At the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, August 11, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle explained how public comments about the proposed redevelopment of the Hudson Housing Authority property were being handled. He said they were classifying the comments into categories, and they would develop questions for the applicant that relate to each category. The document that does this can now be found here.
There are public comments that, while important and valuable, they don't fall into our remit--our charge. For example, the overall cost of the project. There were comments about that, but that's not a matter that the Planning Board has an opinion about, legally. State and federal housing policy; regional, county-wide distribution of affordable housing; local taxation and public funding priorities; broader social and economic policy questions; whether or not the applicant has sufficient funding; issues related to consolidated affordable housing versus distributed affordable housing--that's a big issue--but none of these are in our scope or responsibilities or authority.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
Kudos to Mr. Bogle for cutting through the noise and having a firm handle on what it is that Planning Boards actually do.
ReplyDeleteMr Bogle is mostly right, but two parts seem too categorical.
ReplyDelete“Consolidated versus distributed affordable housing” may be outside the Board as a larger policy question, but population concentration, community character and "Comprehensive Plan conformance" are expressly within SEQRA/site-plan review.
Mr. Clark, check the case law.
Funding is similar: the Board does not underwrite HHA (of course), but financing cannot simply be irrelevant where it impacts phasing, infrastructure or whether the approved site plan can actually be completed.
Indeed... MountCo/HHA already told the Hudson PB that the State, apparently HCR, considered the project too expensive and wanted costs reduced.
MountCo responded with "value engineering" and a smaller plan. "Value engineering" will be the term used when they cut scope, spend more and more on the unstable soil... and the quality and type of housing goes down, while MountCo profits remain unaffected.
Surely the PB can ask whether an over-ambitious phased plan risks leaving Hudson with another half a project... we already have a cautionary tale at 75 North Seventh Street next to the General Fire House: the second "Hudson Depot District" parcel remains empty... reasonable people disagree about the cause of failure, but the Joyner Planning Board could have done a better job.
When this HHA project comes back through the Planning Board, whether in 2027, 2028 or later, presumably all of this will finally be clarified.
~
Mr. Bogle is entirely right about one thing... some concerns, like inefficient use of our national and state tax dollars, should be addressed at other levels, and with other bodies.
Message Received. Already acted upon.
Read more about the "Fourth Quadrant of Waste", based on Milton Friedman the Nobel winning economist.
"Hudson Spends Other People's Money on Other People's Housing"
https://www.hudsoncommonsense.com/wastefulquadrant
Apologies - Central Fire Station.... not general. No disrespect to HFD and thank you for the eagle eyed readers.
DeleteThe Hudson Planning Board discussed financing during both the Depot District review in 2022 and the Mill/State Street Lofts review in 2024, specifically where financing affected phasing and timing.
And the HHA project itself shows why cost can affect the physical plan: at MountCo’s June 2024 preliminary presentation, underground parking was expressly conditional on affordability/financing.
It was later cut in a cost-saving redesign.
Shout out to Ms. Ting-Zambuto on that one. Now working at HCR... within the entity awarding the money to her very recent employer...
Comp plans are enforceable if duly adopted by the municipal legislature.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the legalities themselves, there’s an old legal saw that says when the law is on your side you argue the law, when the facts are on your side you argue the facts, and when neither the law or the facts are on your side you argue the emotions. So far all the HHA and its supporters have to offer is emotion. If either the facts or the law support the plan is expect to see the HHA board chair and ED show up and make their case. They can’t, so they rely on emotion — and stay far away from the pesky questions and concerns such an out of scale, unjustified and unfunded boondoggle raise.
So well said John.
DeleteWe just want to know:
1. What happened to all the funds for maintenance of Bliss over the last decades?
Will the new building also be similarly maintained since the same group is in charge?
2. Why not build replacement housing for the 84 residents asap, on undisputed and solid soil land. Then take down the tower, then rebuild mixed income housing on the current Bliss parcel.
3. This is a question more for the author of AMDLT and Chris Brown from Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress (formerly of the Housing Coordinator at the CEDC), and of course HHA ED Dodson, who have all written/spoken publicly about the HHA/Bliss 2.0 AMI mix.
[A data point that remains unclear in the HHA/applicant documents in front of the Planning Board.]
How can an apartment complex be "mixed income" if there are no market rate apartments?
Wasn't the goal to mix communities and incomes? Why concentrate one group in one 1/5 of a town that is just 2sqm of a 600sqm County.
There is a word for this type of arrangement... and it is not "bliss".
Can you provide a link to or quote of my written/spoken comments re: the "HHA/Bliss 2.0 AMI mix"? Thanks in advance.
DeleteIf you two want to pursue this exchange, please do not do it the comments on this blog. Hudson Common Sense has publicly accessible contact information.
DeleteI do not want to continue the exchange. I do not want HCS to know my email address. I want HCS to stop lying about me and my work, and I want Gossips to stop posting those lies. Thanks.
Delete