The State of the City and Its Budget

At last night's informal Common Council meeting, Council president Margaret Morris referred members to the most recent Treasurer's Report, which can be found here. The specific information in the report Morris referenced is on page 2: the actual amount of the unassigned fund balance and what is recommended.  

The recommended minimum for unassigned funds is two months' operating expenditures, which for Hudson is $2,623,614. Calculating according to the requirements of New York State Comptroller's Office, Hudson's unassigned fund balance at the end of 2025 was $1,409, 849. Commenting on the situation, Morris said, "If that was being looked at by the comptroller, there's a very good likelihood that in next year's report of cities under stress, with those numbers, that we will be considered a city under stress."

Morris also told the Council that "in the first pass" of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment's review of the budget for 2027, there is a more than $1.5 million gap between projected revenues and requested expenditures. In the past, such budget gaps have been closed by taking money from the fund balance. It appears that won't be possible this time.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Sidewalk News

The following statement was released today by City Hall.

Due to a materials delay, sidewalk replacement on the west side of N 5th Street between Warren Street and Prison Alley did not begin today. Work on that segment of sidewalk will be performed next Monday and Tuesday.

Both sides of N 5th Street between State Street and Long Alley are scheduled for replacement next Wednesday through Friday. Please heed the No Parking signs to allow the crew ample space for work and equipment, and to avoid ticketing/towing.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

A Statement from the Mayor

Mayor Joseph Ferris issued the following statement about the Planning Board's decision on Hudson Housing Authority's redevelopment plan:

Today's Planning Board vote is a win for both the residents of Bliss Towers and the city. Phase One of the redevelopment project ensures that not only will everyone who calls Bliss home be able to have safe, modern housing, it also means that every single one of them will be able to continue to call Hudson home. As a community, we are stronger when those who are at risk of being priced out can be sure that their housing is stable, affordable, and livable.

I also want to applaud the Planning Board for the work they've done on this application. Having watched every meeting and public hearing, it is clear they took a strong eye for what their responsibilities are as [a] Board to the application before them while ensuring the public had extensive opportunities to comment in person and in writing. They are a testament to what it means to be public servants.

Watch for Yourself

The video of this morning's Planning Board meeting is now on YouTube. It is a little more than 17 minutes long and can be viewed here.

Compatibility Is Not Design Excellence

This morning, at a meeting that started at 8:35 a.m., the Planning Board voted on a resolution granting site plan approval to Phase 1 of the Hudson Housing Authority's redevelopment plan. The resolution can be found here. 

Prior to the vote, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle invited each member of the Planning Board to comment on the project. Veronica Concra said the project as proposed was not perfect, but it was a huge improvement. Kali Michael said it was the best decision for the city and the residents. Peter Spear maintained, as we reported previously, the proposal was "unacceptably institutional." Gene Shetsky said the project was something "we as a city need." Nathan Woodhull opined, "We did a lot of work with the applicant to make the project better." Sara Black said she was "excited for the residents of Bliss to have a safe and dignified place to live."

Before calling for the vote, Bogle made a lengthy statement. What he said about the comprehensive plan and architectural compatibility is particularly interesting.

The comprehensive plan expresses our aspirations for Hudson's future. It isn't a zoning ordinance and doesn't establish the same specific, enforceable development requirements. Nevertheless, our zoning code expressly identifies conformity with the comprehensive plan as a criterion in site plan review.

One of the plan's important aspirations, and a topic that has been a central focus in our discussions, is to repair the harm caused by urban renewal. But the plan doesn't precisely define what constitutes repairing that harm or prescribe how it must be accomplished.

That leaves room for reasonable differences in interpretation, as we've seen firsthand in our deliberations. Some view replacing Bliss Towers with new housing as a significant step toward repairing that harm. Others believe the proposed buildings perpetuate too much of the character of the development they're intended to replace.

Both perspectives deserve consideration. The challenge for this board is that the comprehensive plan establishes broad goals without prescribing exactly how they must be achieved. Our responsibility is to determine whether the proposal is reasonably consistent with those goals, while also applying the more specific requirements of our zoning code. That requires judgment, and reasonable people may reach different conclusions.

Our zoning code requires us to consider whether the height, location, and design of the proposed buildings are compatible with the existing and historic character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Compatibility isn't the same thing as design excellence. . . .

Several characteristics of the proposed design are relevant to that judgment.

The buildings are substantially lower than Bliss Towers, although some are taller than the two- to three-story buildings characteristic of much of Hudson. The proposed brick, stone, and warmer colors reflect materials familiar throughout the city. The articulation of the façades creates a rhythm suggesting individual buildings rather than one uninterrupted wall.

Perhaps most importantly, the buildings establish a more direct relationship with the street and leave open the possibility of connecting First Street to State Street in Phase II. That's a significant departure from the urban renewal approach embodied by Bliss Towers.

These characteristics don't necessarily produce the level of architectural excellence I would wish for Hudson. But in my judgment, taken together, they provide a reasonable basis for finding that the proposed design satisfies the City's current compatibility standard. . .

Throughout this review, we've confronted an important distinction between our aspirations for Hudson and the regulatory standards that guide the City's development.

Today we aren't here to judge those standards. We're obligated to apply them fairly, consistently and with our best judgment.

Bogle's comments also touched upon the future of Bliss Towers, acknowledging that the Planning Board has not "identified a workable mechanism that guarantees demolition independently of Phase II" and the Planning Board's action on Phase I " will not, by itself, resolve the future of Bliss Towers." 

According to a timeline created by Mountco, HHA's development partner, if all things go as planned, construction of Phase 1 will not be completed until July 2029 and the demolition of Bliss Towers will not happen until December 2029.

 

As previously reported, the vote to grant site plan approval was 6 to 1, with only Peter Spear voting against it.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Site Plan Approval Granted

This morning, the Planning Board voted 6 to 1 to grant site plan approval to the Hudson Housing Authority plan for redevelopment. Only Peter Spear voted no, maintaining, as he has all along, that what was proposed was "unacceptably institutional."

Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead

The autumn foliage has peaked, and, in two weeks, we will be back in the dreariness of standard time. While the sun is still setting after 6:00 p.m., here is what's happening.

• On Monday, October 19, the Planning Board holds a special meeting at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to vote on granting site plan approval to the proposed redevelopment of Hudson Housing Authority property. The resolution the Planning Board will be voting on, with its conditions, can be found here. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.

• Also on Monday, October 19, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (BEA) holds two budget workshops. The workshops are hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click on the department name in the list below to join the meeting remotely.
• 2:30 p.m.--Fire Department
• 3:15 p.m.--Youth Department
• At 6:00 p.m. on Monday, October 19, the Common Council holds its informal meeting. On the agenda for the meeting are three resolutions relating to financing for improvements to Oakdale Park, as well as a proposed moratorium on the storage of large capacity lithium batteries in the City of Hudson. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Wednesday, October 21, at 2:30 p.m., the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (BEA) meets to review nondepartmental expenses and revenues. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here to join the meeting remotely.  
• At 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, the Hudson Housing Authority Board of Commissioners holds its monthly meeting. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person in the Community Room at Bliss Towers and on Teams. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
• Also at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, the Zoning Board of Appeals holds its monthly meeting. No agenda for the meeting is as yet available. The meeting takes place in person only at City Hall.
• On Thursday, October 22, Hudson Community Development and Planning Agency (HCDPA) meets at 6:00 p.m. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
• On Friday, October 23, the Historic Preservation Commission meets at 10:00 a.m. At this meeting, the HPC will continue its review and deliberation on the new application for Galvan's Hudson Public Hotel, 402-406 Warren Street, a project which currently is subject to a stop-work order for violations to its previous certificate of appropriateness. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.

• At 2:30 p.m. on Friday, September 23, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (BEA) holds a workshop to continue its review of projected revenues for 2027. The meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here to join the meeting remotely.
• On Saturday, September 24, early voting begins at 9:00 a.m. The polling place for early voting in Hudson is the new office of the Board of Elections at 11 Warren Street. The schedule for the nine days of early voting, leading up to Election Day on Tuesday, November 3, follows:
• Saturday, October 24--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Sunday, October 25--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Monday, October 26--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Tuesday, October 27--Noon to 8 p.m.
• Wednesday, October 28--Noon to 8 p.m.
• Thursday, October 29--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Friday, October 30--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Saturday, October 31--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• Sunday, November 1--9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

A Look Inside

For those who did not attend the grand opening of the Hudson Islamic Center's new mosque today, Lance Wheeler previewed the mosque yesterday, when preparations were still underway for today's event, and created a video which can be viewed here.

Deja Vu All Over Again

Two years ago, in 2024, the Hudson Area Library sought, by referendum, increases to its operating budget from the City of Hudson and the Town of Greenport: $50,000 from the City of Hudson, increasing its annual contribution from $350,000 to $400,000; $10,000 from the Town of Greenport, increasing its annual contribution from $85,000 to $95,000.

Now, just two years later, the library is going back to the well, with referenda on the ballots for the upcoming election in both Hudson and Greenport. In Hudson, the library is seeking another $50,000, increasing the City's annual contribution from $400,000 to $450,000. In Greenport, the library is seeking $30,000, increasing the Town's annual contribution from $95,000 to $125,000.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Kudos for our Comprehensive Plan

Many in Hudson are not particularly pleased with our new comprehensive plan, either the product or the process by which is was created. Be that as it may, yesterday former mayor Kamal Johnson shared the news on Instagram that our comprehensive plan had received a commendation from the American Planning Association New York Upstate Chapter.

In making the announcement, this is what Johnson wrote:

During my time as Mayor, we developed Hudson 2035 the city's first comprehensive plan in more than 20 years. Oh there was so much criticism from so called experts.

Today, I'm proud to share that Hudson 2035 received Gold recognition for Comprehensive Planning from the American Planning Association's New York Upstate Chapter.

There is a nominating process for these awards, which is explained here. The rules state: "Nominations to the Chapter Awards Program can only be submitted by current members in good standing of the NYUAPA Chapter." It is not known who nominated Hudson's comprehensive plan.

Of Interest

The New York Post has an article today about a Target store opening in Bridgehampton: "Hamptons billionaire hub allows first-ever Target--with one crazy rule." What's interesting is not so much the text of the article as the montage of photographs that accompanies it. Look closely at the tote bag slung over the shoulder of the cyclist in the lower left corner. (Click on the image to enlarge if need be.)

Gratitude to the reader who brought this to Gossips' attention.

It Isn't Over Until It's Over

Gossips has been reporting about the proposal to site a 215-acre solar facility in Copake--and the opposition to it--on and off for the past four years. 

Photo: Deb Hall

Today, the Register-Star reports that the fight appears to be over: "State 'did their job' blocking Copake Shepherd's Run solar farm."

A Vision Realized

It's been eighteen years since the Hudson Islamic Center announced its plan to build a mosque at the northwest corner of Columbia and Third streets, eleven years since the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the project its needed area variances, clearing the way for construction, and eight years since the groundbreaking happened with much celebration and ceremony.

Rendering 2015

Rendering 2018

Groundbreaking on April 29. 2018

After nearly two decades of aspiration and planning, fundraising and construction, the mosque is finally completed. The grand opening of the mosque takes place this Sunday, October 18, at 11:00 a.m. 

Mark Your Calendars

On Sunday, November 8, a new documentary by Karl Frederick Mattson about an iconic Hudson landmark premieres at Time & Space Limited. 

Modern Witness: The Future of Hudson’s First Presbyterian Church, a new documentary by Karl Frederick Mattson about one of the city’s most recognizable landmarks, will premiere Sunday, November 8, at 1 p.m. at TSL (Time & Space Limited), 434 Columbia Street, Hudson. Admission is free. The screening is sponsored by the Friends of First Presbyterian Church of Hudson, which also produced the film.

The 34-minute film follows the historic church as it bears witness to the challenges of preserving its past while remaining present. It shows how the future of a community space depends on the people willing to see it and carry it forward. 

The present First Presbyterian Church building has stood at the corner of Warren and Fourth streets since 1837. Its twin towers and Gothic facade, including a rose window designed by architect John A. Woods, were added in 1877, and its east tower houses the official City of Hudson clock. 

The church has long been a gathering place for important community conversations, including the abolition movement. It continues to provide a home to groups that serve community needs, as well as concerts, plays, and gatherings such as Melting Pot, which combine music and food. 

Modern Witness asks what the building needs to remain a living, working place. “For nearly two centuries, the 1837 First Presbyterian Church has served spiritual needs as a place of worship, a space to host Hudson’s social welfare needs, a forum for the great questions of its day, and a home for neighbors working to realize community aspirations,” said Gary Sheffer, president of the Friends of First Presbyterian Church. “Karl’s film could not be timelier. As we work to ensure the church continues to serve Hudson for generations to come, Modern Witness reminds us of what this building has meant to our city, and what it can still be.”

Filmmaker Karl Frederick Mattson said, “Creating this film began as an exploration of a historic building in response to its needs in early 2025, but the process of making it revealed that there was a great deal of story in the people who continued to give the building life. As I followed them, the church clock and its piano stood out as metaphors for the building itself: things that endure not simply because they were built to last, but because someone keeps showing up to care for them. One of the challenges of making this film was finding a way to tell that story of a building in need of care without actually saying it.” 

Modern Witness was shot, directed, and edited by Karl Frederick Mattson of 542films. It features Reid Bielenberg, Stephen Bluhm, Alfa Demmellash, Alex Forrester, Grant Gulla, Chad Lindberg, Adolfo Lopez, Gary Sheffer, and David William Voorhees, with narration by John Craig. Black & white photography is by Grant Gulla, and music is by Stephen Bluhm, Katharine Petkovski, and The Birdhouse Babes. The premiere event will also feature music by pianist Stephen Bluhm and a brief discussion about the church’s future. Admission is free and refreshments will be served.

The documentary trailer can be viewed here.

Another Night with the Planning Board

The main event at Tuesday night's Planning Board meeting was deliberation in preparation for making a decision on the Hudson Housing Authority's redevelopment proposal. A decision was not formally made at Tuesday's meeting, which went on for two and a half hours. Instead the Planning Board agreed to hold a special meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, October 19, to vote on the proposal, after the Planning Board and the public has had a chance to see and study the proposed resolution and its conditions.

Not surprisingly, the alternative "Bliss Gardens" plan submitted by Project7Hudson was not mentioned at the meeting, although the letter from Carla Sadoff, introducing the plan, and a letter from Friends of Second Street, both submitted on Monday, October 12, now appear in the Planning Board portal. The letter from FoSS specifies eleven conditions that should be imposed should the Planning Board decide to grant site plan approval.

Before the Planning Board began its discussion and deliberation, HHA executive director Jeffrey Dodson, who stormed out of the previous Planning Board meeting in a fit of pique, said the site plan review process "has tested our character," but he assured the board, "We are determined to make a better use of the space we have."

When members of the Planning Board had the opportunity to question the applicant, Peter Spear returned to the issue of the number of entrances to the buildings. The issue is based in this statement made in a document submitted to the Planning Board by the applicant in May:

Residents access the buildings directly from public sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and landscaped open spaces, with multiple street-level entrances distributed across each building. Rather than concentrating circulation into a single centralized lobby, entrances are organized to serve smaller residential groupings, so each entry supports a limited number of units. The approach reinforces a neighborhood-scaled residential character and allows residents to enter their homes close to the street or open space, much like traditional walk-up and small shared-entry buildings throughout Hudson.

Alex Gorlin of Alexander Gorlin Architects, who presumably wrote the statement since it was made in response to questions addressed to the architect, maintained that "at no point did we ever have more than one entrance" and stated, "Whatever I said previously was incorrect."

Before the Planning Board began its deliberations on the proposal, Andrew Clark, legal counsel to the Planning Board, read Chapter 325-35 H (2) of the city code, which outlines the grounds for making a decision in the site plan review.

In considering whether to approve a site plan or site plan amendment, the Planning Board shall take into consideration the public health, safety, and general welfare, the general purpose and intent of this chapter, the comfort and convenience of the public in general and the residents of the immediate neighborhood in particular, and shall base such decision upon the following grounds:

(a)  Maximum safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic access and egress.

(b)  Site layout (including location, power, direction and time of any outdoor lighting of the site) which would have no significant adverse impact upon any adjoining or nearby properties by impairing the established character or the potential use of properties in such districts. Any adverse impacts must be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

(c)  The reasonable screening, at all seasons of the year, of all playgrounds, parking and service areas from view of the adjacent residential properties and streets.

(d)  Conformance of the proposed site development plan with the City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan and, where applicable, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, including any applicable policies contained in the LWRP.

(e)  In applicable cases, a drainage system and layout which would afford the best solution to any drainage problem.

(f)  All water bodies, wetlands, steep slopes, and other areas of scenic, ecological and historic value shall be preserved insofar as possible. All site preparation activities shall be conducted with the goal of retaining stormwater on the site.

(g)  Landscape treatment should be provided to enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and visual corridors and provide shade.

(h)  No material or equipment, other than as shown on an approved site plan, shall be stored in the open if it would be substantially visible from adjoining properties and public roads. Storage of equipment and materials should be within wholly enclosed structures approved for such use or should be screened from view by fencing or landscaping, or a combination of fencing and landscaping, as determined by the Planning Board.

(i)  Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height, location, design and signage of each building should be compatible with its site and the existing and historic character of the surrounding neighborhood. Adaptive reuse of existing structures is strongly encouraged.

Conformance with the comprehensive plan being one of the criteria for making a decision, the idea that the project should correct the harm done by Urban Renewal in Hudson, an idea based on a statement found on page 51 of the current comprehensive plan, Hudson 2035, inspired a spirited exchange between board members Sara Black and Spear. In the exchange, Black called the project "a generational lift that the city has been working towards ever since Bliss Towers was known to be structurally compromised," while Spear maintained the project as proposed "is a repeat of the institutional-scale development of Bliss Towers. It is Bliss Towers laid on its side." The entire exchange is worth listening to and can be heard here, beginning at 1:40:07 and ending at 1:47:39.

Regarding the comprehensive plan and its influence on the Planning Board's decision making, Clark pointed 0ut that "conforming to the comprehensive plan is only one of eight conditions, where no one is controlling." Ron Bogle, who chairs the Planning Board, said that he had asked the city attorney, presumably that was Andy Howard, about the legal status of the comprehensive plan. Bogle reported that he was told the comprehensive plan is "an aspirational document designed to inform future zoning, and it has no power of law."

During the meeting, the idea of requiring a performance bond for the demolition of Bliss Towers was discussed at some length. The demolition is now part of Phase 2 and, accordingly to the construction timeline for the project, is likely to happen in December 2029. Regarding the possibility of making the demolition part of Phase 1, John Madeo of Mountco said, "This project is financially stressed now. Adding demolition would make the project infeasible." He added they had tried to get a preliminary letter of commitment from the state about funding for Phase 2, but the state would not do that.

Clark advised that a demolition bond would exceed the Planning Board's authority because demolition is not part of the application currently before them. Black pooh-poohed the concern that Bliss Towers, which she described as a "nine-story collapsing building full of asbestos," would be allowed to "just sit there," saying, "It's in nobody's interest to have Bliss remain, so why are we wasting time on it?"

In lieu of a demolition bond, it was decided that the resolution would contain the condition that HHA shall apply for site plan approval for Phase 2 within twenty-four months or return to the Planning Board to revisit the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) approval. Madeo commented, "In twenty-four months, Phase 1 will be in construction, and the state will see we can deliver."

At one point, Kali Michael voiced a concern about the impact an increase in population density might have on the city. Revonda Smith, who chairs the HHA Board of Commissioners, rose to respond, claiming that Hudson has lost 80 percent of its Black population and saying, "We just want to being our people back."  

After the meeting had gone on for close to two hours, Bogle, explaining that he wanted to speak as a member of the Planning Board and not the chair, said, "There are two main topics here: one is a home for our neighbors; and the other is a piece of architecture that significantly participates in the fabric of our community and in some ways really defines the fabric of our community." Saying he wanted to set aside the housing issue, which he said he agreed with 100 percent, Bogle went on to make this statement:

I spent thirty years in the architectural world, working with architects, planners and urban planners and landscape architects and developers, mayors, education leaders, creating designs for cities, neighborhoods, schools, waterfronts, and affordable housing communities. So, I've come away from that with two powerful perspectives. One is I believe deeply in the power of design to transform communities and to improve quality of life. It's sort of one of my central beliefs that design matters and we should care deeply about the fabric that we create in our communities and our neighborhoods. I also have a pretty strong perspective on good urban design. . . . 

When we talk about design, I'm accustomed to it being a creative process, where there's give and take and back and forth. That's not how the Planning Board works. This is not a creative process. In fact, it's pretty dry and procedural. . . . 

What we do is not about discussing design excellence. The zoning code does give us an architectural role, and it is to do with compatibility, but frankly the compatibility bar is set pretty low. . . . The City of Hudson does not have a written commitment to design excellence. . . . And we need to think about that as a community, because, as I said before, design excellence elevates life. It inspires people. It gives worth. It gives value. It gives dignity. Compatibility is not the same thing as architectural excellence. . . . 

Compatibility is complicated in this particular situation because, in the '70s, the civic leaders at the time changed the nature of the environment around Bliss Tower and created a challenge around what are we trying to be compatible with exactly. Where do we compare ourselves?

I think HHA wisely looked to Hudson more broadly rather than saying we want to be compatible with the people across the street, we're going to step back and look at Hudson writ large and see how do we design a compatibility result that fits with Hudson. 

This is their view. This is what they present. So they recognized, unlike Bliss Tower, which could be Anywhere USA--it was built with materials that don't belong here, the scale was out of scale, it doesn't address the street.

There's so many things about Bliss Tower that are being addressed, and whether or not they're addressed in a way that makes us happy is sort of beside the point, because that's not what we're asked to do. We're asking: Show us how you demonstrate the fact that this is architecturally compatible.  

Bogle then proceeded to enumerate how the project as proposed improves upon what exists--Bliss Towers--to achieve compatibility with the architecture of Hudson.  

• Instead of one nine-story building, there are two (three when Phase 2 is complete) four- or five-story buildings.
• Instead of blond brick, the color of the brick proposed is warmer and more in keeping with the color of the brick of Hudson's historic buildings.
• Instead of a tower in the field, the buildings are actually lining the street. 

Bogle concluded, "I recognize the effort. Whether I agree with the solution is outside of my role as a Planning Board member."

At the special meeting on Monday, October 19, the Planning Board all vote on whether to grant or deny site plan approval. The meeting takes place at 8:30 in the morning, so it's clear the vote will be the only thing that happens at that meeting. 

Before the meeting takes place, the resolution granting site plan approval, with its conditions, will be made available to the Planning Board and the public. In addition to the condition that Phase 2 be presented to the Planning Board within twenty-four months, there are a number of conditions specified by the Planning Board's engineering consultant, enumerated in this document, and two more agreed to by the board: that all the trees used in the landscaping be chosen from the Conservation Advisory Council's list of approved species (suggested Nathan Woodhull); and that all HVAA equipment installed on the roofs of the buildings be shielded from view by the buildings' parapets (suggested by Bogle).

Monday morning's meeting is a hybrid, taking place in person at City Hall and on Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely. 

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK

Breaking a Decades' Long Tradition

It is not known (not known by Gossips at least) when or why the practice of suspending all parking fees for the month of December was initiated in Hudson, but it seems likely that it may have started in the 1970s as a means to lure holiday shoppers back to Warren Street from the strip malls of Greenport. 

Whenever it started and for whatever reason, the tradition has been slavishly observed by every mayor in living memory, until now. The following announcement was just issued by Mayor Joseph Ferris:

My office has decided that there will be no parking holiday for the month of December.

With the transition from quarters to ParkMobile, Text2Pay, and T2 kiosks, we would continue to pay both monthly fees to these companies in December as well as paying Parking Enforcement staff who would be working the month in a limited capacity--parking holiday or no holiday.

Between staff and technology fees, this would cost taxpayers $11,601.42.

As the Board of Estimate and Apportionment has begun the process of creating the FY2027 budget for the City, it has become clear we need to make sure we are making policy decisions that do not leave taxpayers paying for services that we are not using.

Parking fees will be suspended on December 25/Christmas per City code.