Wednesday, September 23, 2026

The Future of Mill Street

At the end of the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, Mill Street resident Lakia Walker asked if there was any more discussion about a pathway to settling the lawsuit brought against the City by Mill Street Neighbors. In July, it came to light that, midway through the year, the $80,000 that had been appropriated for legal expenses in the City's 2026 budget had already been spent, and it was estimated that another $103,000 would be needed to meet the anticipated legal fees for the remainder of the year. Walker also asked about the status of the two resolutions proposed by Jack Hornickel in August, the first which declares the contract extension by Mayor Ferris unenforceable and declares a default on the Kearney contract for their abandonment of the State Street and Rossman Avenue projects, the second which dedicates the Mill Street site as municipal parkland and terminates the Kearney contract as inherently void as a matter of law.


Responding to Walker, Council president Margaret Morris said, "We have received your two resolutions. We are getting advice from our attorneys on what the next appropriate action is. I don't have an answer for you right now as to what the next action would be, but the questions you've asked about the possibility of having a meeting with the other entity being sued was one that I did bring up. I can't really discuss the litigation in public session. I encourage you to continue to correspond with us and continue to come to meetings and to ask what the next steps are. We are trying to get legal advice for the Common Council on what the next best steps are for us."

While the Common Council awaits legal advice to move forward, Friends of Mill Street has launched a GoFundMe campaign to cover its ongoing legal expenses. This statement was released as an introduction to the fundraising effort:
From the beginning, our neighborhood has taken every opportunity to avoid the incredibly expensive and wasteful situation we find ourselves in. We spent a year in front of the Planning Board and Council trying to steer the project to a legal, reasonable plan. Our hardworking neighborhood, Jack Hornickel, contributed hundreds of hours to assemble and present legal records to help every branch of city government understand how and why this project broke the law. We've arranged settlement offers that no one in City government has responded to, and drafted resolutions to exit the project that no one has acted on.
At this point, the City has run down its own legal defense budget and exhausted our neighborhood resources as well. We know, from so many conversations with people out in town and passing through our street, just how unpopular this project is. We would be extremely grateful is you'd consider joining our fight and sharing in the costs. You can find the Friends of Mill Street fundraising page here. Thank you so much for your support.

2 comments:

  1. It is unfortunate and incredibly wasteful how these construction projects appear to be promoted and planned without prior consultation or discussions with people living in the neighborhood. It as if the people in government believe their personal socioeconomic agenda, and the interests of people living in other regions and towns, have priority over the people who actually live here.

    Bogus surveys with questions designed and audiences targeted to get desired results isn't an effective method to determine the viability of a project. Talking to the people who live next door and across the street would make a bit more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This was really a classic Trolley Car Problem (in the moral philosophy sense).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

    All Joe had to do... was nothing.

    The trolley was on a path with no harm (contract expiration). And yet he pulled the lever (Act of Commission) to bring the trolley back onto a track that would cost the city money, potentially ruin a State park, and flood private homes.

    Had Joe done nothing... and stuck with his campaign promise.... the Kearney contract would have expired, the park would stay a park, the residents would save money, and public housing could be be built elsewhere (not a flood zone, not a local food desert).

    And Kearny could then focus on the two other properties that have no issue, and that they were supposed to develop.

    BTW - why have they not proceeded on those?

    Will the next mayor of Hudson put Hudson first?

    ReplyDelete