Change Coming to Warren Street

It's been almost six years since Mexican Radio closed in August 2019, after nearly twenty years in Hudson. Since then its building at 537 Warren Street has stood empty.

At long last, it appears the building is to be put into service once again as a restaurant, one that was described as having "a general store feel." Last Friday, the proposed changes to the exterior of the building, to make it ready for its next life, came before the Historic Preservation Commission. One of the proposed changes is the removal of the mural on the east side of the building, which was painted by Stirling Krusing in November 2009. The mural was painted on metal siding. Under the metal siding there is brick, and the plan is to remove the metal intact so that the mural can be preserved.

The colorful paint that distinguished the building when it was a Mexican restaurant is being replaced by somber black. 

The most significant changes proposed are to the east wall of the building, along the pocket park, where the addition of a number of windows and doors is being proposed. 

The plans for the building will be the subject of a public hearing on Friday, March 28, at 10:00 a.m. Because the renderings reproduced here suggest extensive changes to the pocket park, which is city property and not actually part of the project, the HPC suggested that new renderings be prepared for the hearing public that focus on the building and represent the park more as it currently is.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

HHA Update

When the Hudson Housing Authority (HHA) made the initial presentation of its redevelopment plans at the Planning Board last week, Alex Gorlin, the architect for the project, said the next step is developing elevations, which will show what the buildings are going to look like. It seemed implied that the project would be returning to the Planning Board at its next meeting, which is scheduled to take place on April 8. Putting those two things together, it seemed the long-awaited elevations might be ready next month.

At the HHA Board of Commissioners meeting yesterday, however, Jeffrey Dodson, HHA executive director, said they would not be returning to the Planning Board in April, because they wouldn't be ready. He made no mention of elevations, nor did he elaborate on what needed to be done before they would be ready to go back to the Planning Board.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK 

Another Initiative for Change

Hudson often suffers from county government's bad ideas, the latest being the acquisition of 11 Warren Street for use as county offices. Is it possible that having the county governed by a full-time leader, elected by the voters in the county, could benefit Hudson? The case for replacing Matt Murrell, the current chair of the Columbia County Board of Supervisors, with a full-time county executive is made in this press release from the Columbia County Democratic Committee.

Columbia County Deserves a Full-Time, Elected Leader

Columbia County is governed solely by the Board of Supervisors (BOS), a part-time legislative body comprised of Town Supervisors. Supervisors typically split their time between day jobs, managing their towns, and serving on the BOS.

Only four counties out of 62 in New York State are still governed by a BOS, with Columbia County being the largest of the four. Every other county in NYS has either a full-time, elected County Executive or a County Manager/Administrator, putting us at a distinct disadvantage.

Our county has a budget of nearly $200 million, supervised part-time by Stockport's Town Supervisor, Chairman Matt Murrell. The Chairman's role is "part-time," meaning no individual works full-time to manage or oversee county governance. The Chairman was not selected by voters; rather, he was installed by politicians, bypassing direct public accountability. Mr. Murrell received less than 500 votes in his last election. There are over 61,570 residents in our county. Why should he get to make decisions for 99.2% of residents who never voted for him? Part-time leadership means we're getting part-time results.

Matt Murrell

On March 1, a petition to establish a full-time, elected County Executive began circulating. In just over two weeks, hundreds of voters across the political spectrum have already signed because Columbia County deserves better. Organizers for this effort intend to gather 5,000 signatures to place the referendum on the ballot. Following the submission of signatures, there will be town halls and information sessions before a vote on the referendum this November.

"This effort is borne out of hundreds of residents throughout our county who are frustrated with our current ineffective model of government. Matt Murrell is lashing out at Democrats and bragging about raising our taxes and fees when he should be laser-focused on keeping costs down and making sure government works for everyone," said Sam Hodge.

Our current form of government lacks vision and a comprehensive plan for the future. Sales tax revenues are declining, yet no strategy has been proposed to address the shortfall. Taxes continue to rise amid an affordability crisis gripping the county, with no solution being offered.

Our population is shrinking, but there's no initiative to attract new residents. Schools face declining enrollment as families are priced out of the area, yet no action is being taken. Our community college is laying off workers, and our hospital is struggling--cutting services and staff--while leadership offers no plan to turn things around.

"We need a full-time advocate to work with our Federal and State partners. A full-time, elected leader will be accountable for getting Columbia's fair share in State and Federal funding to improve our programs and infrastructure. There's money out there that we could be applying for but aren't," said Mike Dvorchak, Hillsdale Town Supervisor. "With the possibility of Medicaid cuts and a recession around the corner, now more than ever, it's important to have someone full-time, accountable to voters at the helm."

Fifty-eight out of 62 counties have adopted a different form of government due to the shortcomings and inefficiencies of the Board of Supervisors model. Given the chaos in Washington, D.C., we need a full-time professional, not a part-time amateur. It's time to move Columbia County forward. We deserve better.

The Board of Supervisors (BOS) will continue to serve as the county's legislative body and partner to the County Executive in governing Columbia County. Its responsibilities include, in part, approving the proposed budget, enacting local laws, and confirming nominees for county positions. If the County Executive vetoes an action by the BOS, it can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the BOS. This is typical for all other upstate counties in NYS.

To learn more about the initiative, to sign the petition, or to volunteer to help in the effort, send an email to columbiacountyforward@gmail.com or visit columbiacountyforward.com.

A Street, B Street, or Alley?

Last Friday, Walter Chatham returned to the Historic Preservation Commission with a revised design for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on Partition Street, behind 123 Union Street. It will be remembered that Chatham had originally proposed an ADU that was a smaller version of the original house. 

Chatham started his presentation by challenging a statement made by HPC member John Schobel at the February 14 meeting: "Neither the public nor the commission shares your vision of Partition Street as a street of nice little houses." Chatham took the HPC on a tour, in photographs, of Partition Street, from Fifth Street to Front Street, pointing out the actual houses on the street (there are four by Gossips' count), accessory dwelling units, and buildings that were neither carriage houses nor garages, arguing that Partition Street was already a street of houses. He called Partition "a street in transition" and told the HPC, "You need to decide whether you want this to be an A street, a B street, or an alley."

Chatham then presented the new plans for the building. The materials have changed from brick to wood siding, the height of the building has been reduced by 18 inches, and the orientation of the building has been changed. Rather than facing Partition Street, it is now at a right angle to Partition Street, with a gable end facing the street. There will still be some decorative elements that relate to the main house--for example, lintels over the windows that mimic in wood the lintels on the main house--but the overall design was been "simplified to the point that it would be appropriate to a B street."   

The "pedestrian entrance" to the house (the living quarters are on the second floor) is on the west side of the building. On the east side, there is a paved area which accesses the two-car garage on the ground floor of the building and functions as a parking area.  

Reacting to the new plan, HPC member Hugh Biber said, "I think it's a good solution." Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, concurred, "I also appreciate the analytics of what's going on on the street."

John Schobel said he appreciated the change in material and the change in orientation, but he pointed out that this was a new application which is "drastically different from what we had before, and we need another public hearing." 

Biber responded, "We've addressed the public's concerns," expressed at the public hearing on February 14. Other members of the HPC agreed that Chatham had addressed the primary concerns, although scale and mass remained an issue. Schobel pointed out that because this was being considered a new application and Chatham had not yet submitted the new application, they couldn't vote on this until the next meeting, so having a public hearing would not necessarily delay the approval process. Forman, however, thought otherwise: "I think this becomes a very weird use of public hearings if we layer on public hearing on top of public hearing on top of public hearing."   

Victoria Polidoro, legal counsel to the HPC, commented, "Since this is technically a new application, you could have a public hearing." And so it was decided that there would be a public hearing on the revised building on Friday, March 28.

After the decision was made to hold a public hearing on the new application, Chatham delivered what he called "a quick little speech." He told the HPC, "The general feeling among people outside of Hudson--and this is universal--is that Hudson is an impossible place to get anything done in, because the people on the boards and the citizens can create a kind of 'doom loop'. . . and what is happening, in my opinion, is that larger developers, with on-staff attorneys, engineers, etc., are beginning to define the character of the city, because a small developer can't move forward, and I include my client on this project as a small developer because he's doing tiny houses all over the city. So, I'm just gonna say that opposition is very good, but when it turns into an opposition to a building type or a kind of idea about how the city should grow, you have to be very careful, because by stopping smaller projects from advancing efficiently, you're opening the door to only large projects defining the character of the neighborhood, and I don't think anyone on this conversation wants that."

At one point in his speech (the point at which I inserted the ellipsis), Chatham said he wasn't speaking specifically about the HPC, but his plaint would have better been addressed to the Planning Board, where one of his projects, the small apartment building proposed for Fairview Avenue at the edge of the neighborhood known an "the Boulevards," has been under review for more than a year, since June 2023, while the review of Mill Street Lofts seems to be moving forward with much greater efficiency. In this instance, the difference may not be big developer as opposed to small developer, but rather that Mill Street Lofts has the sanction and support of City Hall, particularly of the mayor, who appointed all the people currently on the Planning Board.

It seems ironic that Chatham characterized his client for this project as a "small developer." His client for 123 Union Street and for most of the projects Chatham presents to the HPC is Eric Galloway, who is having a huge influence on defining the character of many neighborhoods in Hudson. (Galloway is not the client for Chatham's project on Fairview Avenue.) It is impossible to find a block of Union Street below Third or Allen Street below West Court Street without several houses that have been restored or reimagined by Galloway. His influence is also seen on Warren Street--202-204 Warren Street, where the graceful original porticos were trashed and replaced with decidedly less graceful ones; 260 Warren Street, where "white gunk" was applied to the original marble plinths and lintels; 364 and 366 Warren Street;  402-404 Warren Street, which Galvan is transforming into a hotel; and 449 Warren Street, pretty much an entirely new building, constructed by Galvan in 2014, from which one can see 501 Union Street, which Galvan covered with lime wash in violation of the stipulations in its certificate of appropriateness. Beyond that, Galloway is reimaging and re-creating an entire section of the city, which he has dubbed the "Depot District." 

In no way can Galloway be considered a "small developer." 

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

In the week the includes St. Patrick's Day and the vernal equinox, here's what is happening.

• On Monday, March 17, the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meets at 6:00 p.m. HHA made an initial presentation of its redevelopment project to the Planning Board on Tuesday. That presentation can be viewed here, beginning at 1:26:46. The plan to extend First Street from Columbia to State, which hasn't been mentioned lately, is apparently still part of the plan. Any kind of underground parking, however, has been abandoned. Monday's meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person in the Community Room at Bliss Towers, 41 North Second Street, and on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.

• On Tuesday, March 18, the Common Council Finance Committee meets at 5:15 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• At 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18, the Common Council holds its regular monthly meeting. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Wednesday, March 19, the Zoning Board of Appeals meets at 6:00 p.m. Although no agenda is as yet available for the meeting, it is expected that the meeting will include a public hearing on the area variances needed to demolish a single-story structure at 9 Partition Street and construct in its place a three-story single family dwelling. The meeting takes place in person only at City Hall.

Update: The agenda for the ZBA meeting is now available and confirms that a public hearing for 9 Partition Street is on the agenda, as is 105 Union Street, listed under "New Business." Click here to view the agenda. 

• On Thursday, March 20, the vernal equinox takes place at 5:01 a.m. It's the first day of spring. Temperatures are expected to be in the 60s, but it may also rain.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Last but not Least

At Tuesday night's Planning Board meeting, just minutes before 9:00 p.m., which, according to its chair Theresa Joyner, is supposed to be a "hard stop" for Planning Board meetings, the board heard a presentation on Zoom by Wendy Andringa of Assemblage Landscape Architecture DPC, the group that has been working for close to a decade on a climate-adaptive redesign of Henry Hudson Riverfront Park. 

In her presentation, Andringa presented the timeline shown below of past and future work. It should be noted that the project is being funded primarily by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, although the City was required to provide a $75,000 match for the most recent grant.

Introducing Andringa and the project, Joyner told the board: "This company is the company that was hired by the City to beautify the Henry Hudson waterfront, and they've already been in contact with Colarusso. They're going to try to work together [with them], along with public comments and Planning Board comments, because the part that they've been hired to design is the part right next to [the dock area]."

The project is focused on the area of the park known as "Rick's Point." The plans include restoring the woodlands along the southern edge, along the property line with Colarusso; restoring the shoreline to make it more responsive to flooding; creating rain gardens to absorb water; "greening" Rick's Point and creating a fishing pier; and restoring the historic railroad trestle.

Andringa's presentation can be viewed here, beginning at about 2:21:12.

A couple of interesting things came out in the discussion that followed the presentation. When Planning Board member Gini Casasco asked about maintenance of the area going forward, Andringa said they were working with the Conservation Advisory Council and the Columbia Land Conservancy and went on to say that the CLC was "spearheading a Friends of Hudson Parks." Curious. This is the first time Gossips has heard of any such initiative. 

Joyner pursued the question of Andringa being in contact with Colarusso. Andringa said they had "reached out" to Colarusso and want to coordinate the design so that "together we can find a solution that works for everyone." She went on to say, "The first step will be to meet with Mr. Colarusso." Joyner urged Andringa to submit comments to the Planning Board and keep them informed, because, as she said, "We are in the process of granting a conditional use permit to Colarusso. If there is anything that you think we should impose on them that helps with your project, please submit that to us." In making this statement, Joyner seemed to struggle to find the right words, but the fact that she settled on saying they were "in the process of granting" rather than "in the process of reviewing" seems telling.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Rally Tomorrow!

Tomorrow, Sunday, March 16, at 2:00 p.m., there will be a rally in the Public Square, a.k.a. Seventh Street Park, to protest the Trump administration's policies and cuts to government agencies. 

Gossips received this press release this morning from the organizers of the event:

New York Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado will be the keynote speaker at a rally to protest Trump Administration's policies in Hudson's 7th Street Park on March 16 at 2 p.m.

Organized by Stand Up/Speak Out, formed by members of the NY19 Votes Coalition, the rally will focus public attention on the harm that Donald Trump and the unelected billionaire Elon Musk are inflicting on the American people in order to give the wealthy more tax cuts. The illegal gutting of government agencies and the indiscriminate layoffs of hundreds of thousands of federal employees will wreak havoc on critical agencies and the services they provide.

Most of the dismissed federal employees work outside of Washington, including in the Hudson Valley. So the firings will hurt not only the workers but also local economies.

The service cuts will reduce access to healthcare and social services, make air travel less safe, make food and drugs less safe, rob farmers of the government grants they were promised, let vulnerable children go hungry, cut off cancer research, limit the tracking of disease outbreaks, and leave consumers unprotected from predatory lenders.

These and other cuts are designed to persuade hardline conservatives in the House to approve another huge tax break for the wealthy. Stand Up/Speak Out believes that the needs of the American people should come before the desire of billionaires to buy more yachts.

We also oppose Trump's across-the-board tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, which will drive up consumer costs as prices rise for imported goods. These tariffs, in effect, are consumption taxes that will be passed on to the American people. Those who voted for Trump in November wanted lower prices, not higher taxes. The sharp selloff in the financial markets indicates that investors don't support Trump's tariffs and believe they will hurt the economy.

Besides Delgado, the confirmed speakers for the rally include Dr. Carl Atkins, a member of the Columbia County Democratic Committee and Indivisible Columbia, who will speak about the potential impact of Medicaid cuts on local healthcare; Michael Richardson, a leader of Third Act, who will address Trump policies on the environment and climate change; Wes Gillingham of Catskill Mountainkeeper, a local farmer who will talk about the purge of vital data from the USDA website; Madeline Reilly, of Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood; Rennie Glasgow, who represents Local 3343 of the American Federation of Government Employees; Assemblymember Didi Barrett; and State Senator Michelle Hinchey.

The cosponsors of the March 16 rally include NY19 Votes Coalition, Indivisible Columbia NY, Indivisible Ulster, Left Field, the Berkshire Brigades, Bethlehem Indivisible, Stephentown Indivisible, Third Act Upstate New York, Rivers & Mountains Green Faith, the Rural Freedom Network, Citizens Action, Columbia County Democratic Committee, and Claverack Democratic Committee.

The Battle for the Stuyvesant Falls Bridge

Yesterday the news became public that the replacement of the historic and beloved Stuyvesant Falls Bridge would cost $11.2 million--more than twice what the county originally estimated it would cost ($5.1 million). Tiffany Greenwaldt-Simon reports on the situation in the Register-Star: "Stuyvesant bridge replacement plan costs more than double."

Historic Stuyvesant reacted by renewing their call for rehabilitating the bridge rather than replacing it. The following is quoted from an email blast from Historic Stuyvesant:

REHABILITATION IS CHEAPER THAN REPLACEMENT.

According to the county, REHABILITATION OF OUR EXISTING BRIDGE IS ESTIMATED TO COST BETWEEN $6 AND $8.5 MILLION (versus $11.2 million minimum for replacement).

The county's $6.1 MILLION INCREASE "error" could be described as:

• A deliberate effort to mislead the public during the legally mandated public consultation process.
• Evidence of a gross lack of care and due diligence by the county and their consultant team.

OR BOTH.

The burden rests on the County to prove that there is no other "PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE" alternative to demolition of the federally protected bridge.

The county's latest submission continues to rely on a flimsy justification for demolition and replacement of the bridge in lieu of rehabilitation. Many of the same flaws with their proposal remain, including: a patently misleading comparison of design alternatives, a lack of transparency regarding their cost assumptions, and inadequate information regarding traffic volumes.

REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE REMAINS A SAFE, REASONABLE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE PATH TOWARD MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

To learn more about and to support the effort to save the Stuyvesant Falls Bridge, visit the Historic Stuyvesant website.

Back to Mill Street Lofts

At the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, Sean Kearney and Andrew Learn presented the latest renderings for Mill Street Lofts, one of which has already been shared on Gossips. 

As Gossips readers have already seen, the facades of the buildings have been "dressed up"--with changes in material and pseudo oriels. At the meeting on Tuesday, Planning Board member Gini Casasco asked what the rationale was for the changes in the facade design. Initially, Kearney said they were giving the Planning Board alternative designs from which to choose. When Casasco asked again why they had made the changes they had, Kearney, who is the architect for the project, used the terms "Victorian" and "Second Empire design" when talking about the original design (shown below) and went on to explain, "We thought it didn't translate as well to the larger building, so we tried to break it up."  

The expectation that the Colarusso dock operations would be on the agenda brought a different group of people to the meeting, some of whom spoke out about the project. Nicole Vidor told the board, "The building is totally out of proportion" to the surrounding neighborhood. Jennifer Belton, who represents the neighborhood on the Common Council, said, "No one on Mill Street thinks this is a good idea." She brought up the current residents' concern about privacy, because the proposed buildings are so high. She told the board a resident had told her the prospect of the buildings looming over her house was like "burying her while she was still alive."

Sean Roland said he was generally supportive of the project but said, "A lot of work could be done to make the facade more attractive." He went on to say, "Housing is important, but making it attractive is important, too." He also stressed that creating a path from the development to Third Street was important and shouldn't be dismissed because it would be hard and expensive. He concluded, "Nothing that is worth it is ever easy," and said that "hard" was not specific enough to be accepted as an excuse for not doing something.

Henry Haddad reiterated the need for "contiguous foot traffic flow to the city." He told the representatives from Kearney, "If you're building these massive structures, you need connection to the city." Haddad raised concerns about flooding. The project is to be heated and cooled with geothermal, and Haddad predicted, "The geothermal system is going to flood eventually, and that will be an extremely costly repair." Andrew Learn, the project engineer, assured him, "We are fully compliant with all flood plain requirements."

Mill Street on December 18, 2023  Photo: Lance Wheeler 

Belton predicted that the consequence of the new development and its flood control efforts would be that the houses across the street will be flooded. Learn told her, "We're not making it worse." Belton called what's being proposed "a good project in the wrong place." She went on to say, "Seventy units in a flood plain with a nonpermeable surface in front of it--if mold develops in your building, where are you going to move all the people? They will be unhoused."

Tony Stone questioned the positioning of the buildings, suggesting that putting the buildings flush with the street instead of having a parking lot in front would be a better layout. He was told the buildings were positioned where they are because "we need to keep as much of the building out of the flood plain as we can." Stone attempted to respond to that, but Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, interrupted and told him he could "write in if he wanted."

The public hearing on this project will continue at the Planning Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for April 8.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

It Happened!

In the past hour or so, it was announced on the City of Hudson website that the alternate side of the street rules for overnight parking have been suspended on weekends until further notice. The order to that effect from the Police Commissioner can be found here. 

Tonight and tomorrow night (Friday to Saturday and Saturday to Sunday) and every weekend thereafter until the possibility of snow returns, your car can be parked on either side of the street without risk of being ticketed.

COPYRUGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Will He or Won't He?

Last year, on March 15, which was a Friday, Mayor Kamal Johnson announced the suspension of alternate side of the street rules for overnight parking on weekends until further notice--which meant until it was likely there could be snow. Will he do the same thing this year and announce tomorrow that on weekends cars can be parked overnight on either side of the street? Only time will tell. If it happens, you can read about it here on Gossips--or on the City of Hudson website. 

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

News of the Other Side of the River . . . and More

Yesterday, Governor Kathy Hochul announced the Capital Region winners in the Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) and NY Forward programs. 

The Village of Catskill will receive $10 million in the Round 8 of DRI funding. The Village of Athens will receive $4.5 million in Round 3 of NY Forward funding.

The announcement, which can be found here, has this to say about Catskill and its plans for the $10 million:

The Village of Catskill offers a singular experience with a combination of striking historical architecture, a pedestrian-scale Main Street and waterfront accessibility with the spectacular Catskill Creek at the center of the community. The walkable one by one-half mile Downtown Creek District encompasses the Village’s central downtown. With a mix of stores, restaurants, businesses, cultural venues and residences, it is the heartbeat for the Village and the broader region. The Village plans to continue expanding downtown offerings and create an even more vibrant and active community. Potential DRI projects being planned include a mix of public and private, from infrastructure improvements to new housing to historic renovations, in order to create new cultural and commercial spaces which together will help further the creative and economic revitalization along this corridor. This will advance the Village’s, and the region’s, broader economic development goals, and breathe new life and energy into Catskill and the region to support a sustainable and enhanced quality of life for residents and visitors.

The following statement is made about Athens and its plans for the NY Forward funding:

Athens is a quintessentially charming village with a unique laid-back vibe that sits on the west bank of the Hudson River. It is connected to world class art, culture, recreation and choice of housing that attracts visitors, boaters and artists. The Village has already worked to make downtown more walkable, welcoming, resilient and climate adaptive – making it primed for the NY Forward program. The community’s vision is to remain a welcoming village that celebrates family and community. They plan to do this by upgrading Second Street at the heart of downtown by improving ADA compliance, increasing foot traffic to local businesses and supporting arts and culture; increasing river access; and increasing choice of residences, homes and apartments that are accessible and affordable.

The City of Hudson was awarded $10 million in 2017, in Round 2 of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative. 

Eight years later, Hudson has yet to complete four of the five projects funded by the DRI. As a reminder of what the projects were, the following list of projects and their descriptions is quoted from a press release issued in 2017:

Implement Complete Streets Improvements: Design and construct a phased Complete Streets initiative throughout the DRI area to provide safe access, aesthetic improvements, and separation of truck traffic from pedestrians and bicyclists. Examples of improvements include safe and functional at-grade railroad crossing, streetscape improvements, bike lanes, extension of the North Bay trail, sidewalk and crosswalk improvements, pedestrian stairs, and signage. ($3,982,550)

Renovate Promenade Hill Park and Provide ADA Access: Renovate Promenade Hill Park, an important public space in the heart of the DRI area, to preserve its historic features while providing access to park amenities and extraordinary views of the Hudson and the Catskills for people of all abilities. ($1,100,000)

Improve the Safety and Aesthetics of Cross Street and the Second Street Stairs: Improve the safety and aesthetics of Cross Street and the Second Street Stairs by designing and implementing streetscape improvements along Cross Street. This will include grading and repaving, new sidewalks, and lighting and replacement of the Second Street stairs leading from Allen Street to Cross Street. ($250,000)

Stabilize the Dunn Warehouse for Future Re-Use: Stabilize the historic Dunn Warehouse, the City's last remaining central waterfront building, and conduct a feasibility study for its reuse. The City of Hudson will issue an RFP for a public/private partnership to adaptively reuse Dunn Warehouse based on recommendations in that study. Critical structural improvements will be made to exterior walls and masonry, the roof, and perimeter drainage, and a new concrete slab will be added. Remaining funds will be used for other interior renovations. ($1,000,000)

Repurpose Historic Fishing Village as a City Park: Convert city-owned land containing a historic collection of fishing shacks into a waterfront park with access to the Hudson River. The project at the city's northern boundary will include the demolition of some of the shacks to open the space, as well as basic repairs to preserve the more historically significant and visually interesting structures. DRI funds will be used for site cleanup, remediation, design services and site preparation. ($150,000)

Work on the "Complete Streets" improvements is expected to resume in April. Presumably this will include the installation of railings on the new Second Street stairs. Last year, the City entered into an agreement with CGS Group, a.k.a. Dunn and Done LLC, to carry out the stabilization and redevelopment of the Dunn Warehouse. Earlier this week, the Common Council agreed to hire Dan's Hauling & Demolition of Wynantskill, NY, to demolish and remove buildings as a first step in the process of repurposing the historic fishing village as a city park. 

The DRI program reimburses municipalities for money spent on DRI projects, hence the City has had to borrow money to do the projects, for which it is then reimbursed. At the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, City Treasurer Heather Campbell projected that, when this is all over, the borrowing will have cost the City between $750,000 and $1 million. 

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Does This Change Everything?

Last week, Roger Hannigan Gilson published an article in the Times Union about the charter change initiative in Hudson: "Experts question Hudson proposal to create city manager." The article caused quite a stir. Minutes after I discovered the article, I received an email from "The Hauntsman" snidely challenging me to link to it. (I was already preparing to do so.) Opponents of the charter change initiative--Peter Frank, Caitie Hilverman, and others--posted links to it on Facebook, touting the notion that experts agreed with them. What the experts found most problematic with the charter change proposal was the veto power given to the city manager.

Earlier this week, four days after the article was originally published, this correction appeared in the online version of the article: 

Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the city manager would have the power to veto legislation passed by the Common Council. The manager can only veto budget reductions.

The updated article can be found here.

It appears the experts consulted may not have read the proposed changes to the charter carefully, or Gilson may have provided them with an inaccurate synopsis of what was being proposed. Either way, we don't really know what the expert opinion of the proposed charter changes would have been had they been working with accurate and complete information. 

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

The Kiosks Are Coming

In fact, they are here, stored in some DPW garage awaiting placement. The kiosks will soon take the place of parking meters to collect parking fees on Warren Street and in municipal parking lots.

A couple of weeks ago, Councilmember Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward), who now chairs the ad hoc Parking Committee tasked with implementing the recommendations made in the parking study done back in 2022, presented the Parking Plan to be implemented this spring. The plan, which involves paid parking the entire length of Warren Street, can be found here. 

In conjunction with the rollout of the Parking Plan, the Parking Committee is seeking input from the community on a Parking Survey. That survey can to found here.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

It's Complicated

The issue on many people's minds these days is the Planning Board's consideration of a conditional use permit for Colarusso's dock operations on the waterfront. Meanwhile, DPW superintendent Rob Perry announced at the informal Common Council meeting on Monday that Colarusso had submitted the low bid for the first phase of the renovation of Seventh Street Park, a.k.a. the Public Square. The first phase includes new pathways and benches, the repositioning of the Veterans Memorial, landscaping, and the infrastructure necessary to build a new fountain.

It will remembered that in April 2021, Colarusso was awarded the contract for the construction involved in the redesign of the entrance to Promenade Hill. The next year, the City accepted a $100,000 donation from the Colarusso family to help fill the gap between the DRI funding for the project ($1.1 million) and the actual cost of the project. (The rest of the money--$650,000--was provided by the H. Van Ameringen Foundation--Van Ameringen being the van of Galvan.)

And then there was the controversy in 2023 surrounding the contract for the construction of the new Ferry Street Bridge. It's a long story which can be read here. The upshot was the Commissioner of Public Works, who had served in that position for seven years, resigned, Colarusso got the contract for the bridge, and the Planning Board approved Colarusso's two-lane, paved haul road through the wetlands of South Bay.

It seems bitterly ironic that Colarusso, which has been and will be involved in implementing improvements to our two historic parks and in restoring access to our waterfront park, is also engaged in activities that threaten the economic development and recreational use of the waterfront.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Last Night at City Hall

This was the scene outside City Hall last night, before the Planning Board meeting began.

Photo: Our Hudson Waterfront

This was the scene in Council Chambers, as people waited for the meeting to get underway.

About ten minutes into the meeting, Theresa Joyner, who chairs the Planning Board, announced that Colarusso would not be discussed at the meeting, but there would be a public hearing on the subject on April 10 at the Central Fire Station. Later on in the meeting, she said the location of the public hearing had not yet been confirmed.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK

Tonight's Planning Board Meeting

In response to requests from the public, the Planning Board meeting is on Zoom. Click here to join the meeting remotely.

An Open Letter to Our Mayor

Gossips received this letter this afternoon and agreed to publish it.

Dear Mayor Johnson,

As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, “Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark.” Well, I fear something is rotten in the City of Hudson with our Mayor-appointed Planning Board. Ethics and professionalism be damned! Who needs experience? We don’t need to hear from the public, or Hudson businesses. Let’s just get this thing over and done with!

… And who cares about Hudson’s waterfront history?!

• 1982: Hudson Common Council unanimously resolves to prevent further development in South Bay.
• 1996: Hudson Vision Plan is introduced, advocating for a deindustrialized waterfront.
• 1998-2005: Friends of Hudson and allies block the St. Lawrence Cement Plant project, which fails a coastal impact review.
• 2001: Hudson Planning Commission applies for party status with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), affirming the goal of deindustrializing the waterfront.
• 2005: Secretary of State Randy Daniels mandates rezoning to phase out heavy industry in favor of public-benefit uses.
• 2006: A public survey finds that heavy industry is the least popular waterfront use, while parks/recreation is the most preferred.
• 2011: Hudson updates its zoning – Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) to remove industrial activities as permitted uses in waterfront zones, establishing the Core Riverfront (C-R) District.
• 2012: NYS Department of State designates South Bay Creek & Marsh as a protected wildlife area.
• 2017: Hudson wins a $10 million Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI) grant to support waterfront redevelopment.

Based on their actions at the February 11 monthly meeting, the Planning Board, and their counsel (legal and engineering), appear to be taking directions from the Applicant’s playbook, and ignoring the voice and the will of the public who for decades have overwhelmingly expressed the desire for positive non-industrial waterfront development.

The public shouldn’t have to:

·        Beg for the Planning Board to do its job, with ethical standards and professionalism.

·        Lose sleep at night worrying about the fate of its waterfront and its city because of the proposed plans by a single Greenport business that has been operating without a permit since it acquired the dock in 2014. And whose plans will result in potentially massive industrialization of the waterfront, create significant hazards to the public’s health, safety and welfare, and jeopardize existing Core-Riverfront District businesses and the revitalization of adjacent waterfront areas (e.g., Dunn Warehouse, Kaz Development).

·       Spend countless hours writing letters to the Planning Board pleading for a lawful public hearing on perhaps the biggest conditional use permit application ever considered by the Board 

·       Plead to be allowed to attend meetings virtually for a myriad of reasons, to be able to speak during public comment period, and to enable transparency.

·       Hire attorneys to interpret court decisions and the law because the Planning Board’s counsel appears to have misinterpreted said court decisions and the law.

·       Arrange to audio/video-record Planning Board meetings for fear that the Board will not record and make meetings available to the public; and resort to bringing posters to meetings to express concerns for fear of not being able to speak.

A lawful public hearing should be allowed and hybrid meetings reinstated. And, the scope of review expanded to the entire dock operations in accordance with the City Zoning Code, as per the independent legal input recently provided to the Board by two highly respected and reputable attorneys; one of whom was the City Attorney for the City of Hudson during the dock conditional use permit review 8 years ago.

Bottomline regarding the Application:

·       The Applicant’s expanding trucking operations threaten public safety at major crossings (Route 9, Route 9G, and the Amtrak rail at Broad Street), and threaten the health and welfare of residents living in close proximity to commercial docks and the public while recreating and using public facilities adjacent to commercial docks.

·       The gravel shipping expansion is incompatible with Hudson’s long-standing deindustrialization goals and jeopardizes the South Bay Creek & Marsh protected area.

If the Applicant’s proposed dock operations do not meet City Zoning Code requirements, and the Applicant is unwilling to agree to meaningful conditional limitations to mitigate risks, then the Dock Conditional Use Permit application should be denied.

The Planning Board's reviews should not be taken lightly or made in haste. If this Planning Board is not up to the task of carefully evaluating and determining whether or not the Application meets City Zoning Code requirements, with the utmost professional and ethical standards, then they should be replaced.

Mr. Mayor, the future of our city and our waterfront are at stake. The "legacy" decisions made by the Planning Board will have long-ranging impact on our beloved City of Hudson and its waterfront, for future generations, and for decades to come.

Sincerely,

Concerned Hudson Citizen