by Ken Sheffer
I never thought I would be
playing tennis on a lopsided court in Hudson but that is where I find myself. Once again, I am in a tussle with the Hudson
Board of Education about something so simple and easy to understand, I wonder
if anyone in those buildings is doing any homework at all. And once again it is about history,
preservation, and simple State regulations that the HCSD needs to obey. And once again, no one really, truly cares. (But stay tuned 'til the end of this column
to see why my outrage applies to something everyone can appreciate. And it is
breaking news.)
One year ago, I attended a
“Community Budget Hearing” of the HCSD where they were presenting their plans
for the reconstruction of the five tennis courts on Paddock Place. The meeting was in that giant auditorium at
the Soviet-built High School. There was
one other person attending, I think. Everyone else there had been incarcerated by the District to
attend. I don’t think there was anyone
from the Board there though I will give BOE President Mark DePace some credit
here. He tries his best, against the
odds, though his team has let him down on the management of the District for
quite a few years. I mean how many superintendents do they want to test fly?
At that meeting, longtime HCSD
architect, John Sharkey of Rhinebeck Architecture (now owned by the gigantic
engineering firm Weston & Sampson) presented the “plan” to reconstruct
the tennis courts (known as the “Hudson Five” since there are five courts). All Sharkey presented was a number, maybe it
was $400,000 or $500,000, I can’t recall. It’s confusing since Sharkey has built millions into this contract, and
it is staggered all over his documents. By my estimate, the new courts will cost about $1.8 million, if you include everything. Hudson has the approval from Hudson taxpayers
for its $8,345,000 Capital Project, which includes the tennis courts.
Tyler Kritzman, head of
facilities for the District, was standing on the stage with Sharkey. (Why do
they stand on a huge stage for these meetings?) I told Tyler that I respected
his work and his approach to the facilities at Hudson, but I chastised the
District for not giving him more help and machines. It’s true. Hudson has an historic campus, big enough for a full university, and it
is being manicured with tweezers.
Also, resting in a grave behind
the old, blown-up baseball bleachers are the old blown-up bleachers and all
they destroyed in that effort, including the giant light poles that once guided
our fathers and mothers across that field. It needs to be cleaned out now. What a disgrace. Those poles went
up in 1935 for the 150th birthday party for Hudson. NOW THEY’RE
GONE. KNOCKED DOWN. NO LONGER LIT. Is the HCSD not aware of what certain things
mean to the community?
But I get it. Time marches on, and it was Hudson's turn to build a plastic field up at the High School and put a giant Bluehawk in the middle of it that is viewable from Mars. Good luck tearing that down one day. You'll have to melt it.
Anyway, at that fabulous “budget
hearing,” when the community first learned of the new tennis court costs, I
appointed myself chairman of the Tennis Facilities Committee as they pretended
to be looking for community input. My
logic was this, I am the only one from the community here. End of logic.
Also, I have spent approximately $200,000 of my own money to preserve the Cox campus, including fixing all the iconic brick gate pillars Smith/Cox designed in 1932-33 that surround the campus. My husband and I weed the courts midsummer every year as they sit there in their own jungle mess. We donate all our excess rackets and balls every Fall to the tennis team. We coach kids at the courts when we see them playing alone, or when they seem enthusiastic enough to want to move up another level. We honestly do care about tennis in Hudson.
We have also taken over the entire inventory of the Dr. Laurie Cox's blueprints, photos, diaries, and writings (given to us by his family) and are having them digitized. We are five years into this project, handling tens of thousands of items. We still aren't done. As well, we were honored to be given his collection of WPA/Depression-era signage from Hudson and from the actual campus. (Anyone want to buy anything?) Cox is a New York State park god. He studied at Harvard and was the teaching assistant to Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., in 1913 at Harvard. He was accepted into the American Society of Landscape Architects for his work on the Chancellor Robert R. Livingston Campus in Hudson, New York, and for designing New York State parks. But I have typed those words so many times that my historic fingers are exhausted.
Architect Sharkey and
then-Superintendent Pennyman (now declared a non-vital part of the campus) of
course agreed that I could be head of the Community Tennis Court
Committee. What else were they supposed
to say? But my conversation with
Pennyman was bizarre. I could not
understand one word she said. I was
tempted to turn on my iPhone translation app. I still don’t know what she said to me other than “OK.” The rest was mumble. Architect Sharkey was simply there for the
job and said yes to me. He doesn’t care. He will make about $2 million dollars on this new and incredibly
obnoxious building and grounds improvement project. If you look at nearly every
capital project done over the past 25 or 30 years, Sharkey and his team have
done the Building Condition Surveys and then built the buildings and facilities
to match. It is a monopoly has cost Hudson
a fortune. Check out Sharkey’s contact
with the District. (It’s available to the public. I have it if you want it.) It is a lengthy mind-numbing, intentionally
confusing document that sort of, kind of leaves Sharkey the right to claim
about $1.3 million in overrun costs. I
have no idea why the HCSD would sign something so confusing and so lucrative
for Sharkey.
Anyway, I drew great inspiration from the approximately 100 emails I received last year from the old tennis community and from new players in the area after my last Gossips column on the school district. Tennis is going through a renaissance of sorts, and the sport can certainly be part of how we lengthen our lives and enjoy the outdoors. But, for about 15 years, the "Hudson Five" have looked like an airport runway in the Ukraine. Like they were bombed. Now, all of a sudden, John Sharkey has decided he wants to rebuild them but has only faked that he wanted the community involved. He promised to email me questions. I never heard from him. (To be clear here, I fully support the installation of the new courts, BUT I want them to be historically correct and in compliance with what I fought so hard to attain in terms of their historic designation.)
Board President DePace did change the rules of the BOE Facilities Committee to allow "commoners" to join the Committee for brief periods of time to add their input on issues where they might have expertise. You can submit a letter to the BOE and try to get appointed to such a committee. To date, the BOE has not had a single application, other than mine, and has not had anyone else even volunteer.
Two weeks ago, I learned from the BOE that the drawings, engineering plans, etc., for the new courts were "done." Sharkey presented them to the Board of Education on February 24. Days after the meeting, the BOE told me that all my concerns had been addressed and would be incorporated. This seemed fishy since I had never spoken to them. So I asked for all communication the District and Sharkey, again, a professional architect, had with the State historic team known as SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office]. Because the tennis courts, along with the entire campus and the M. C. Smith building itself are deemed eligible for listing in the State and National Registers of Historic Places, ANY proposed work done on them funded with with State aid (this includes taxpayer dollars) must be sent in an explanatory filing to SHPO for "consultation and review." This is not optional. (See the New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Directive of January 1, 2019. Directive number HP-POL-006.) Hudson, instead of obeying this new regulation, decided it had nothing to tell the State. The State Government, for good reason, doesn't have the time or money to police districts so they expect districts and their professional advisors (Sharkey) to do this for them. An architect who fails to file truthful documents risks losing their license. The Hudson City School District and Sharkey did not tell the State the truth about the tennis courts' historic designation. They just decided that no one would read the fine print of their application, in my opinion.
When I pushed the BOE for their communications and approvals from SHPO, they told me they were looking for a digital copy to send to me. Six days later, the "digital version" had not been located. So I asked the BOE, "Is there anything else other than a digital version of everything?" Again, no answer. Then I was told that they had not yet talked or written to SHPO and had not decided how to fix their problem. I stupidly offered to help with the historic parts of a note to SHPO because they have no idea what the historic parts of the tennis courts are. Again, no reply. I wrote again and reiterated my full support for the reconstruction of the courts. No reply. I reminded the BOE that they had offered to show all plans to me a year ago. Still no answer.
But no matter how hard the District tries to brush people off, it is very easy to use the State filing system to see what is REALLY going on. So I dug into all that Hudson has told the State about the 2025 Capital Project and what they are saying to the State about this facilities re-building process they want to go forward with. The result was more than shocking.
Firstly, the HCSD has based the tennis court reconstruction on a childlike ten-page "Building Conditions Overview" done by the Hudson-based architects at a company called CPL and specifically architect Chris Landanyi in September 2022. The "overview" has about 20 iPhone photos and about 50 words in it. There are no photos of the tennis courts in the "Overview." The "Overview" says that the overview is only valid if attached to a full, signed and sealed "Building Condition Survey." The "Overview" is not enough. I contacted the State, and they were unable to locate a Building Condition Survey for Hudson that would allow funding or construction for projects in 2026. In other words, unless the Hudson City School District can produce a BCS that covers the year 2026 and beyond, the funding vote should not have been put to public referendum last year. As well, the State of New York cannot issue State funds of more than $100,000 unless there is a detailed, signed and sealed (VALID) Building Condition Survey and a truthful request for money (with the historic designation acknowledged) before the State. It cannot issue the $8,345,000 check to Hudson without these documents.
Documents given to me show that Hudson submitted its claim for the funds for the 2025 Capital Project and its description of rebuilding the courts and school facilities on forms called "Building Condition Survey for 2020." The time stamp on ALL of these incorrect documents is February 2020. They list the Building Overview date as September 2022. Both dates are unacceptable to the State. Neither covers projects started in 2026. I was told by the BOE that they will get to the bottom of the mistake with the 2020 forms.
In the variety of pages submitted in error for the tennis courts, Sharkey tells the State different stories. One document says they are resurfacing the courts and replacing the fencing. The next document says they are resurfacing the courts and fixing stormwater drainage (no mention of the fences). The next document says they are resurfacing the courts and fixing the tennis and baseball bleachers. (The baseball bleachers were nuked by Maria Suttmeier and Carrie Otty years ago.) The next document says they were "renewing" the tennis courts, whatever that means. All the while, whoever filled out these dated, expired, incorrect forms spelled the word tennis wrong. In fact, in 17 different spots, and in EVERY spot required, they spelled tennis as "tenis." The words "tenis courts" are on EVERY single page and version that was sent to the State. Of course, I asked the BOE if anyone had proofread these important documents, and I was told they would look into it. What is there to look into? As an expert misspeller myself, I try never to get my important work documents wrong. And isn't the BOE responsible for checking these things before they go out? I could see the misspelling a mile away. Have you ever typed the words "fotball" or "basball"? Come on. But it brings up a bigger point. With all the money being spent for education in Hudson, why can't the head office at the District spell the word tennis correctly? Especially when asking for millions of dollars to build tennis courts. Gosh.
Perhaps the District is also unable to understand the simple requests I outlined for them on the history of the courts. First, I asked that they keep the original Cox design of five courts. Five courts means you can play a sanctioned match and there can be a team winner of 3-2 or 4-1 or 5-0. No ties allowed in sanctioned events. This is mandatory. The second request I had was that the original cast iron and metal fencing be kept (repaired as necessary) as it was purchased from Rogerson's Hardware in 1934 by M. C. Smith and John L. Edwards and then installed by Laurie Cox and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935. (James C. Rogerson was the Columbia County Tennis Champion in 1894 and 1895. This was an event that was played on a lawn tennis court at 357 Allen Street, at a home then owned by Charles Esselstyn. 357 Allen Street is historically known mostly as the Robert Evans home.)
The "Hudson Five" courts officially opened on August 7, 1935, and were packed through October that year. Cox came weekly to check on the surface and the nets. Rogerson's Hardware checked on its fencing on nearly a daily basis, according to the Cox diaries. The fences are extraordinarily heavy and so there was some concern about their weight, but Bethlehem Steel had reinforced the joints and pillars. Bethlehem's name is still on each joint of the fencing. I asked the the BOE retain the Cox tennis bleachers (Cox personally designed them) and that the concrete stamp of "1935" be cleaned up and preserved. The concrete stamp is at the entrance to the courts on the football side and was placed there by the City of Hudson, Cox, Smith, and Dr. Edwards both in honor of Hudson's 150th birthday and also for the year that the courts opened. You can find the 1935 stamp if you just go to the Hamblet plaque on the football bleachers and then look down at the ground. It will be in large font directly at your feet.
Other than that, I drew up an exact diagram of how Cox would have reproduced the courts in this modern world. To do this, I consulted with the United States Tennis Association (USTA). I did all of this in good faith, with the intention of rallying the old and new tennis communities in Hudson that had come to me since my column last year on Gossips about the courts.
My final and most emotional request was that the "Hudson Five" be dedicated to a Hudson tennis and medical celebrity, Dr. Carl Whitbeck. He was known as "Doc" to all of us players and is regarded as the father of public tennis in Hudson. He taught nearly all of us how to use tennis and sport to build a life and to pursue opportunities bigger than we could ever have dreamed of. Every Sunday morning in the 1960s and early 1970s, Doc would collect all the kids that could "hit a ball over the net" and would drive us to the tennis courts to play. It was mandatory that we wore all white clothing and knew the rules of the game. This didn't mean we would be on the same court as he, not yet, but eventually it was with great pride that one day soon we would be called on to fill in on his court. I'll never forget my first invitation in 1969. Someone, I don't know who, hurt their ankle, and Doc needed a fourth player for his match. I was just sitting there in the stands with my new can of white balls (mandatory) and with my white clothing on, shaking like a leaf. Doc said, "Hey, Kenny, go hit the ball against that wall next to me." Of course, I did. It was my audition. My break. My honor. Doc saw that I could at least hit a few balls around, and so he put me in HIS game. The first serve I returned actually went over the net. I went home that night, in Doc's car, on a cloud. From that day on, I never missed a Sunday with him. He would pick me up at my grandfather's pool hall at 223 Warren Street (think Tanzy's) on Sunday morning after church by beeping his car horn. In the car were also Buddy D'Onofrio and Gus Erickson, two other famous players from that era.
I wasn't the only youngster he took on. There were hundreds of kids he inspired over his forty years of playing tennis. I always had a competitor for his attention. But after each match Doc would stay on the courts and adjust my game and teach me his tricks. I shall never forget that man and what he did for me and so many others. Below is the draft of a plaque I have drawn up for him.
While all of this is disturbing to me, please take a look at the documents attached to the Board of Education meeting agenda from yesterday, March 10, 2026. One document is called "Academic Presentation." I know a lot about HCSD academics, but this document seems frightening. It clearly is an attempt to bury awful news. This BOE meeting was scheduled at the last minute. But when you decode the failing codes of the HCSD system, you get a chill. No wonder no one in those buildings can spell the word tennis.
But it is the next presentation that rattles your mind and your pocket. It's the third "Budget Presentation" that was dropped yesterday. Like the lob of a tennis ball, with insane spin on it, the last page of this hidden 23-page report that was intended to go right over your head. The BOE writes on this last page the following:
NEXT STEPS:
Initial expenditure estimates = $61,449,000 + (5.1% total budget increase
which is approximately a 10% tax levy increase)
Am I misreading this? If this BOE can misspell tennis, then maybe they don't really mean 10%. Call them and ask them. Again, it's one page 23 of their secret report.
No comments:
Post a Comment