Gossips, still recovering from a nasty little virus, was not present at last night's Common Council meeting, but it seems, based on John Mason's report in today's Register-Star, that the item of greatest interest on last night's agenda was the vote on the new local law requiring parking permits for residents in the area of Columbia Memorial Hospital: "Parking plan meets resistance in Council." The vote to place the legislation on the aldermen's desks and move ahead with the process of enacting it passed with just enough votes for a simple majority: 1,015 affirmative votes are required; 1,104 affirmative votes were cast. Those voting to move forward with the law were Council president Don Moore and aldermen David Marston and Nick Haddad (First Ward), John Friedman and Henry Haddad (Third Ward), and Bart Delaney (Fifth Ward).
It's interesting to consider the statements reportedly made by the aldermen who voted against the legislation. Abdus Miah (Second Ward), who sits on the Legal Committee but seemed always to be absent when the committee was working on refining the document, is quoted in the article as declaring it was "the wrong approach." He suggested that "the city should sit down with the hospital and come to an agreement how to work out parking." That has already been done--if memory serves, more than once.
Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) wanted to know if anyone had spoken with the hospital employees who were causing the problem by choosing to park on city streets instead of in the American Legion parking lot, which is leased by CMH for their use. Alexis Keith and Ohrine Stewart (Fourth Ward) both expressed concern about the unfairness of the parking policies in the hospital parking garage, where doctors park free, while minimum wage employees allegedly are required to pay $4 a day.
Responding in frustration to a statement that the law wasn't fair to the rest of the city because "other people have parking issues," Friedman is reported to have said, "What an idiot. Enough, enough," to which Garriga reportedly shot back, "You're an idiot."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
The word is that the Common Council will not be voting tonight on the resolution declaring the sewer separation project a Type II action not requiring environmental review. It is understood that the reason for the postponement is to give the aldermen time to educate themselves on the issue. Meanwhile, two more documents relevant to the project have appeared on the city website: a letter from city attorney Carl Whitbeck, providing case law that supports his opinion that the proposed project is a Type II action; and a letter from Riverkeeper, explaining in considerable detail why the project should not be classified as a Type II action and urging that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
It is expected that tonight the Common Council will vote on the resolution, introduced last Monday, declaring that the sewer separation project proposed for State and North Front streets is a Type II Action and therefore requires no environmental review.
According to the resolution, the project is a Type II Action because (1) it involves "replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility . . .," i.e., the sewer main; and (2) it involves "street openings and right-of-way openings for the purpose of repair or maintenance of existing utility facility." Neither one of these justifications has anything to do with the environmental impact of the project--an impact that has many people concerned. Untreated storm water, containing salts, oils, trash, sediments, and other pollutants, will be discharged directly into North Bay and from there into the Hudson River. It is calculated that more than 242 million gallons of untreated storm water--runoff from the streets of Hudson--will be discharged into North Bay every year.
The Common Council has the opportunity, by refusing to approve the resolution, to identify the project as a Type I Action and, in so doing, to ensure that the impact of this project on North Bay and the river will be studied and understood before the project proceeds. Rejecting the resolution and doing the environment review would be the responsible thing to do.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Siobhan Barton reports today in the Register-Star on yesterday's Historic Preservation Commission meeting--a meeting that she did not attend. Instead, she seems to have fabricated the article relying on HPC member Peggy Polenberg's recollections of what happened: "Commission mulls aesthetics on Warren Street."
Gossips, who was at the meeting, will take this opportunity to correct the errors on Barton's piece. First, the white building she speaks of is not between 330 and 336 Warren Street. It is 33o Warren Street. This property, along with the vacant lots at 332 and 334 Warren Street and the building at 336 Warren Street are not owned by David Deutsch, whose not-for-profit PARC Foundation created the pocket park at 328 Warren Street and the linear park, now being completed, that connects Warren Street with State Street. All this property was recently sold by David Deutsch. The plans for the properties are being proposed not by Deutsch but by the new owner.
The facade of 211 Warren Street is not going to be "altered"; it is going to be restored to an earlier appearance documented in historic photographs. (The featured building in the pictures below is the celebrated General Worth Hotel, which was demolished in 1971. The building in question, well documented because of its proximity to greatness, appears at the right in these photographs.)
Although the building undoubtedly started out as a residence, a storefront was introduced into the facade in the 19th century, and it is to this appearance that the facade will be restored, as will the east wall.
The building behind the facade, which was seriously damaged by a fire five or six years ago and has been condemned, will be replaced by a new passive structure. The only significant difference on the facade will be windows that are not actually double hung but will only appear to be double hung, to meet the requirements of a passive house.
Half the article in today's Register-Star was taken up talking about a letter submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission by me, not in my capacity as the person "who runs the the Hudson blog Gossips of Rivertown," as the article indicates, but as an officer of Historic Hudson and on behalf of Historic Hudson. The letter urges the HPC to consider extending the historic district known as the North Fourth Street Extension all the way to State Street, to include both sides of the street and 400 State Street, which is already an individually designated landmark in Hudson and individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The motivation for making this request has little to do with the perennial talk of building a parking garage on the northeast corner of Fourth and Columbia streets, as suggested in the article, but has everything to do with the resolution, proposed by Mayor William Hallenbeck, to sell the property on the northwest corner of Fourth and State streets, owned by the City, for the development of affordable housing. The entire letter may read here.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Today, the dog owners of Hudson FORWARD are working to establish a dog park in Hudson. To support their effort, they are embarking on two campaigns to encourage canine good citizenship. The first, soon to be rolled out, urges dog owners and dog walkers to pick up after the dogs in their charge. Posters similar to the one below will soon start appearing around town. The second campaign will encourage dog owners to license their dogs.
The idea of people organizing for the benefit of their dogs--to make life better and safer for them--is not a new concept in Hudson. Recently, Paul Barrett discovered this article, which appeared in the Columbia Republican on May 15, 1916. Like the Hudson FORWARD initiative, the Dog Club advocated for licensing dogs. Their mission "to protect canine interests" also included "to offer a reward and assist in the prosecution of all poison cases, to protect dogs from wanton automobiles and in general to assist in seeing that dog owners obey the law and in return that the laws protecting dogs' rights be strictly enforced."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
On Saturday, Gossips reported that FoxCT News had done an investigative report on Viridian, the company that supplies wind energy to the City of Hudson and has been accused of misleading customers. On Wednesday, following up on the story, FoxCT News reported that the State of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority is launching an investigation of the energy company: "Viridian facing state investigation."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Yesterday, the Register-Star published online an article by John Mason that had appeared in the weekend print edition of the paper: "On the outskirts of confinement: The gatehouse and its keepers." The story is about the gatehouse at the Worth Avenue entrance to the Hudson Correctional Facility and is based on the memories of Suzanne Tenerowicz and Peter Mullins, whose grandparents both worked at the Girls Training School and lived with their children in the gatehouse. Among the interesting information revealed in the article is the fact that there was a maternity hospital at the Girls Training School, suggesting that many of the girls may have been sent there because they were pregnant out of wedlock. Even more interesting, for those interested in the Dr. Oliver Bronson House, is this photograph of the house which accompanies the article.
The last private owners of the Bronson House were Elizabeth and Matilda McIntyre, who occupied the house from 1883 to 1917. The handwritten caption beneath the picture suggests that Hudson's only National Historic Landmark was once put to use as the maternity hospital for the Girls Training School: "McIntyre House--which is to be remodeled into a maternity home."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
On February 14, Gossips reported that the Planning Board would hold a public hearing at 6 p.m. on March 11 on the plan to expand the Quick Mart at 67 Green Street. Last night, without veteran Planning Board chair Don Tillson, who resigned last month, and with Claudia DeStefano serving as acting chair, there was no public hearing at 6 p.m. Instead the Planning Board launched into the review of at least five other projects before getting around to the public hearing about the Quick Mart, forcing any members of the public who had come for the hearing to sit through nearly two hours of other business before their opportunity came to be heard.
The first project on the agenda was 347 Warren Street, the outdoor food court and beer and wine garden. The rendering below shows the vision that was approved by the Planning Commission three years ago--a vision that, as we all know, never became a reality.
Last night, Brian Herman, representing the owner, Michael Davis, came before the Planning Board seeking a modification of the site plan that was approved back in 2012. According to Herman, "When the plan was approved, it was all hypothetical," and that hypothetical plan is not working out. The proposed modification moves all the food trucks--a maximum of five now instead of the original maximum of three--closer to the street and devotes the back of the lot to outdoor seating for the bar: sixteen tables, which will seat an estimated 96 people and be accessed only through the bar inside the building.
The Planning Board was concerned about seating capacity (there are more tables toward the front), hours of operation, lighting, and trash receptacles. The review of the requested site plan modification will continue at the Planning Board's next meeting on April 8.
Next up was the plan for 225 State Street. The house that now stands on that lot has already been partially demolished. (Since virtually nothing on the north side of town is officially recognized as historic, although wonderful examples of late 18th- and 19th-century vernacular architecture are found there, not much can be done to save a house if the owner or the code enforcement officer decides it is "beyond repair.") What is planned to replace the house is a double house that will "stay within the size and scale of the area" and be "stylistically compatible" with the design of the surrounding houses. The plans also include a garage on Long Alley with a "work studio" above it. Because the setbacks at the front and sides of the building will not comply with city code (although they conform with what exists in the neighborhood), the project was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for area variances.
The next project proposed will make the big empty space in the 300 block of Warren Street, created by the "Good Friday Fire" that happened fifty years ago, even emptier. What's proposed is the demolition of the building, once Harold's Bar, that was constructed at 330 Warren Street after the fire, the restoration and extension of the brick wall that now stands where 332 and 334 Warren Street once were, and the creation on those three lots of a "side yard garden" for 336 Warren Street, which will be restored.
This project is in the locally designated Warren Street Historic District and will come before the Historic Preservation Commission tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
The next project that came before the Planning Board last night also involved demolishing a building on Warren Street, although in this case the building's facade would be preserved and restored to its earliest documented appearance. The building is 211 Warren Street, which was severely damaged by fire a few years ago. The plan is to restore the facade of the building and its original commercial storefront and build behind it a passive structure that would be commercial on the ground floor with residential space above. Behind the building, on Cherry Alley, a two-car garage would be constructed, with a one-bedroom apartment above it. This project too will come before the Historic Preservation Commission on Friday morning.
The next project before the Planning Board was a microbrewery to be established in part of the old L&B building. It was at that point, after the meeting had gone on for an hour and a half, that Gossips received word that Joey, waiting in the car, was barking.
Gossips left the meeting then and was not present for the public hearing on 67 Green Street or to watch as the members of the Planning Board read silently a report from Crawford & Associates about 78 Green Street (the building that was constructed in the wrong place) and a communication from former city attorney Jack Connor, who owns the property adjacent to the misplaced structure. Gossips has learned, however, that a public hearing about 78 Green Street will take place at the Planning Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for April 8.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
The surprising cause of the fire on State Street that severely damaged two houses--one probably beyond repair--and left three families homeless is revealed today in the Register-Star: "Officials: Reignited fire debris caused State Street fire."
On Monday night, the resolution declaring the City's sewer separation project a Type II Action, requiring no environmental review, came before the Common Council at its informal meeting. After the resolution was introduced and seconded, the discussion began with a presentation by two people from Delaware Engineering, the consulting firm involved with the upgrade to the City's waste water treatment plant and, it would seem, with this project as well. During the presentation, the antiquity of Hudson's sewer system was stressed (it was mentioned more than once that much of it dates back to 1830), and the need to do the work was linked to "sinkhole issues." Our aged sewer system is collapsing and must be replaced, and, it was explained, the law requires that our old sewer, which is a combined sewer, must be replaced with new mains that will handle sewage and storm water separately.
The presenters also spoke of the antidegradation policies in the Clean Water Act. "You cannot discharge water that will cause the quality of a water body to decline" and "You must remove everything that could damage the river" were two statements that were made. Yet when asked how, given these antidegradation policies, storm water runoff, which contains salts, oils, trash, sediments, and other pollutants that damage the river, can be discharged untreated into North Bay, the answer was that "the focus is on sanitary sewer not on storm water."
Reference was also made to Hudson's "robust street cleaning program," which was meant to reassure us that the storm water flowing over our streets, which would be discharged into North Bay, wasn't all that polluted. Those of us who live in Hudson and regularly walk its streets know that our street cleaning program doesn't seem robust enough to eliminate oil spilled in alleys or to address all the litter dumped on streets and in gutters.
Maybe everything will be fine. Maybe discharging storm water into North Bay will have no negative effect on the ecosystem of the bay or of the river, where it will ultimately end up, but without environmental review, no one knows that. It is hard to understand why there is such apparent urgency to declare this project a Type II Action and forgo all environmental scrutiny. There may be a case to be made for the urgency, but it is not one that has been persuasively made with the public.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
We've seen New York City restaurants and chefs establishing outposts here in Hudson, but this is the first time a Hudson restaurant is branching out to New York City: "Support Good Animal Welfare Practices When You Eat at Grazin' TriBeCa."
Thanks to Seth Rogovoy for bringing this to our attention
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Assemblymember Didi Barrett just announced her 2015 Diner Stop Tour. She'll be at Grazin' in Hudson, 717 Warren Street, on Friday, March 27, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
“The Diner Stop Tour," says Barrett, "gives me the opportunity to chat with folks from all around the district and hear personally what really matters to them, so I can best represent them in Albany."
Back in October, it was discovered that the residents of the 70 units at Crosswinds voted in the Fourth Ward but were counted for the purpose of calculating the weighted vote in the Fifth Ward. What's more, it was revealed that the boundary between the Fourth and Fifth wards used by the Board of Elections was not the boundary described in the city charter. Section C1-4 of the charter describes the eastern boundary of the Fourth Ward thus: "northerly along the center line of Fifth Street and a projection of said center line of Fifth Street to the northerly bounds of the City." The Common Council hired surveyor Jeffrey Plass to determine exactly where that projection of said center line fell, and a map showing its course was provided at last night's informal Common Council meeting.
As the map reveals, the boundary bisects the building on the grounds of the Firemen's Home where the residents live. At last night's meeting, Supervisor William Hughes (Fourth Ward), who seemed sanguine about the residents of Crosswinds who presumably voted for him not being represented by him, wanted the Council to decree that all of the Firemen's Home was in the Fourth Ward.
Hughes also called for a new survey map to be done of the entire city. That hardly seems necessary. What does seem necessary is redefining this particular ward boundary. Everywhere else in the city, streets are used to define ward boundaries. This seems to be the only ward boundary that is "projected" and hence requires a surveyor to figure out where it's supposed to be.
The ward boundary described in the charter very likely dates back to 1886, when the Fifth Ward was first created. The two 1888 atlas maps shown below don't include the part of the boundary in question, but from what they do show, one may surmise that Harry Howard Avenue, as we know it, did not exist in 1886, and when the boundary was defined there was an expectation that this part of the city, when it was developed, would continue the grid pattern of the rest of the city.
How much simpler it would be for everyone if the Common Council just adopted Harry Howard Avenue as the ward boundary, which is what the ward map distributed by the Board of Elections has shown all along. But how much fairer it would be if we abandoned the wards altogether for the purpose of voting and legislative representation and established equal population election districts.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
In December, the City of Hudson was awarded a $600,000 grant for a sewer separation project at State and North Front streets. The goal of the project is separate storm water from the sanitary sewer and direct it into North Bay. In the application for the grant, it was stated that the City "anticipated that the project will be classified as Type II," making it exempt from environmental review. Timothy O'Connor has warned repeatedly that the plan to direct storm water runoff into North Bay will result in more and unacceptable pollution. Dan Shapley of Riverkeeper, in a letter to Mayor William Hallenbeck, urged that the City "consider the impacts of discharging untreated storm water to North Bay . . . part of the state-designated 'Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat' known as Stockport Creek and Flats," pointing out that storm water runoff contains "salts, oils, trash, sediments and other pollutants that can harm the ecosystem of the Bay and the River."
These warnings and cautions appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Tonight, at the informal Common Council meeting, which will take place in the community room of Bliss Towers, a resolution is expected to be introduced that would declare that "the City of Hudson's sewer separation project is a Type II Action under SEQRA and is not subject to review under 6 NYCRR Part 617 per 6 NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(2)and (5)." Part 617.5(c)(2) speaks of "replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site"; Part 617.5(c)(5) relates to "street openings and right-of-way openings for the purpose of repair or maintenance of existing utility facilities." Of the two parts of the law being used to justify Type II Action, neither speaks to the issue of discharging untreated storm water into a significant fish and wildlife habitat.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Today, the word asbestos strikes terror in the hearts of all, because we now know it causes two particularly nasty lung conditions: asbestosis and mesothelioma. The need to remove it from historic buildings often adds significantly to the cost of restoration projects, and its presence is regularly cited as the reason why groups like Habitat for Humanity refuse to rehab existing houses.
A hundred years ago, though, people raved about asbestos. Introduced in the last quarter of the 19th-century, asbestos was hailed as a "wonderful fire-proof and highly useful substance." It was added to roof paint and house paint to provide heat insulation and fire resistance. It was used to insulate steam pipes, boilers, ovens, and other high-temperature products. This advertisement, which appeared in the Columbia Republican for March 9, 1915, shows how comfortable people were with asbestos back in the day, even putting it on their dining room tables.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
On this day, March 9, 220 years ago, the Proprietors granted Parade Hill to the Common Council "for a public walk or mall."
Observe the momentous occasion by paying a visit to Promenade Hill today and be grateful that this public space from which to view significant scenic vistas on the Hudson has been preserved--sometimes, it seems, against all odds--for more than two centuries.
Thanks to Timothy O'Connor for reminding us of this anniversary
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Celebrate the return of Daylight Saving Time. Can warmth and green be far behind?
In May 2013, Mayor William Hallenbeck announced, with considerable fanfare, that the City of Hudson was going to save money and help the environment by switching to 1oo percent locally produced wind energy, purchased from Viridian. "Today, we embark on the future of Hudson," said the mayor at a press conference, "saving taxpayers' hard-earned dollars whenever we're able to, while doing something right for the environment and our state's economy." Hudson, he declared, would be the only municipality in New York to be exclusively powered by wind energy.
In February 2014, the mayor announced, once again at a press conference, that in the first five months with Viridian as its energy supplier the City had saved $26,030, saving in only five months 63 percent of what the City was projected to save in the first year. If the rate of saving continued, the mayor said, the City would save $62,472 in the first year.
In April 2014, the mayor made a unilateral decision to switch from all wind power to a combination of wind power and solar power--the solar power also to be purchased through Viridian. At that time, the mayor spoke of installing solar panels on the Central Fire Station, on City Hall, and on the new police and court building being planned. (Almost a year later, none of these things has happened.) At that time, too, he made assurances that the City remained "on track to meet its savings goal of $40,000 for the year." (The annual saving of $62,472, predicted in February, had apparently been abandoned.)
Then in September 2014, it was revealed that the City's energy bill for the prior year was $113,782 more than the previous year--an increase of 33 percent. It was also revealed that, far from being "exclusively powered by wind energy" or by some combination of wind and solar, only some of the City buildings were involved. The Department of Public Works and the Police Department were getting their energy from Viridian, but the Youth Department and the Fire Department continued to buy energy from National Grid. It's not clear where the power to City Hall was coming from.
There was much consternation over whether increased usage or higher rates accounted for the increased cost to the City in 2014, but the mayor defended his action. He was quoted in the Register-Star as saying, "Regardless of if we save thousands or tens of thousands we did the right thing. We took a leadership role and led the county and Hudson Valley, and now there are Democratic and Republican-led towns and councils who followed Hudson's lead of price stability and green energy, all choosing Viridian."
Last week, in Connecticut, inspired by a civil lawsuit brought against Viridian in Maryland and more than a hundred complaints about the company in Connecticut, FoxCT News did an investigative report on Viridian Energy: "FoxCT Investigates: CT energy company accused of misleading customers."
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
There's always a lot of talk about marketing Hudson. Amazingly, Hudson manages to get marketed pretty well without a lot of branding or studies or surveys. In November, Gossips reported that Hudson had been featured in Sawubona, the in-flight magazine of South African Airways, where our little city was called "a microcosm of cool." More recently, a reader brought to Gossips' attention an article called "Hip Hudson" on "The Hot List" in the Australian travel magazine International Traveller.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
Tomorrow, Saturday, March 7, from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Hudson Opera House, auditions will be held for singers to make up the "band of young women" to take part in the re-creation of what transpired on the night of April 25, 1865, when Lincoln's funeral train stopped briefly in Hudson.
This historic photograph was taken not in Hudson but in Chicago, where the train made its last stop before reaching its destination in Springfield. The photograph shows the procession accompanying the catafalque bearing the coffin of Abraham Lincoln from the train depot to the court house, where Lincoln's body lay in state for twenty-eight hours. The event in Hudson may not have been quite so grand, but historic pictures like this and the description of the scene in Hudson from the journal of Assistant Adjutant General Edward Townsend, the commander of the funeral train, are inspiring and informing the re-creation that will take place here on April 25, 2015, at the very hour the funeral train stopped in Hudson 150 years ago.
Mary Deyerle Hack, of Diamond Opera Theater, will be conducting the auditions and directing the choir of young women. A music historian as well as a professional singer, Hack has already researched and selected the dirges to be sung--dirges that could well be the very ones that were sung in 1865.
All who are interested in being part of this historic re-creation are urged to come to the Hudson Opera House between 2 and 4 tomorrow afternoon. Thirty-five young women (young in fact or in spirit) are needed to make up the band--the number representing the states in the Union in 1865.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
.jpg)
.jpg)