Last night, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Hudson Housing Authority's proposal to construct new buildings on their site at 41 North Second Street. The community space at the Central Fire Station was nearly filled to capacity. Among the notables spotted in the room were Mayor Joseph Ferris, architect Alex Gorlin, and Fourth Ward supervisor Linda Mussmann.
At the outset, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle suggested, "The subject matters that might be most useful are focused around your observations as a neighbor or of the neighborhood--comments about traffic, safety, design, environmental issues, or other matters that you believe are relevant for our review." Of the thirteen members of the public who commented, only three touched upon the issues Bogle suggested. The rest presented some version of the argument that the people currently living in Bliss Towers deserve new and safe housing (no one is disagreeing) and people who have been forced to leave Hudson deserve to come back (there is no guarantee that can happen). Among the people urging the Planning Board act expeditiously to grant site plan approval were many of the usual suspects--Kaya Weidman of Kite's Nest, Bill Hughes, Claire Cousin, Abdus Miah--and some we don't hear from as often--Nona Walthour and Kim Singletary, neither of whom lives in Hudson.
Of the three speakers whose comments related to the issues Bogle suggested, Alan Weaver, who chaired the HHA Board of Commissioners in 2018-2019, when HHA last had plans for redevelopment, reminded the board that the earlier plans were abandoned because the land on the north side of State Street was determined to be unstable and unable to support the building to be constructed there. He noted that the building now being proposed for the site is even larger than the one proposed earlier. Weaver called the current plan "out of scale with the current neighborhood" and questioned the need to build so many units when there were now, according to some accounts, only 84 tenants in Bliss Towers. Of the current proposal, he asserted, "We don't know what it's going to cost; we don't know what it's going to look like." He called for a project that would be of benefit to Hudson and not just to the developer and urged that the project not be approved until all the information was available.
Britt Zuckerman, a landscape architect, pointed out that the site plan involves destroying mature trees, noting that the Second Ward is "the least planted of any ward." She criticized the overall design, calling it "towers around a park . . . with no streetscape engagement." She said the design "segregates residents and creates a dead zone."
Carla Sadoff expressed the opinion that too many things that she considered "red flags" were being ignored--mentioning specifically the issues with the soil and management during construction. She asked rhetorically, "Is there sufficient information to the Planning Board? Does the Planning Board have any doubts about what is being presented to them?" She concluded by saying, "There are too many things that have been said, that have been discovered, that have been revealed that leave certain things in question that make me question the immediate acceptance of this."
The entire hearing can be viewed here. Spenser Walsh from the Register-Star, Jeanette Wolfberg from The Columbia Paper, and Roger Hannigan Gilson from the Times Union were all present at the hearing so there will soon be several other accounts of what transpired.
The Planning Board is accepting written comments about the project until its next meeting, which takes place on August 11. Comments can be submitted by email to the Planning Board clerk Linda Fenoff at lfenoff@cityofhudson.org.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
84 individuals live in Bliss (now confirmed).
ReplyDeleteEach would get to live in a brand-new apartment that costs about $800k + to build if this is approved, (timing not guaranteed).
But only 6 to 8 people showed up to the hearing, a very critical one about their "community" and homes" less than a mile away.
Not exactly roaring support for Dodson or the MountCo plan.
~
Ask a sincere question about a troubled agency building on unstable soil and you're "greedy" and "selfish." (The last public meeting on this issue)
Raise SEQRA in a professional and measured way to make the proposing housing better for the inhabitants, and you are, to quote one speaker last night:
"pseudo intellectual kinda nimby hiding behind numbers," aesthetics are "a dog whistle," and you're "kinda cowardly and sort of sad."
No one against the proposal attacked the residents. The inverse is not true.
That's why the sensible middle stops showing up.
Should we do a "In their own words" Special Report of this and the previous meetings. The RestoreNY one was beyond words.
ReplyDeleteJust a few moments from last night:
1 - Claire Cousin (elected public figure), saying
"There's no jobs (in Hudson) that match the cost of living" while arguing for the accelerated approval of the 2 phases.
Ok - so then why 2.5x the number residents (84 to 300+) on a concentrated site if there are
a) "no jobs" and b) no jobs that pay well, for the current residents?
2 - Alan Weaver (former public official and HHA Board member) calmly and politely addressing core SEQRA concerns, and after casually sliding a piece of paper onto the Planning Board members' table that we later find out is a soil and engineering report....
stating that the soil on the parcel could not support a *smaller* building than what is now being proposed. The firms involved then (PRC/Duvernay + Brooks team) was more reputable, larger, and vertically integrated than MountCo.
Then he goes on to say that "what you are looking at is adding 4 Providence Halls to the second ward"
For those watching at home, Weaver's comment, and deposit of that report in the public record, is the Bliss version of Jack Hornickel, also a thoughtful and genteel presence, explaining to the Planning Board with evidence a few years ago that Mill Street is a park (and flood zone) and cannot be alienated.
Now look how Mill Street ended up....
Reading the comments, most speakers treated this as a "what do we want for Hudson" conversation. It isn't one.
Site plan review is a narrow, standards-based check: does the project follow the zoning code, is it safe, does it fit the neighborhood, is it consistent with the City's own published plans.
Bogle said exactly that at the start. Three of thirteen speakers answered the question he asked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Environmental_Quality_Review_Act
I personally don’t consider the occupancy confirmed at 84 tenants when the information source is “some accounts”. Does no one have a verified census of Bliss 1.0? There are certainly fewer residents than there were just a few years ago; if that is because more units became less habitable, then pointing to the reduced occupancy as a reason to not build units is basically rooting for displacement by deferred maintenance.
ReplyDeleteIt isn’t clear to me from this article that Mr. Bogle asked any questions of the participants, but that’s neither here nor there. Speakers at Public Hearings are under no obligation to answer anyone’s questions.
I’m not an engineer so don’t know much about soil densification. Turns out it’s extremely common. Presumably the HHA and/or MountCo engaged engineers at some point in developing this plan. Sometimes engineers disagree.
It will be interesting to compare and contrast the newspaper articles and blog posts about this meeting. So far only the Register-Star has posted. Say what you like about the RS, but they at least have the common courtesy to publish comments from the project’s supporters as well as its detractors. Thirteen speakers and the only quotes here are from detractors. Go figure.
“Bliss redevelopment plan gains support at public hearing”
https://www.dailygazette.com/hv360/bliss-redevelopment-plan-gains-support-at-public-hearing/article_84189531-0d5b-4bd5-88fc-445e1b1209c8.html
You prove the point.
DeleteBiggest capital project in county history, late-stage review, and nobody can say exactly how many people live in Bliss 1.0.
Weaver said 84. Dodson was in the room and did not dispute it. But 84 individuals is different from 84 units, which could mean twice as many individuals.
Bogle/PB members were not there to grill speakers or the developers, and said so.
The Board decides as a body what to ask the developer/applicant next.
~
Proponents can comment anytime on Gossips.
~
Michael, the soil issue is a potential "risk of ruin" factor. If they get it wrong, the following can happen:
- years of delay
- massive cost overruns, leading to "value engineering," paring down the housing and removing elements
- a longer construction zone disrupting the entire Second Ward, with more trucks
- unfinished buildings.
+ See Air Albany, where construction stalled and left a half-built concrete shell. + The Poughkeepsie Youth Opportunity Union is the other locally famous one: millions spent, the existing building demolished, and an empty site/hole left behind.
🚨 Air Albany had delays, permitting issues, lawsuits (the developer sued the architect when they ran into trouble), but also... loose fill, shallow groundwater and soft clay extending below 100 feet*
Build before the ground and foundation risks are fully understood, and HHA may repeat the larger mistake behind Bliss 1.0: making promises that residents live with long after the decision-makers and developers moved back to Westchester or New Jersey.
~
Mr. Dodson, can you please confirm the number of residents and the number of households in Bliss 1.0 today?
References:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_of_ruin
https://selfservice.albanyny.gov/sites/default/files/P00178%20Geotechnical%20Report%202019-01-16.pdf
Seems like proponents commented in person. 10 to 3.* Gossips is many things but “the room where it happens” it is not.
Delete*it’s interesting that most times when there’s poor turnout, that gets attributed to City Hall’s calendar. But for this, it’s lack of support. Even when that support trebles the opposition.
By your own count it was 10 to 3.
DeleteBy the question Bogle actually asked, traffic, safety, design, environment, it was 3 to 0.
Also comparing turnout at a meeting about a "No turn on red light" to a meeting about $800k apartments, and turning the 2nd Ward into a construction zone for 10 years... not the same thing.
You are right, they’re not the same thing. Three people in a city of nearly six thousand showed up and spoke against the project. The purported majority seems as invisible as it is silent, even after another round of rallying blog and Instagram posts.
DeleteIt does not matter what Mr. Bogle asked. That’s not how Public Hearings work.
I think both “sides” of this project expect the City to perform whatever reviews are necessary. The arguments about dedensifying Bliss are valid, though the suggested alternative approaches drastically misunderstand what, where and how much you can build in Hudson.
The arguments about the review process are confusing. I don’t believe that the City is “fast-tracking” this project; its initial application is three years old at this point. What reviews have the Planning Board or Bliss proponents indicated will be skipped or expedited?
Re: fast track. We say that because the applicant front runs the PB and makes announcements to the press about time urgency, when their application is deficient.
DeleteYou keep saying the application is 3 years old like it helps you.
It doesn’t. 3 years on the biggest capital project in Columbia County history, and the public record still can’t tell us how many people live in Bliss, what it will cost, or who’s financing the rebuild.
3 years. Hudson can tell you which Warren Street storefront went dark last week and exactly what’s rumored to replace it, but not the resident count or financing stack on a $220 million project a mile away.
That’s the story.
We have to FOIL basic things from HHA that should have been in the record 3 years ago.
Where is the HHA / MountCo contract Michael? This is public money. It should be in the public record.
Also: HHA only applied (to the PB) 2/25/2025. So hardly 3 years Michael.
DeleteThe Joyner PB rushed Mill Street in 10-13 months, and now it will never be built on that site and there will be "Say it ain't so, Joe" attack ads against Ferris in 2045 when he runs for a State wide position.
Kristal Heinz' Hudson Avenue Boulevards of roughly 2 dozen units took 19 months, and it was a private capital development.
Go and see for yourself: https://hudsonny.municollab.com/
So when HHA / MountCo, is spending OUR money, and adding to OUR City of Hudson budget, and then endangering OUR residents, and the whole neighborhood with 5-10 years of construction and trucks... we all get a say.
Since we are a town that sticks up "no turn on red" signs because one or two peple speak up, we are now heading down the road of sticking up a $500 million building project for 800 people because a few people have come up with pretty drawings and "free" money from state and federal funders. Can't we do something that makes sense for a change?
ReplyDeletePeter - perhaps you made a typo but the project is currently supposed to be around $220m, not $500m.
DeleteThe number has been moving, and large capital projects often have a 20% cost over run. *
Total new residents is, we infer, 250 units x 2.1 (average resident per unit) - 84 existing = ~400 ?
But who knows, it is not clear from the developer and the comment period is already underway.
“Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 2002.
Aside from the application date (ain’t errata fun?), I don’t know what about my posts you’re arguing with. I agree that everyone deserves a say. I just seem to have a different definition of “everyone” and “say” than you do. This project is incredibly public and, again, three people showed up to speak against it.
DeleteI don’t know where the contract is, HCS. I also haven’t seen a pro forma, so it is difficult to be upset about a price tag when I don’t know what it’s buying.
I don’t agree that HHA/MountCo is “endangering our residents”.
MB;
DeleteSlowArt and BZ who live right there said very few neighbors are tracking.
You take 3 people showing up and speaking against as some sign.
We take 8 people (most getting paid by aid industrial complex, like KW and CC, or slated to live in new $800k apartments) as some sign.
re; Contract. So we are now in the final stage of this process, public comment period kicks off a statutory clock. And we don't have the contract, we don't know how many people live in the building currently, and NY told the developer (MountCo) and HHA (Dodson) that the project is too big and too expensive.
[ this comment should have been a Reply in the thread above ]
DeleteI do take 3 people showing up in opposition as a sign. A sign that there isn’t much in the way of neighborhood opposition, as well as a sign that some of our local ‘influencers’ aren’t nearly as influential as they seem to believe.
DeleteIf NYS decides the project is a dog, then it will go away.
Nobody is going to be living in “$800K apartments” because that’s not how Total Project Costs work. Unless and until you get your hands on a detailed budget, you’re comparing apples to mystery meat.
I do wonder if other government expenses (“OUR money”) rile you quite so much. Imagine if you pivoted the use of “the editors’” free time to include things like unnecessary wars.
Michael, you make our case for us.
DeleteYou say we're "comparing apples to mystery meat."
Exactly.
So why are HHA and MountCo asking the Planning Board to approve on "mystery meat"?
No contract, no pro forma, no confirmed resident count, the soil might give in, or delay final delivery by years...all in the final comment period.
That's the whole point. Put the budget and financing stack in the public record, do not stack the deck with clearly conflicted PB members, explain why we are served this false choice of either:
A) 2.5x'ing the size of Bliss, on the same site with mainly non Hudson residents*
B) do nothing and let the Bliss residents live longer in the building that HHA itself claims was obsolete, 10 years ago
On wars: plenty of eight-figure outfits and the State Dept/UN watch those. Very few people were looking out for the Hudson taxpayer until recently.
*(bad for residents, see Chetty Research, HUD policy, Hudson Housing and Comprehensive Plan. And new Bliss residents will be from a national lottery)
I was at the meeting last night and chose to submit a written comment rather than speak, even though my house is a few doors up State Street from Bliss Towers. Like other meetings relating to HHA, a small group of people, most who do not live in the neighborhood, show up to dominate the platform and promote the project. Most of my neighbors know nothing about this project, nor were they aware of any meeting. Rather than a public forum, this seemed more like theater designed for the media and to support the members of the Planning Board who had already made up their mind in advance.
ReplyDeleteAs far as State Street goes, it is already packed with cars. Unless you grab a spot in the morning, especially on weekends, you are out of luck and need to park elsewhere. It is also overburdened with more traffic than any other street, the last thing State Street needs is more cars and trucks.
I also spent five years part time in Bliss Towers. The building was seriously neglected, mismanaged and not maintained. Conditions were bad, too much to describe here, but they did not appear structural or anything that would require a demolition. Was there was a report of a structural engineer who recommended a demolition? I observed it needing new elevators, flooring, cabinets, doors, appliances, cleaning and painting, things like that. It is a concrete and steel building and only 50 years old. Even wood frame houses over 100 years old, rotting and abandoned for decades can be restored.
I'm all for affordable housing, there should be more of it. However, gigantic apartment blocks that are separate from the surrounding community and contain low income residents like they are in some sort of low rent dormitory or prison complex is an outdated housing model. The City and residents of Bliss would be better served by new housing that is higher quality and smaller in scale, two or three stories, with room for gardens, trees and outdoor space. This should be an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
I think many people will submit written comments. Why walk in the rain just to be berated in academia speech by a zoomer who moved here 6 months ago?
ReplyDeleteAlmost everyone wants to see Bliss replaced by something better for both the community and the current residents. I think one of the reasons why you hear what you do from HHA residents and the “pro” large development is because of how they are organized and recruited to attend these meetings. You see it at almost every large development related meeting. The critics and people with questions are usually personally motivated, while the “pro” side is usually organized by the developers and various “nonprofit” orgs. These groups often don’t communicate the merits of the proposals before the various regulatory bodies, they just tell people “we want to build you housing, but the government and well-to-do NIMBYs want to get rid of you.” So that’s why the public comments are usually pleads for compassion, or a general litany about gentrification. I think it’s exploitive and creates division. I know people that have completely hardened their views on housing because of how they were vilified at that Restore NY grant public hearing.
As I’ve said, most people want Bliss replaced. But many of us see this particular plan for what it is, a money grab for the developers. If they simply kept it at around 100 units, it would be much easier to finance and build. But the greed of the developer has pushed the HHA Board to build as many as possible. The HHA Board president said it herself during her comments. This already has been the cause of much delays as they’ve gone to the drawing board over and over as the state has told them it’s too expensive, thus all of this “value engineering.” I would bet that what may ultimately tank this project is not the Planning Board or community input, but when the financing isn’t enough, and/or ground/foundation issues, because they were overzealous with the scale. How does this serve the current residents who’ve keep having to wait?
As for me, I believe (as the city treasurer recently recommended) that Hudson needs to increase its tax base. We are facing major budget shortfalls and a dwindling reserve that is hindering our ability to apply for and float grants. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our schools are also facing budget shortfalls. If we don’t increase our revenue sources the city and schools will keep on having to increase taxes. Our insanely high property taxes are a main driver of housing costs for both owners and renters. Those of us who are unsubsidized would like to remain in Hudson too. How does it make sense to increase Hudson’s population by almost 10% in a development that pays nearly nothing in taxes? Hudson already has the highest percentage of subsidized housing in the county, and probably one of the highest in the state. We need balance. Just replace the current building and units and get it done.
Agreed, if the number was kept about the same, much nicer, smaller scale structures could be built. Perhaps some of them could be cooperative, with rent to own options. People could generate equity and eventually contribute to the tax base. The developer could be removed and the structures built by local contractors for substantial savings, with material supplied by local suppliers. SUNY architectural and engineering students could design the whole thing as a project.
DeleteI don't know about the tax base though, I think they need to spend a lot less.
Delete