There was much discussion at Tuesday night's Common Council meeting about the leases on City-owned property--in particular, 20 Columbia Turnpike, 27 Rossman Avenue, and 80 Reservoir Road. The tenants refused to sign the leases they were offered more than a year ago because they contained unacceptable terms. As a consequence, the tenants have continued living in the buildings, paying rent but without lease agreements. Among the terms that the tenants found unacceptable were paragraphs that prohibited smoking on the premises and keeping pets.
On Tuesday night, various members of the Common Council denied ever having seen or approved leases with such restrictions, but the Council records show otherwise. The lease agreements for 27 Rossman Avenue, the upstairs apartment at 20 Columbia Turnpike, and 80 Reservoir Road were presented to the Council at the informal meeting on August 10, 2015, and the resolution approving the leases--Resolution 7--was passed unanimously on August 18, 2015. The leases all contained the following paragraphs:
13. SMOKING: Smoking within the residence without the written permission of the Landlord is strictly prohibited.
16. PETS: Tenant shall not be entitled to have any pets at the rental premises without the prior written approval of Landlord.
At the informal meeting on September 8, 2015, the lease for the downstairs apartment at 20 Columbia Turnpike came before the Common Council. It contained the same two paragraphs, and the resolution approving it--Resolution 5--was unanimously passed on September 15, 2015.
The question of why the tenants did not seek written approval from the City to smoke in their homes and keep pets instead of simply refusing to sign their leases has never been addressed.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Now that you have had a chance to digest the first hour of Tuesday's Common Council meeting, here is the next hour, in which city attorney Ken Dow leaves the building. Click here to view Part 2 of Dan Udell's video.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Tuesday night's Common Council meeting was so long--longer even than the third presidential debate--that Dan Udell had to put his videotape of the meeting on YouTube in two parts. Part 1, which is mostly about Alderman Tiffany Garriga's removal from the Police Committee, is now available and can be viewed here.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Last night's Common Council meeting went on for two full hours, and the first forty minutes of it were taken up discussing Council president Claudia DeStefano's action, at a Police Committee meeting on September 26, to remove Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) from the Police Committee. One of the early items on the agenda was, as always, accepting the communications. Garriga noted that a letter from her attorney, Mark S. Mishler, which had been emailed to DeStefano and the rest of the Common Council the previous day, had not been included in the communications. The explanation was that the city clerk, Tracy Delaney, who prepares the packets for the aldermen and the press, had not received the letter. Garriga then requested and was granted permission to read the entire three-page letter aloud.
In the letter, Mishler maintained that DeStefano's actions in removing Garriga from the Police Committee "were unwarranted, improper, invalid, and a violation of Ms. Garriga's constitutionally protected rights to due process; freedom of speech, assembly and association; and equal protection." The letter concluded: "Ms. Garriga remains a member of the Police Committee of the Common Council and fully intends to continue to participate as a member of the Committee."
When Garriga had finished her reading of the lawyer's letter, Alderman John Friedman (Third Ward), who is himself a lawyer, demanded to know DeStefano's response. DeStefano replied, "I received the letter yesterday, and I am digesting it." Friedman then directed his question to city attorney Ken Dow, demanding to know his response, as lawyer for the City, to the letter. Dow began by saying, "It is not for an outside law office to declare if someone is on or off a committee."
Throughout the extended exchange that followed, Dow maintained that the makeup of committees was at the discretion of the Common Council president, likening it to congressional committee appointments made by the Speaker of the House, all of which change when a different party comes into power. Friedman did not question DeStefano's right to alter committee assignments but argued that her reason for removing Garriga was invalid because it was a constitutional infringement. "[Garriga] has the right to say what she wants to say," Friedman told DeStefano, "and you do not have the right to make her pay for that," adding, "And I don't even agree with what she said!"
On the issue of constitutional infringement, Dow argued that "in a political context, it is not the same situation." To this, Friedman responded, "None of us thought we were waving our constitutional rights [when we joined this body]. When does local law trump the Constitution?" He then told Dow, "I am shocked to find you arguing this."
After Friedman warned DeStefano, "A lawyer wrote you a letter. Ignore it at your own peril," it was agreed the Dow would draft "what he thinks is correct and give it to the Council."
The meeting moved on, with the aldermen voting on various resolutions before them. Interestingly, when they got to the resolution, which had been proposed by Garriga, that would amend the Rules of Order to prohibit "midterm removal of committee members and chairs," the resolution failed. Only Garriga, Abdus Miah (Second Ward), and Bob Donahue (Fifth Ward) voted for the amendment; the remainder of the aldermen present--Friedman, Henry Haddad (Third Ward), Priscilla Moore (Fifth Ward), Michael O'Hara (First Ward), Rick Rector (First Ward), and Lauren Scalera (Fourth Ward)--voted against it.
City attorneys past and present came under fire again over the question of leases on City-owned properties: 20 Columbia Turnpike, 27 Rossman Avenue, and 80 Reservoir Road--all rented to employees (and relatives) of the Department of Public Works. The leases were allegedly approved by the Common Council more than a year ago and presented to the tenants, but the tenants refused to sign them because they specified that pets and smoking were prohibited. Now, a year later, with all the tenants still in place, the City is trying once again to get the leases approved and signed. Joe Finn, who told the Council he had lived at 20 Columbia Turnpike for the past fourteen years, called the new lease, which was written in 2015, during Mayor William Hallenbeck's administration, "a bully tactic to get us to leave." Friedman claimed the Council had never seen the lease in question because he would never have approved a lease that prohibited pets. The Council voted unanimously to ask the mayor to amend the leases, leaving out the prohibitions on pets and smoking, so that the tenants would sign them.
The lease issue sent back to the mayor's office, the Council voted on two more resolutions before getting to the resolution to approve the contract between the City and Randall + West, the consultants chosen to work with the Conservation Advisory Council to create a Natural Resources Inventory. In September, the Council had passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into this contract, which was now before the Council for approval. Friedman was critical of the contract, pointing out a number of instances where he felt the document needed revision. When Friedman asserted his expertise in writing contracts, saying "This is what I do for a living," Dow snapped, "Then why don't you f**king do it?" With that, Dow gathered his belongings and left the Chamber and the building. The resolution to approve the contract was then tabled.
At this point, there was only one item left on the agenda: issuing a Negative Declaration on the proposed zoning amendment that would affect three parcels on Hudson Avenue. Unfortunately, the city attorney had left, taking with him the Environmental Assessment Form that had to be completed before making the determination. Friedman, who had authored the amendment, in whose ward the subject property is located, and who supports the amendment, expressed frustration that 120 days had already passed since the resolution was presented to the Legal Committee. He noted that the Planning Board was calling the proposed amendment "spot zoning" and declared, "The city attorney's office is getting in the way of business being conducted in the City of Hudson."
It was then that The Gossips of Rivertown was elevated to a new status in City Hall. Friedman made reference the post "Nothing Is Ever Easy," which analyzed the question of whether or not the zoning change proposed constituted spot zoning. He then distributed to the Council and the press copies of a letter from Virginia Benedict, attorney with the law firm Rapport Meyers. The letter was addressed to Walter Chatham, the architect who owns the three parcels on Hudson Avenue and seeks to have their I-1 (Industrial) zoning changed. Chatham had asked Benedict for a legal review of the request and referred her to the Gossips post on the subject. Benedict's letter reads in part:
Ms. Osterink provides a thorough and highly accurate analysis of the issues involved. Her review of the City of Hudson's Comprehensive Plan and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and arguments made to support the conclusion that the requested zoning amendment is consistent therewith are particularly valid.
Furthermore, the definition she provides of "spot zoning"--the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners--is the same definition applied by New York courts. To determine whether a zoning proposal falls within this definition, courts consider several factors, including whether the rezoning is consistent with a comprehensive land use plan, whether it is compatible with surrounding uses, the likelihood of harm to surrounding properties, the availability and suitability of other parcels, and the recommendations of professional planning staff. The ultimate test is whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community. The fact that rezoning affects a small area of land or benefits a specific person is not determinative.
Based on our analysis of your plan, this should be exactly what the City of Hudson is looking for, and the Common Council should have a clear path to approving the rezoning as consistent with the comprehensive plan.
When Planning Board chair, Tom DePietro, who was present at the Council meeting, was asked to comment, he chided Friedman for not coming to the Planning Board meeting but instead relying on "something online." He then told Friedman that the Planning Board's decision not to recommend the zoning amendment "did not hinge on spot zoning" but on their opinion that "the change should be part of a more comprehensive plan." He told Friedman that the Council would get the Planning Board's letter "as soon as our attorney drafts it," but added that if the Council did not get the letter in thirty days, "you can make the decision to rezone it," without a recommendation from the Planning Board.
It was decided that the Council would hold a special meeting to continue its consideration of the zoning amendment, but when that meeting will be held is not yet known.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Election Day is still three weeks away, but it seems some people are already marking their absentee ballots, so it's time to talk about the flip side of the ballot.
There are two proposals (or propositions) on the ballot in Hudson this November. The language for both is long and complicated and hardly the sort of thing voters should be reading for the first time at the polls and deciding on the spot to vote yes or no. So, Gossips will attempt to prepare readers by providing a little proposition primer.
Proposal One (or Prop 1) is the Fair & Equal proposition, which would eliminate the system of weighted voting in the Common Council by redrawing the ward boundaries to create five voting districts of equal population.
Gossips has written often about the inequity of the weighted vote and about the Fair & Equal initiative. If you are still not decided, click here to learn more about the problem of the weighted vote and the proposal--Proposal One--that offers a solution to the problem.
Proposal Two would establish a Service Award Program for our volunteer firefighters. The program works like a defined contribution pension plan. Every year, the City would contribute $700 into a Service Award Program account for each active and qualifying member of the Hudson Fire Department.
The Hudson Fire Department has been an all volunteer department since its beginning in 1794. The Service Award Program would be a reward for dedicated service as well as an incentive to help retain volunteers who are already trained as firefighters and recruit new volunteers to the department.
To learn more about the program, click here to read the resolution passed by the Common Council to bring the proposal to referendum.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
An exchange among friends on Facebook in the past few days revealed that 126 Warren Street, the little house nestled beside the majestic house with the rare cast-iron facade, is the object of some curiosity and most people don't know its story. It's a story that deserves to be told and one that Gossips knows quite well.
At the end of the last century, the house belonged to John Flynn, who in the 1960s, before Charlie Butterworth took on the role, was the city engineer for Hudson. Flynn had used the little house as his office, but by the end of the 1990s, it was clear that the little house hadn't been used for anything for a while. The house had fallen into disrepair. There was a tree growing through the roof. There was talk of condemning it. There was fear it might be demolished.
In April 2000, before there was a preservation ordinance in Hudson, before there was a Historic Preservation Commission, Historic Hudson, then in existence for only four years, stepped in to save the house and keep the streetscape intact. Historic Hudson purchased the house from Flynn for $10,000 and also assumed some unpaid back taxes. With a mortgage from Housing Resources of Columbia County, Historic Hudson stabilized the house. The picture below, taken by Byrne Fone in 2001, shows the house sporting a green sign announcing that the ongoing stabilization was a project of Historic Hudson.
Once the stabilization was complete, Historic Hudson sold the house in November 2002 for $55,000--just enough for the organization to pay off the mortgage and recoup its investment--to someone who agreed to continue the restoration.
The current owner completed the exterior restoration but so far not the interior restoration, and the house, which today is assessed at $131,000, remains unoccupied.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Everyone loves the Dr. Oliver Bronson House, Hudson's own National Historic Landmark. Because of its location, though, on the grounds of the Hudson Correctional Facility, opportunities to visit the house are few. But next Saturday, you have the chance to make the house feel as if it's your own.
Historic Hudson is seeking a few willing and able helpers to take part in the Dr. Oliver Bronson House Volunteer Work Day. From 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Saturday, October 22, volunteers will help clean up from the 2016 construction season, set up an architectural fragment archive, and perform light landscaping work. To be a part of it, contact Historic Hudson by email or phone (518 828-1875) to preregister. On the day of the event, wear comfortable clothes and sturdy shoes, and bring work gloves and eye protection. Light refreshments will be served.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Three years ago, Per Blomquist had a plan to demolish two buildings in the 200 block of Columbia Street--248 and 250--and build a new building that would have five affordable one-bedroom apartments. Blomquist's plan ran afoul of then city attorney Cheryl Roberts' misreading of the bulk and area regulations in the city code, which according to her dictated that the minimum size of an apartment was a palatial 1,500 square feet. The apartments Blomquist was proposing would be about 770 square feet.
Not everyone was happy with the prospect of demolishing two 19th-century vernacular houses, even though they were abused and ramshackle, but the idea of five new apartments that would be affordable for the many twentysomethings who are finding their way to Hudson was appealing. Unfortunately, before a voice of reason could be heard and the misreading of the schedule was acknowledged, Blomquist had spray-painted the buildings gold and moved on.
Now it seems the City, which regularly (and figuratively) wrings its hands over the growing lack of affordable housing, is about to throw a similar roadblock in the path of the self-defined "New Urbanist" architect who wants to build a block of four new row houses on Hudson Avenue.
The problem is that part of the land on which he wants to build these houses is zoned R-3 (Residential) and part is zoned I-1 (Industrial).
The plan came before the Planning Board in March 2016, and because a use variance was required, it was referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA, during the same meeting at which it granted a use variance to Redburn Development to create a hotel at 41 Cross Street, denied a use variance to this project, because they determined that the hardship was self-created: the owner of the land knew, or should have known, when he purchased the parcels, that part of the land he had purchased was zoned industrial. The ZBA recommended that the applicant petition the Common Council to change the zoning.
Months later, in September 2016, an amendment to the zoning law, authored by Third Ward alderman John Friedman, was introduced in the Common Council. The amendment would change the zoning of three parcels on the west side of Hudson Avenue from I-1 (Industrial) to R-S-C (Residential Special Commercial). The Council voted to forward the proposed amendment to the Hudson Planning Board and the Columbia County Planning Department for review.
Last week, the amendment was discussed at the Planning Board meeting, and Planning Board chair Tom DePietro expressed his opinion that, because all three parcels were owned by the same person, this was an example of "spot zoning," which is illegal. He and Planning Board counsel, Mitch Khosrova, agreed to send a letter sharing this opinion and urging the Common Council to undertake a comprehensive revision of the zoning laws, which could take years, instead of making specific amendments.
Spot zoning typically involves property owned by a single person or entity, but that in itself is not the definition of spot zoning. Anderson's American Law of Zoning defines spot zoning as "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners." Granted the proposed new classification is different from the surrounding area--R-S-C (Residential Special Commercial) instead of the simply R-3 (Multiple Residence-Conditional Office), which is the zoning of the adjacent property to the north and all the property across the street--but it hardly seems that the new classification is "totally different" or that what is proposed--building four row houses--would be a "detriment to other owners."
A website called PlannersWeb: News & Information for Citizen Planners elaborates on spot zoning:
When considering spot zoning, courts will generally determine whether the zoning relates to the compatibility of the zoning of surrounding uses. Other factors may include: the characteristics of the land, the size of the parcel, and the degree of "public benefit." Perhaps the most important criteria in determining spot zoning is the extent to which the disputed zoning is consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan.
Hudson's fourteen-year-old Comprehensive Plan doesn't address this specific zoning issue, but it does anticipate the need for new home construction. This paragraph appears in the Executive Summary (p. xi) of the document.
Develop a Housing Strategy
While many of New York State’s urban communities are struggling with strategies to attract middle-class residents, Hudson has already started to
attract this group. Hudson’s continuing revitalization is likely to coincide with increases in the cost of housing (including housing values and
rents). For the most part, this increase in value will be a very good thing for Hudson. However, the challenge for local decision-makers, the
business community and neighborhood residents will be to ensure the benefits of Hudson’s resurgence are shared among all community members.
Consequently, a coordinated, multi-tiered approach must be developed involving the City, the private sector and not-for-profit organizations such
as Housing Resources.
Addressing the idea of new development within the context of the existing city, these are among the policies recommended by the Comprehensive Plan on page 17:
- Sites should be redeveloped at high densities by minimizing lot area and maximizing building
coverage.
- New buildings should be multi-story (two to four stories)--building up rather than out.
- New buildings should be located close to the street and close to each other-- minimizing lot frontage
and setbacks.
- Whenever possible, development should strive for higher density, mixed use development.
The proposed amendment to the zoning law cites additional statements in the Comprehensive Plan that support the change.
The City's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program makes specific reference to the site of the former McGuire Overhead Door factory and its zoning. On pages 74 and 75, the LWRP states: "The City proposes to maintain the industrial zoning but acknowledges that this site has great potential for residential, commercial, and recreational uses. A zoning change in the future to accommodate nonindustrial development would be consistent with the LWRP."
This opinion is reiterated on page 79 of the LWRP:
In the southern waterfront area, the City maintains the McGuire property within an industrial zone because of its proximity to the railroad spur and the existence of a well maintained industrial facility and infrastructure. However, if the land does not return to productive industrial use within a reasonable time frame, perhaps 3 to 5 years, a change in zoning to commercial, residential, open space, recreational use or institutional use to better accommodate the needs of the City at that time the would be supported.
The LWRP was adopted by the Common Council in 2011. This language was added to the LWRP at least two years prior to that. McGuire Overhead Door closed down in 2006. Hence, it is fair to say this site has not returned "to productive industrial use within a reasonable time frame," and it is also fair to conclude that the LWRP supports the requested zoning amendment.
It seems the test of whether a change to existing zoning is "spot zoning" is not if the subject parcels are owned by the same person, but if the proposed new zoning is "totally different" from the surrounding area, if it benefits the owner to the detriment of other owners, and if it is inconsistent with the community's comprehensive plan. Judged by those three criteria, it hardly seems reasonable to suggest that the proposed amendment, to allow the construction of four row houses on Hudson Avenue, would constitute spot zoning.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Later today, from 5 to 7 p.m., the Columbia County Historical Society will be holding its annual meeting and celebrating its 100th birthday at the Secret Gardener, 250 Warren Street.
Members and nonmembers alike are invited to celebrate the historical society's centennial with cocktails, snacks, live music by 2 Note, and birthday cake!
There may still be time to buy an advance ticket. Click here to learn more.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Today is the first day of the Hudson Area Library's Ghostly Gallop Weekend. The day is devoted to cycling. At 8:30 a.m., those participating in the 50-mile event set off. The route takes the cyclists through Stuyvesant Falls to Stuyvesant on the river, then goes east through Niverville to East Chatham and back through Chatham and Ghent. The 25-mile event started at 9 a.m. and runs along the river to Newton Hook to Stuyvesant, then around to Stuyvesant Falls and back through Stottville. The 10-mile event started at 9:30 a.m. and follows rural roads in Stockport and Stottville.
Tomorrow is the day for the classic Ghostly Gallop footrace. The day begins at 11 a.m. with the Kids' 1-Mile Fun Run. The 5K race begins at 11:30 a.m. The "on foot" events begin at Hudson High School on Harry Howard Avenue.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
The Rivertown Lodge, the celebrated hotel created in the building on upper Warren Street that started life as a movie theater and morphed into a motel in the 1950s, is seeking approval from the Planning Board for a platform behind the building, which would only be there twenty weeks out of the year, spanning what would be Cherry Alley if Cherry Alley continued that far east and tucked between the backyards of two houses on Union Street.
Last night, there was a public hearing on the project, and it was standing room only at City Hall. To the surprise of some members of the Planning Board, most of the people in the room were there to support the project. Even the people who live in the houses in closest proximity to the site attested that the current and proposed use of the site presented no problem. The few who were concerned about noise were placated by the promise there would never be amplified music.
When the public hearing was closed, and the board got around to discussing the project, Planning Board member Carmine Pierro, who no longer actually lives in Hudson, confessed that he had come to the meeting prepared to vote no on approving the proposal, but based on the support expressed in the public hearing, he had changed his mind. He was, however, still concerned about parking. Mitch Khosrova, counsel to the Planning Board, cited the city code, which indicates the "eating and drinking establishments" must have one parking space for every three seats. Kristal Heinz, attorney for Rivertown Lodge, explained that the space had different capacities for different uses: if people were simply standing, there could be 100 occupants; if they were seated, it was 71; if they were seated at tables--a requirement, in her opinion, for it to be an eating and drinking establishment--the space could hold only 31 people. Khosrova maintained that 100 people required 33 parking spaces; Heinz argued that requirement only applied when the space was being used as an "eating and drinking establishment," in which instance, its capacity was only 31 and only 10 parking spaces were required.
The Planning Board did not vote on the project last night. Instead it was decided that Khosrova and Heinz would work out the parking issue, and Khosrova would write a resolution that would include "all the things we discussed, so that Craig [Haigh, code enforcement officer] can enforce it." The vote to approve the project is expected to take place at the November meeting of the Planning Board.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
While the battle still rages over Second Ward alderman Tiffany Garriga's appointment to the Common Council Police Committee and her abrupt and public removal from that committee, Roger Hannigan Gilson reports today in the Register-Star that crime in Hudson--both violent crime and property crime--has dropped significantly: "Hudson crime rate takes sharp dip." Without taking credit from his officers, HPD Chief Ed Moore attributed the decrease in crime to socioeconomic factors: a lower unemployment rate and a decrease in the number of vacant buildings in the city--in other words, revitalization.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Gossips' discovery earlier this week of an article in the Albany Evening News for June 19, 1936, about a legal case before New York Supreme Court Justice Russell has inspired research to learn more about the controversy surrounding the construction of the Chancellor Livingston High School, the WPA school building, completed in November 1937, which is now Montgomery C. Smith Intermediate School.
So far, we have learned that in January 1936, when Mayor Fred Wheeler took office, the City's finances were in a precarious state, and, with the country still struggling to recover from the Great Depression, the Commission of Public Charities, which provided relief for a tenth of the residents of Hudson, would run out of money just four months into 1936. The mayor blamed the Board of Education and its $275,000 bond for the new high school for the "cessation of food, shelter, fuel and milk to over one thousand people in want."
In February 1936, Wheeler outlined the City's dire financial situation for the Common Council. The City's bonding limit was $833,925.00. The Board of Education's bond for the new school brought the City's total indebtedness to $911,500.00--over the limit. As a consequence, none of the four banks in Hudson at the time--First National Bank & Trust Company (561 Warren Street), Hudson City Savings Institution (560 Warren Street), Farmers National Bank (544 Warren Street), and Hudson River Trust Company (520 Warren Street)--would make an emergency loan to the City to fund the Commission of Public Charities. It was in this context that the following resolution was presented to the Common Council:
WHEREAS, The state of the finances of the City of Hudson is in a precarious condition due to the approach of the limit of the bonded indebtedness of this city, and
WHEREAS, This condition has been conclusively demonstrated by the refusal of the banking institutions of this city to make an emergency loan which had been properly authorized and approved to enable the city to pay tradesmen who had advanced supplies for relief purposes upon orders of the Commission of Public Charities in the amount of $25,000.00, and to carry on such relief work to May first, 1936, and also to enable the city to carry on some relief work projects which will give employment to the unemployed and remove them from the relief rolls, and
WHEREAS, The action of such banks evidenced their lack of confidence in the credit of the city and is and will be productive of the most unfortunate consequences, and
WHEREAS, The unfortunate financial condition of this city has been brought about by the spending and borrowing policy of the former administration and the issuance by it of $275.000.00 of bonds for the building of a new High School, which issue of bonds has endangered and destroyed the credit of our city and will prevent the issuance of any future bonds for additional improvements for several years,
WHEREAS, This city is faced with a problem of furnishing relief after May first, 1936, without any funds applicable for that purpose, and
WHEREAS, The legality of the issuance of $275,000.00 school bond has been and is here questioned and the correctness of the date upon which such issue was approved has been and is here questioned, and
WHEREAS, In view of the financial condition of the city and the question as to the legality of such bonds, it is of the utmost importance to the city to have such questions determined. Therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Corporation Counsel of the City of Hudson be, and he hereby is instructed to commence an action in the name of the city against the Board of Education, the contracting company or companies and the corporation holding the issue of bonds, and such other persons or corporations as in his judgment may be necessary and proper parties defendants, for the cancellation and nullification of these bonds and for the return of such bonds to the City of Hudson for cancellation and for the cancellation of any contract made for the building of such High School and the return of the money received on such bonds, and to apply to the Supreme Court for an order of injunction to restrain the Board of Education, and to prevent the expenditure of any of the money received on the sale of said bonds of the Board of Education until the termination of this action, and that the Corporation Counsel is further instructed to notify the Board of Education, the contractor, the corporation holding such bonds, the bank where the money received on the bonds is deposited, of the action of this Council so that there may be no claim that they were unapprised of the procedure directed by this Council, and it is further
RESOLVED, That if it be established that this bond issue was brought about by wrongful acts of the Board of Education the Corporation Counsel is directed to commence an action in the name of the City against the individual members of the Board of Education for any damages the city has or may sustain.
Two aldermen--Colwell and Hermance--expressed the opinion the Council needed more time to consider the resolution before voting on it. Alderman Thorn told his colleagues that "in his mind there was no question of the legality of the bond issue since the Federal Government had given its approval." He called the thought of bringing action against the individual members of the Board of Education "absurd."
Despite the suggestion that more time and consideration was needed, the resolution was voted on the same night it was introduced. It passed, with Council president Cartwright and aldermen Barlow, Buckley, Banks, Egan, and Unger casting their 6 votes in favor, and aldermen Colwell, Decker, Hermance, and Thorn casting their 4 votes against. (These were the days before the weighted vote.) Alderman Moy, although present at the meeting, did not vote.
We know the outcome, of course. The court upheld the school board, and the new school was built. But there is more to this story, and Gossips intends to pursue in the minutes of the Common Council.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
This evening, something of interest is happening in the Community Room at the Hudson Area Library, 51 North Fifth Street. As part of the library's Local History Speaker Series, Kelley Drahushuk, whose family history in Hudson dates back to the 19th century, will present "Raising the Dead: Tales from Hudson's Crypts." The presentation begins at 6:00 p.m.
The announcement of the event reads in part:
Long touted as "a virtual treasure trove for historians and enthusiasts of American funerary art," the Hudson Cemetery includes over 10,000 grave sites for a wide range of interesting and notable individuals, including the Proprietors and their ancestors [sic], war heroes, famous artists, paragons of industry, disaster survivors and much more. Learn about the history of the original cemetery, more recent history and discoveries as well as its current layout. All attendees will receive a free map of Cedar Park with highlighted sites discussed in this presentation--do your own walking tour and make new discoveries!
The event, which is presented by the library's History Room Committee, is free and open to the public.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
By now, it's not breaking news. It's been reported everywhere. But, for those of us who have been listening to his music since the early 1960s and are growing old with him, it's kind of a big deal. Today, in Stockholm, Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for "having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." You can read all about it in the New York Times.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Dan Udell's video of last night's informal Common Council meeting is now available. Click here to view it on YouTube.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Tomorrow night, Thursday, October 13, the Planning Board will be holding public hearings on the following projects:
- 80 Green Street--Seeking to amend their application to allow for a retail business and two outdoor tables
- 946 Columbia Street--Asking to change their upper floor, currently used as a residential space, to an office space
- 731 Warren Street (Rivertown Lodge)--Applying to use an outdoor space for a seasonal venue.
The public hearings start at 6:30 p.m. What else may be on the agenda for meeting is not known.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Gossips thought the most interesting story to pursue was a historic one: Mayor Fred Wheeler's attempt, in 1936, to rescind the $275,000 bond issue required to build the Chancellor Livingston High School, now Montgomery C. Smith Intermediate School. But last night's informal Common Council meeting trumped that. It may have been the most volatile meeting yet, with two aldermen leaving, at different times and for different reasons, before the meeting was officially adjourned.
It all started after the resolutions had been introduced (more about some of those later) and the aldermen and the audience had been treated to a PowerPoint presentation projected onto the closed chamber doors and narrated by someone patched in by cell phone. Having come to the end of the agenda, Common Council president Claudia DeStefano asked if any members of the audience had business to bring before the Council. Michael Chameides, who identified himself first as a Fifth Ward resident and then as the chair of the Hudson City Democratic Committee, asked about DeStefano's decision to remove Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) from the Police Committee. Chameides wanted to know why she did it and why she did it when she did.
DeStefano did not have a very good answer. She talked about negative "chatter" about the Hudson Police Department on Garriga's Facebook page, which she admitted she had not read herself but had only heard about from others. Garriga protested that she was using her First Amendment rights on her personal Facebook page.
Alderman John Friedman (Third Ward) rose to tell DeStefano that she was using her political position "to silence a voice." He argued the fact that Garriga's comments were offensive to some was all the more reason for her, as Council president, to insist that she be able to say them without fear of political retribution. He maintained that the primary role of government was to protect the weak from the strong. After an exchange between Friedman and DeStefano that alluded to the Pledge of Allegiance, Friedman told DeStefano, "You have your words. Why can't she [Garriga] stand up and say her words?" Friedman then called DeStefano a "bully." He made reference to a resolution, brought forward by Garriga, which would amend the Common Council rules of order to prohibit any midterm changes in the makeup of committees: "Someday, there might be someone in that chair [referring to exalted chair occupied by the Common Council president] who understands what he is doing. You do not." Friedman then left the Council Chamber, but the discussion raged on.
Alderman Henry Haddad (Third Ward), who chairs the Police Committee, asserted that at the beginning of the year the committee had "set a precedent that no one [on the committee] would say derogatory things about the HPD on Facebook." Central to the bad blood between Garriga and the HPD seems to be a poster she carried in a Black Lives Matter demonstration which read: "No Justice, No Peace, No Racist Police." Haddad maintained that this was an indictment of the HPD, which Garriga and members of the audience vehemently denied. Garriga countered by claiming one of the police officers who had spoken up at the September Police Committee meeting, which occurred soon after Gary Graziano had resigned as police commissioner, was recording the demonstration, an action she alleged was "profiling" the protesters and was illegal.
Kaya Weidman, a co-director of Kite's Nest, defended Garriga, stating that she had been elected based on her views. She told DeStefano, "You are taking your personal opinion and bringing it to a totally inappropriate place in an unprecedented way that is very dangerous and actually steps across all kinds of bounds of democracy."
Throughout the verbal melee, the original questions raised by Chameides were repeated by members of the audience and by Alderman Abdus Miah (Second Ward): "On what basis did you remove Garriga from the Police Committee? Why did you take that action when you did?" The answers, which satisfied no one, seemed to be that DeStefano, motivated by "chatter" on Facebook reported to her by others and comments made at the Police Committee meeting, made the decision to remove Garriga from the committee on the spur of the moment and acted on it in the middle of a public meeting.
Even Haddad, who told Garriga, "There's not one person wanted you on that committee," and alleged that former mayor Rick Scalera had bullied DeStefano into putting Garriga on the Police Committee, had no good words for the manner in which DeStefano removed Garriga from the committee. He criticized her for not dealing with the issue face to face with Garriga and in private, which, he said, a person of character would have done. "Claudia is not a person of character," Haddad asserted. "She made the change in public because she wouldn't have the strength of character to do it properly." Thereupon, Haddad also left the room.
The meeting and Dan Udell's video camera continued. Garriga, addressing the camera, seemed to be denying what Haddad had intimated was some kind of quid pro quo deal between her and Scalera, but chaos reigned, and it was impossible to hear what she was saying. No doubt Udell's camera captured it all, and Gossips will provide the link to that video as soon as it is available.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
Vermont governor Peter Shumlin has proclaimed that henceforward, in his state, today's holiday will be called not Columbus Day but "Indigenous People's Day."
This initiative inspires curiosity about how Columbus Day came to be a national holiday. This account, which appeared in Indian Country: Today Media Network, provides a good summary: "Why Is Columbus Day a Thing? The History Behind the 'Holiday.'"
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
According to an article discovered in the Albany Evening News, in the early summer of 1936, there was a "legal wrangle" going on in Hudson between the city administration and the Board of Education over the construction of Chancellor Livingston High School, now Montgomery C. Smith Intermediate School.
The minutes of the Common Council yield more information about the wrangle. On May 1, 1936, in his address to the Common Council at the beginning of the new fiscal year (the fiscal year did not correspond with the calendar year back then), Mayor Fred Wheeler had much to say about the financial state of the city and about the extravagance of the Board of Education. It will be remembered that in 1936 the country was still struggling to recover from the Great Depression. Wheeler took office at the beginning of 1936. The following are excerpts from Wheeler's address:
As I had good reason to believe upon taking office that the finances of the city were in a precarious condition as well as certain departments, I proceeded to make an investigation under the powers granted by the charter. The information obtained from this investigation enabled me to correct immediately certain evils. All of the departments of this city have co-operated with me in these changes with the exception of the Board of Education, over which I have little or no control. This department still continues on its former policy of extravagance. Furthermore if some means are not devised to check its present course, the City of Hudson will never be able to emerge from the chaotic financial condition in which it now stands. . . .
A bond issue of forty-five thousand ($45,000.00) dollars was sold. It was estimated that this amount with the refunds thereon would pay the necessary expenses of the Commission [of Public Charities] to May 1st, 1936. Desperate efforts were made by the City Treasurer and the selfish interests acting with him first to divert the sum of twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars from relief purposes to the General Fund Account to be credited on, his illegal overdraft which efforts were ultimately defeated. The same official, backed by the same selfish interests and some members of the Common Council, sought to, and have in part, diverted refunds which were properly applicable to relief, to the payment of claims and pay-rolls. These men think more of protecting an illegal overdraft than they do of the requirements of the poor and needy. I was obliged to veto a resolution which was passed under the guise of meeting pay-rolls for the city but the primary purpose of which was to make funds available for the payment of this illegal overdraft.
With relief unprovided for from May 1st, 1936, I caused investigations to be made as to ways and means for the raising of moneys for relief purposes. I did not want to admit to the world that our ancient and beloved city which celebrated last year its sesqui-centennial and was engaged in building a five hundred thousand ($500,000.00) dollars high school, could not take care of its own citizens who were in need of aid. However, the previous administration when it bonded this city for two hundred seventy-five thousand ($275,000.00) dollars, effectively closed the door to any further borrowing except in so far as the city was able to provide for relief to May 1st. We applied to the State, which refused to increase its burden of forty per cent (40%). We then applied to the county. They have not acted. They have been deliberating over a week. While the Supervisors are conferring and procrastinating, families will go hungry; children will go to school unfed and without milk.
Upon these former officials and citizens who fostered the era of reckless spending in this city and the incurrence of an additional issue of two hundred seventy-five thousand ($275,000.00) dollars, I place the responsibility for this city's inability to continue relief. They alone must face the consequences of having caused cessation of food, shelter, fuel and milk to over one thousand people in want. In no other city except Hudson, in no other county except Columbia, could persons responsible for the mismanagement of a city and all its attendant consequences, escape the just punishment for their unfaithfulness to their trust. . . .
I have no recommendations as to the Board of Education for this Body seems to be a law unto itself. It sold two hundred seventy-five thousand ($275,000.00) dollars worth of bonds with an interest rate of four (4%) per cent. Less than two months later this administration sold seventy-five thousand ($75,000.00) dollars worth of bonds at an interest rate of one and eight-tenths (1.8%) per cent. It is apparent that the one and only interest the Board of Education had in this matter was to dispose of the bond issue. The saving of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars a year in interest charges was evidently not even considered.
The City of Hudson cannot, and will not, so far as I am concerned, contribute one dollar more than it is required to give by law to the Board of Education as long as that Body pursues extravagant policies. The Board of Education certainly is not economizing when it pays one firm of attorneys one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars to draw an answer and another attorney five hundred ($500,00) dollars to make an argument of half an hour, which the attorneys of record did not feel they could effectively make. The payment of this one thousand five hundred ($1,500.00) dollars was equivalent to a year's salary of the Corporation Counsel. This is truly something for the citizens of this city to consider.
Also certain salaries paid by the Board of Education should be drastically reduced. They are entirely out of proportion to the salaries paid in other cities of the size of Hudson. As I said previously until this Body shows an inclination to co-operate with the other departments of the city in the present financial emergency, I feel that the city is not responsible to the Board of Education for more than the legal requirements. . . .
The previous mayor, whom Wheeler blamed for the "era of reckless spending," was Frank W. Wise, who served as mayor from August 1933 through December 1935. The Board of Education, which Wheeler castigated for its "extravagant policies," was in 1936 made up of Robert W. Evans, president; Montgomery C. Smith, secretary (and the Superintendent of Schools); Mrs. E. Washburn Scovill, Dr. John L. Edwards, Thomas H. M. Hathaway, and Morton L. Clark.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK
