On Tuesday, the Common Council passed a resolution expressing the opinion that the Mill Street parcel, the site of the proposed Mill Street Lofts, is municipal parkland and its conveyance for a nonpark use may constitute an alienation of parkland which requires specific authorization by the New York State legislature.
The Mill Street resolution sent to my desk earlier this week by the Common Council aligns a fellow lawsuit defendant with the party suing us.
The Common Council had been briefed by Planning Board and Corporation Counsel prior to Tuesday's vote on this matter. The vote goes against the guidance provided by our taxpayer-funded attorneys.
I believe the best course of action in regard to this lawsuit is to let the legal process play out in the courts. The resolution before me--regardless of the Council's semantic gymnastics--attempts to weigh in on a matter that is central to the lawsuit.
By the power vested in me by § C6-2 Approval of legislation; veto power of the Hudson City Charter, on this day, October 2, 2026, I veto Common Council Resolution No. 6 of September 29, 2026.
The same paragraph of the charter cited by the mayor indicates that the Council can override a mayoral veto with a two-thirds vote. On Tuesday, nine of the eleven members of the Council voted in support of the resolution, and two abstained.
Is this why Joe took a pay cut?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Joe should donate the remainder of his salary to cover the City’s current and future legal bills rooted in his unforced mistakes.
How much does it cost taxpayers every time DPW mows that field? Does it take more than an hour to mow it? Or just 45 minutes? There is a park across the street with a field big enough to throw a frisbee or play cricket (that DPW mows every week in the summer!), soon to be "improved." Let this one be returned to nature, maybe plant some trees. No need to ever water it. The birds, insects, butterflies, moles, foxes, bears, and other important critters would appreciate it, as would our lungs and brains. Enough with this nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if a resolution that isn't codified, that doesn't have any enactment clause, can be called "legislation." It's more like a mood ring. Be that as it may, it's nice to see the mayor hang tough on his determination to screw the nice folks who already call Mill Street home and double-down with this show of force . . . vetoing a piece of 1970s ephemera.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine being a developer who is such a jerk that you want to proceed with your project in spite of fierce community opposition. I've had a business here for 36 years, but would have left decades ago if I didn't feel welcome.
ReplyDeleteWe are now three years into this project. Why is the alleged alienation of parkland a matter of opinion? Can no one confirm the status of this parcel? Some of the supporting text in that resolution is extremely thin; people using a parcel as a ball field doesn’t mean it’s a ball field. When I was a kid, my friends and I played football all over our neighborhood, in whichever field was least damp that day. Didn’t make them football fields.
ReplyDeleteIt’s pretty cut and dry if a parcel is municipal parkland or not.
- it is part of the 1980s deed restriction that it be a park
Delete- it is coded as a park in the Columbia County Realty Assessment rolls
- the City of Hudson itself confirmed to grant making entities and the State government.on several occasions, over several decades, that it is a park
See more here from Jack;
https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-first-step-was-doozy.html
If none of this evidence existed… and if it was only _used_ as a park by the Hudson Cricket team or a local baseball team and dog walkers, that would be enough.
Joe has got to go.
P. S. Ever noticed that Joe insists on being called “Mayor” Ferris. Or mayor Joe.. Wouldn’t be surprised if he has instructed staff to call him that and to remind others to call him that.
Reminds of the maxim:
“Titles distinguish the mediocre, embarrass the superior, and are disgraced by the inferior.”
George Bernard Shaw
No, it would not be enough if people were using a piece of land as something it was not. Absurd.
DeleteNew York law:
Delete"A parcel of land may become a park either expressly, such as by restrictions in a deed or legislative enactment, or by implication, such as by a continuous use of the parcel as a public park."
And:
"Under the public trust doctrine, a land owner cannot alienate land that has been impliedly dedicated to parkland without obtaining the approval of the [NYS] legislature."
Matter of Flatley v Town of Southold, 2026 NY Slip Op 01359, Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11th, 2026, restating Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v City of New York, 95 NY2d 623 (2001).
The test is the city's own conduct (and just this morning DPW was mowing the park lawn, the land they said was a park, and once put up physical metal signs that says it is a park), not just the neighbors' (Glick v Harvey, 25 NY3d 1175).
On Mill Street the city of Hudson said as much in the 2021 Affordable Housing Plan, which lists the parcel's current use as "open field for recreation"... used "by the neighborhood for soccer and other sports."
~
These details aside, do you want the City of Hudson / NYS to use tax payer money to build such a large structure in a flood zone on a dead end street?
The majority of Hudson would call that absurd.
And Joe is defending that absurdity.
There are two tests for implied parkland, it’s not an either/or: the municipality’s actions AND the public’s continuous use of the parcel as parkland. Your statement that the second of those is all that’s necessary is just not correct. I’m sure you’ll call that errata; I’m sure a court wouldn’t.
DeleteI wonder if the legal staff at NY Department Of State could be of any help in this instance? It might be that they have records from the time when the parkland was originally established, and might have something to say,.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that to the extent that City Hall is supporting this ridiculous project, it's because it fears being accused of not being sufficiently sympathetic to the notion of more subsidized housing.
ReplyDelete