free lot by Oakdale Park as a better option.
So if Kearney builds on Mill Street (homes overwhelmingly for new residents), and the long-time resident homes on Mill Street flood, who pays to fix them and the City's sewers?
Not Ferris, not Kearney, and not (City Attorney) Andy Howard.
The taxpayers do, including the Mill Street taxpayers who built their own homes with their own hands.
And why did resident JH of Mill Street have to ask, meeting after meeting, only to learn weeks or months later that the contract had quietly been extended, likely without authority?
Why were he and his neighbors not informed by the mayor, who works for them and is paid by their tax dollars?
Why did Kearney (of Rockland County) know before Mill Street residents, and it seems, the Common Council?
Even if the Mayor has the authority to change contracts, and then sign it, why not simply inform the public.
P.S. In his release today, Mayor Ferris says the City "cannot unilaterally cancel the contract".
Interesting word: "unilaterally".
First, no one asked him to cancel the contract.
Second, he cannot amend the budget alone, cannot issue a bond alone, and could not sell these parcels without a Council vote.
So how does he get to rewrite the terms of that sale, alone?
If City Attorney Andy advises the Mayor that he can cancel his own parking tickets, that doesn't make it legal.
P.P.S. And when exactly did Mayor Ferris sign the new "clarified" contract?
The date matters. For anyone who was not in that private March 6 room, the public learned of this only tonight, June 23?
So if, say, a random Hudson taxpayer wanted to challenge City Hall over it in court, the clock likely runs from tonight, which means filing by about October 20 to be safe.
~
If City Hall can do this to Mill Street, it can do it to you.
Liberty is only ever as safe as the least-watched street in town.
IIRC, the sale had already been ratified by the council in 2023 and was presumably signed by then mayor Kamal.
DeleteThis deal is complicated just based on the fact that it's chock-full of contingencies. The article 78 petition which mentions both parties to this agreement as defendants (Kearny and the City of Hudson) as well as the still pending PB approval makes it virtually impossible to proceed with closing.
Assuming this amendment hadn't happened, which of the two parties would actually be in breach? Is it Kearny or the city? I genuinely couldn't tell.
It’s interesting that a mayor, and many of the new council members who campaigned as against this project, could simply choose not to defend against the article 78, but for some reason are keeping this boondoggle on life support, at the taxpayer expense.
ReplyDeleteCould Michelle Tullo, Kamal Johnson’s girlfriend (this has been confirmed publicly, including by Tom DePieitro on his radio show), be influencing the city’s strategy in some way? This was her RFP and project. And speaking of the Housing Justice Director, now that the grant and trust fund is almost out of money (which they’ve talked about at the last couple housing trust board meetings), can we stop pretending that the city is not paying her, including the last raise that the council voted on? It seems wasteful to keep paying someone who costs as much or more than the fund that was supposed to help keep people housed. It’s like a charity that pays its directors more than the actual charity. There also seems to be a major conflict of interest due to personal relationships. Is the city scared of a lawsuit? Hmmmm…
Also… what was the nature of the March 6th
ReplyDeletemeeting? Who was there?
Was this a public meeting? Can we get a record of this meeting, the contents of which Mayor Ferris is sharing here with the open internet?
Or did Mayor Ferris just waive attorney client privilege for that meeting?
Re: “ Much of this was discussed at a March 6 meeting attended by myself, Council President Morris, Mill Street petitioners, and the respective legal representatives.”