SamPratt.com

The Friendly City (#3)

400 block of Columbia Street, Hudson. The previous entries in this series can be found here (#1) and here (#2).

Merger Mania

At least one item was left off Monday’s list of favorite Hudson political parlor games: the perennial debate about merging Hudson and Greenport back into one municipality.

It’s a lousy idea—one fraught not merely with controversy and complication, but also one likely leave Hudson on the short end of the stick. But since it never stops coming up, I’ll cut-and-paste some thoughts from the last time this idea came up.

There are at least three fundamental obstacles to consider—one political, one practical, and one fiscal:

(1) PRACTICAL. Unlike the hypothetical merger of, say, Taghkanic and Gallatin, merging Hudson and Greenport would be complicated by their different classifications under State law. 

Hudson was created and is classified as a City in the eyes of the State, while Greenport is a Town. These have resulted in each having very different governmental structures, laws, codes, appointees, employees and elected officials. Their existing laws fall under entirely distinct systems, pitting Municipal vs. Town law. Incorporating Greenport back into Hudson (as the City designation likely would take precedence) would thus be a more lengthy, tricky and costly process than for the merger of two towns... especially if residents and leaders of each are reluctant to give up longstanding rules and codes, as they are almost certain to be.

Consider, for example, that Hudson has elaborate zoning, whereas Greenport has no zoning—and has voted down zoning at least three times. Is Hudson prepared to give up the protections of zoning, or is Greenport prepared to accept the oversight its voters and officials have consistently rejected? Doubt it.

Moreover, unlike most of our rural towns which might well benefit from (and be able to swiftly enact) a merger, Hudson and Greenport have a lot of infrastructure and institutions.

For example, both have police forces, and a large Public Works department, including water and sewer systems. Many surrounding towns have neither—the Highway Department is about it.

This again introduces both complications in merging, and more than your average political strife as turf wars break out. One could argue that the duplication of services is precisely why the two must merge—but has anyone noticed any ability to cut budgets around here, or any willingness to give up perks or appointments? Just look at the irrational discussions and selfish posturing which occurs every time reapportioning weighted votes or redrawing districts is raised, either locally or Statewide.

(2) POLITICAL. The demographics and cultures of the two towns are not merely different—they are in many ways diametrically opposed.

On the most basic level, about half of Greenport’s voters are Republicans, and only a third Democrats; Hudson is the reverse. Given that another third of Hudson’s Democrats are actually quite conservative, such a merger would almost certainly make Hudson’s leadership more like Greenport’s politically, rather than the other way around. Hudson has more voters, but Greenporters would easily dominate the elections of a merged two towns.

The immediate effect would be to dilute and diminish the voices of Hudson’s minority groups, in every sense of the word. Not just the African- American and Bangaladeshi communities would find their votes and opinions subsumed to the majority, but the Hudson business community would have a lot less clout as well. A merged muncipality’s government would almost surely become less responsive to "downtown’s" concerns and needs.

But beyond simple party affiliation, you also have very different systems: again, Greenport not only has no zoning, it also has much more of a laissez-faire attitude from building codes to preservation. Sound good to you? Then be prepared for Hudson to look more like Fairview Avenue. Whatever one’s feelings about regulation, resolving these cultural and political differences would be not merely complicated, but potentially ugly.

Considering how much happy-talk we hear from certain quarters about "working together," it is surprising that anyone in Hudson politics would want to open that can of worms. Meanwhile, long-fought battles (such as securing meaningful historic preservation ordinances) would likely be rolled back to where they were 30 years ago.

For Hudson, the effect would almost certainly be to become more like Greenport. Nearly all of the major, wrenching problems Hudson has endured over the past 30 years have involved leaders and voters from the large, more conservative, and Greenport-like 5th Ward, who have supported projects and ideas largely antithetical to the goals of "downtown" Hudson. (Thankfully, that Ward is starting to evolve a bit.)

If merged, "downtown" would become even more subject to the whims of residents and politicians who do not appreciate (and rarely set foot in) Hudson below 7th Street. It would mean at least another generation or two—if ever—before the goals that so many have fought for could be achieved.

(3) FISCAL. Proponents of a merger broadly suggest—without offering a shred of data or other proof—that a merger would give Hudson a bigger piece of Greenport’s sales tax revenues, or that it would somehow “solve” Hudson’s tax issues. Neither assertion seems to have much basis in reality, but in any case the burden of proof is on those who make such sweeping pronouncements.

Consider, for example, that sales tax revenues are all sent centrally to the County, which takes a cut before returning the remaining revenues back to the municipalities on a pro-rata basis weighted toward population. Certain towns (like Hudson) have negotiated with the County to get a slightly sweeter deal than they otherwise might get under their formula.

As a result, the amount of sales tax coming back to a combined Hudson-Greenport would be the same as what each town already gets. And both Hudson and Greenport already have budgets which gobble up those revenues. Unless some major cost-savings were found—which mainly would require a lot of City and Town workers to give up their jobs—there is no "bump" to be expected for either Hudson or Greenport in a merger.

The same goes for property and school taxes: What you see is what you’d get, or maybe worse.

As far as schools go, Hudson is already "merged" for those purposes with Greenport, Stockport, Claverack, and even parts of Taghkanic. The school tax bill Hudsonians already get is usually about half of your property tax obligations. Are people happy with this "merged" situation? Whether one answers "yes" or "no," you already have a merged system—one that incorporates four towns, not just two.

Meanwhile, there is no particular reason to imagine that an assessor for the merged Hudson- Greenport would satisfy people any more than they do separately. In any case, for a merger to help Hudson property owners, there would have to be a disproportionate raise in Greenport assessments, which obviously would raise an outcry there—and the aforementioned political backlash, in which Hudsonians not on the Boulevards would be outvoted. And what, finally, of the purported economies of scale which are the main goal of such proposals? How, precisely, would Hudson and Greenport save real money in the arena of public works, to pick just one of many contentious examples?

The services required by the residents of both would remain the same, as would the infrastructure upkeep. Are people expecting the unique and distinct Hudson and Greenport water departments to hook up to each other somehow? Both recently underwent huge overhauls; trying to meld them would require tens of millions more, paid for by taxpayers.

The unspoken truth here is that real savings would come only through a process for which merging corporations have a million euphemisms, but which properly are known as firings. There would be few savings unless people lost their jobs—lots of people. Maybe the case can be made. But who is prepared to make it? Anyone who witnessed the furor the last time the State considered closing the Hudson prison knows what an upheaval this would cause. Do any Hudson or Greenport politicians have the stomach to tell the people they gave jobs that they are being let go due to a merger?

Let’s be honest—this is a great way to avoid talking about the real challenges faced by local residents. It’s fun, and people can probably argue it to death, only to see it exhumed a few months or years later. Before bothering, someone might want to commission a poll to find out if voters would even remotely consider the idea.

Based on past efforts to enact even modest changes, such as an extension of political terms for Hudson citywide officials (which have gone down in flames every time they’re put on the ballot), this seems mainly likely to waste a lot of energy on something that ultimately would get shot down. I’m not one to be the least bit defeatist about underdog battles, having helped win a few around here. But one ought to be realistic when picking them.

All told, I would propose the opposite idea: Sell the northeastern portion of the 5th Ward (District 5-2) to Greenport. They’d be happier as Greenporters, and Hudson would be much less divided and far more progressive place.

The Friendly City (#2)

County office building, 401 State Street, Hudson. Second in a series.

The Friendly City (#1 of a new series)

 

Chatting the other day with a friend who’s lived and worked around Hudson since the 1980s, we were both bemused by how certain topics come back like clockwork—or bad pennies—every few years.

Each time, these topics instigate slight variations on the previous round’s arguments, invariably resulting in the formation of a new committee—which does little except preserve the issue, largely unresolved, for the next time it reappears as if for the first time.

Among these favorite recurring topics are:

• Parking meters on the main Street;
• Alternate-side parking at night;
• Location of the farmers’ market;
• Handling of snow emergencies;
• The effect of parades on business;
• Driving foot traffic to less-trafficked blocks;
• Moving the State truck route out of town;
• Enforcement of preservation codes;
• What to do about the waterfront; and
• Signage.

The last is a particular favorite of those who are just getting involved for the first time. At first blush, signage seems like a relatively “neutral” topic, one on which rational consensus ought to be readily reached, to the betterment of all. But of course, nothing is so easy in a small town, especially one which insists on calling itself a city.

For most if not all of these topics, less is more. On the waterfront, just institute the unambiguous rezoning instructions of the Secretary of State from six years ago already, and the rest will fall into place. With overnight parking, limit alternate side requirements to the 2-3 nights per week when actual street sweeping occurs. With meters, get rid of them—as Mayor Scalera vowed to do during his first campaign in the early ’90s.

And with signage, Hudson needs fewer but clearer signs. In the age of smartphones and ubiquitous flyers in every store, a walkable place like Hudson doesn’t need directories on every corner lamppost, as is sometimes contemplated. Practically every shop owner is a living, breathing local guidebook.  It does need easily-understood and readily-noticed instructions about parking. (Better yet, just do away with those regulations which require elaborate instructions.)

Rather than gussying up the town with banners and signs, how about first encouraging the removal or rewording of the many signs around town which convey mistrustful or even hostile warnings—telling people not what they can do, but what they can’t.

So for the next week, I’ll be featuring photos of such signs around town. In each case, no doubt the poster felt there was a problem to address—maybe a real problem—but the message is unnecessarily offputting.