Take a moment to ponder this astonishing statistic: Columbia County’s population has not even doubled since 1800. 221 years ago, there were 35,000 people here. Today, there are about 63,000.
This one statistic explains 95% of why our area is now viewed as so “desirable.” Sure, we have a National Heritage River, great scenery, ruggedly beautiful terrain, plenty of agriculture, and lots of historic buildings. But it would be hard to notice any of those things if local population had kept pace with the rest of the nation. We would have hundreds of thousands, or even millions of residents (proportionally speaking). It would take an hour to drive from Hudson to Hillsdale.
How long can that last?
There is a population glacier to our south, and it is creeping northward. Has been for decades.
Events like 9/11 and COVID cause The Glacier to leap ahead, then settle down and resume its slow creep. Longtime residents get alarmed by the big leaps, then go back to sleep and take less notice of the steady glacial deposits.
With more climate, economic and other disasters (recently, the subway and apartment floods in NYC), that constant northward flow will just keep coming, and accelerating.
Frankly, it’s futile to try to stop it. Yell on Facebook about “citiots,” reminisce about the (not so) Good Old Days, pray for them to go back to Brooklyn all you like. It ain’t happening. The culture wars between old and new (and newer) may rage; but the changes will proceed without a pause. Glaciers can’t be stopped.
.....................................
It will not be surprising if mid-Hudson populations explode over the next 25 years. As New York City, Long Island and Westchester become less and less livable, the Taconic and I-87 will be the paths of least resistance for urban refugees (already are). Destinations within a three-hour drive north of the metroplex will keep filling up. It only takes a small percentage of residents from those areas to head north to abruptly transform low-density counties like ours.
For now, population has remained steady, in large part because the increase in households has been accompanied by a decrease in household size: There are more homes, but smaller families. Don’t expect that to continue.
The average family size will stay smaller than it was a few generations ago, but the number of families will keep growing. In Columbia County, 65,000 could easily become 125,000. People will wake up and lament, “What happened to the place I once knew?” as if they never saw it coming. And then look around for scapegoats to blame, other than ourselves.
Across the River, you’re already hearing a lot of grousing about developments like the “massive” Winston Farm project, which would cover some 800 acres. According to published reports, this would include not just standalone homes, but also multi-family units... along with “an indoor waterpark resort,” plus “job incubators, an amphitheater, event space, camping spaces and an old mansion on-site that would be turned into a boutique hospitality space.
Oh, and an “agrihood concept,” whatever that is.
All that sounds pretty undesirable, at least at this moment. Honestly, this observer doesn’t like it one bit. Nor should anyone buy the developer’s carefully-massaged sales pitch, cribbing buzzwords and concepts from “smart growth” advocates as selling points.
Still, Winston Farm may look tame or even enlightened in retrospect, compared to what else may be coming. The pressure to slam in half-acre cookiecutter developments is going to be immense in the coming years, as realtors run out of existing housing stock to sell.
Then distressed farms and other larger properties owners, unable to foot their tax bills, will be glad to cash out to developers. They’ll retire to the Carolinas or Florida… only to get their comeuppance from heat and hurricanes. But that’s another story.
City buyers who 20 years ago would not “settle” for less than a handsome falling-down farmhouse on 20+ acres may in another 20 years come to feel fortunate to find a condo within sight (and earshot) of the Parkway or Thruway. Beats living with an elevated train 10 feet outside your apartment window, not to mention floodwaters up to your knees. And empty grocery shelves. They’re not going to feed millions from bespoke rooftop gardens.
.....................................
Many fantasize that land trusts will save us from this quandary. Their project is to raise money from ultrarich residents to put farmland and forests out of the reach of developers. Problem is, most if not all of these trusts have highly corporate-friendly boards, who are as terrified of controversy as they are inclined to “compromise” with (read: reap major donations from) developers. Often, these boards are populated by developers themselves.
Covenants meant to protect open space forever will get modified or even abandoned as the land rush accelerates, greatly augmenting these trusts’ coffers. Release 200 acres here to development, then sprinkle a little of the developer’s donation on one corner of the land for a small public park or farmer’s market, to appease any pesky critics. As once said by Ned Sullivan of Scenic Hudson—who placidly made a deal with a fossil fuel power plant behind the backs of activists, in exchange for a multi-million donation to his organization: Development is something they only seek to manage, not oppose.
Such all-but-ineveitable sellouts will be justified as necessary triage. We’ll come to accept the “curation” of growth, and try to make the best of things. In reality, we would be relegated to selecting the least worst option.
So what can we do to prepare for the inevitable? For starters, certainly support local agriculture to lessen their temptation to sell to developers. Get as many of your groceries and other essentials from local sources.
While we’re at it, tell your neighbors hyperventilating about solar farms to knock it off. We are headed for not just global warming, but global catastrophe. Every inch of solar generation—whether it is located here, or in Nebraska, or Siberia—benefits everyone to the extent that solar replaces fossil fuels and the carbon emissions which result from them. It also helps keep space relatively unspoiled. Solar can always be pulled up, and the soil will still be there.
Also, tell your newly-minted neighbors—whether longtime locals, or new arrivals from Manhattan—to not just register to vote, but to vote in more than just national elections. As reported here, turnout from the 2020 Trump-Biden tilt dropped precipitously in 2021, dropping off 43% just a year later. This demonstrates that many voters have yet to understand that local elections actually affect their quality of life (and pocketbook) more than Federal ones.
If you want to be able to recognize this place in 20 years, get involved. Support better zoning and more sensible local officials. Oppose boneheaded ideas that would truly destroy the health and character of the area; don’t oppose trivialities. Rather than railing at out-of-place newcomers, or mocking the supposed backwardness of old-timers, focus on solutions that will meaningfully lessen the dramatic changes heading our way.
That should include relatively low-impact and contextual new housing stock, built while we still have time, not in a hurry... before the pressure reaches crisis levels, and every pasture gets turned into Levittown.
A sharp-eyed downtown Hudson resident forwarded this link to a Chelsea Now article about a meeting of Community Board 4 in Manhattan, which includes the following report:
[District Manager Bob Benfatto] noted that a recent tour of the Lantern Group’s holdings near Hudson Yards revealed that their building on West 51st Street was in poor condition, with vermin and bedbug infestations, crumbling stairwells and sloping floors.
That article was published just a few months ago. Lantern would appear to have purchased the 144-unit building at about that time for $8.6 million. It’s not clear if they had a prior relationship managing it or not.
But as noted here previously, a CBS News investigation in 2008 of buildings managed by Eric Galloway’s Lantern Group on the Upper West Side found similarly grim conditions:
“When you go inside and you see how they actually maintain these buildings you realize they're not there to necessarily help this vulnerable population, they're there to make a profit,” said Ime Nsa Imeh of Manhattan Legal Services. [... R]esidents also share their rooms with rats, mice, roaches, bedbugs and, as this building inspection shows, dangerously toxic black mold. [73-year-old resident Rolande Cutner] says it wasn’t always so—just since The Lantern Group took over.
In 2008, CBS News in New York City reported on the Lantern Group, a non-profit housing developer controlled by Eric Galloway. Lantern is listed as a partner in a proposed City of Hudson combined police, court and housing project, along with the new Galloway-back Galvan Initiatives Foundation. (Galvan's record of complaints and violations was reported upon in detail here earlier this week.)
The video of this CBS report has vanished into the internet ether, but a transcript can still be found (with enough Googling) online. It is reproduced below. (Acronym irony alert: The HPD referenced in the transcript is not the Hudson Police Department, whose Chief and union have opposed the combined facility plan, but rather NYC's Housing Preservation Department...)
The Lantern Group Took Millions From NYC To Provide Affordable Housing For Less Fortunate, But Has Failed
Housing Preservation & Development Department Shuns Interview
Reporting: Don Dahler
NEW YORK (CBS) — Many of New York City's less fortunate have been forced to live in filth.
A CBS 2 HD exclusive investigation has found that a non-profit group that promises to provide housing to the City's most vulnerable was doing anything but that.
"The Lantern Group" took millions of dollars from the city to provide clean, safe and affordable housing for the mentally ill, recovering drug addicts and others in need.
Instead, they've living in deplorable conditions, and you're paying for it.
On East 118th Street, Maria Montalvo lives with HIV in an apartment that is filthy and in disrepair. The Lantern Group built Schafer Hall seven years ago, and recently took over its management, or, as Maria says, its mismanagement.
"On the fourth, fifth floor they found a man who was dead for four days," Montalvo said.
The Lantern Group was charging Maria over twice the federally-limited rent. Manhattan Legal Services sued.
"When you go inside and you see how they actually maintain these buildings you realize they're not there to necessarily help this vulnerable population, they're there to make a profit," said Ime Nsa Imeh of Manhattan Legal Services.
On West 94th Street, in a building named St. Louis Hall, managed for the past two years by The Lantern Group, 73-year-old Rolande Cutner, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, shares her tiny room with dozens of stuffed animals.
"Because I live alone so I want to make sure I'm not alone," Cutner said.
Unfortunately, she and other residents also share their rooms with rats, mice, roaches, bedbugs and, as this building inspection shows, dangerously toxic black mold.
Rolande says it wasn't always so -- just since The Lantern Group took over.
"They let the building really deteriorate," she said.
Attorney Michael Hiller, who is representing the tenants, said he is horrified by the conditions.
"From everything I've seen so far, The Lantern Group is a slumlord," Hiller said.
The Lantern Group's mysterious president, T. Eric Galloway, wouldn't talk to CBS 2 HD. But we did find his 6,000 square-foot mansion in Hudson, N.Y., one of many properties he's managed to buy on a $100,000 salary.
CBS 2 HD asked the city's Housing Preservation and Development Department for comment. The HPD is the agency that oversees this kind of subsidized housing. It's the same agency that just handed a $15 million, interest-free loan to The Lantern Group to develop the St. Louis into housing for the mentally ill.
The HPD declined CBS 2 HD's request for an interview, saying we were being unfair to The Lantern Group.
In an e-mail, an HPD spokesman said, "Clearly, a story that raises allegations about The Lantern Group requires an opportunity for them to respond."
Even when we explained to HPD that over the past seven months we repeatedly requested an interview with anyone from The Lantern Group and were turned down, the Housing Department still refused an interview.
So here's a suggestion for HPD commissioner Shaun Donovan. Come on camera to explain this. Or better yet, take a tour of The St. Louis with me, and we'll see who's being unfair to the people you should be looking out for. Not the ones you evidently are.
Recently, unnamed persons at the new Galvan Initiatives Foundation—which is forging ahead without approval yet as a nonprofit by the IRS—took shots at David Marston, who was elected by a very large margin to represent Hudson’s 1st Ward on the Common Council. Galvan called recent statements by the new Alderman “innaccurate,” “misleading” and “demonstrably untrue.”
But a detailed look at New York City public records, below, appears to back up Marston’s position.
Image: TomSwope.com
The fledgling fund’s testy reply to Marston is oddly anonymous. It thus could be the work of one or both of its co-founders Eric Galloway and Henry Van Ameringen, or special advisor Rick Scalera, or director Tom Swope, or some hydra-headed, Shiva-armed combination thereof— which one prefers not to visualize... Anyway, it’s Swope who has gone out on a limb to defend Galvan’s tantrum on Carole Osterink’s Gossips of Rivertown blog, saying that “the violations [Marston] finds on the website are misleading.”
Galvan was reacting to a Register-Star article stating that Marston wanted to “bid out contracts” on a proposed hybrid police station, court and low-income (or maybe homeless) housing facility to be sited at the corner of 4th and State.
Alderman Marston
Marston, according to the Register, cited “a questionable history with other Lantern buildings” as driving his rationale. (The Lantern Organization, formerly the Lantern Group, is a nonprofit controlled by Galloway in NYC, which has proposed several projects in Hudson that never got off the ground, including an outsized homeless facility smack-dab in the center of Hudson’s business district.)
The paper further claimed that Marston alleged 11 Galloway buildings in New York City “average 26 department or building violations per building.” That’s what prompted unnamed Galvan reps to fulminate that this is “demonstrably untrue” and that Lantern has never “failed any inspections.” But Galvan’s overheated response is long on bluster and short on demonstrable hard evidence, citing a total of zero specific, outside sources. Instead, Galvan trumpets only their own sweeping assertion that they’ve researched “all public records.” (Really? All? Like Sarah Palin answered the question about which newspapers she reads—“All of 'em”?) The faceless Foundation then triumphantly declares that it has has conclusively ratified their own argument. (Take that!)
But Galvan did not stop there. The Foundation then launched into a broad attack on Marston’s credibility, describing his position as “inaccurate and misleading,” insinuating that he and two other elected Aldermen must have some other nefarious secret “agenda,” such as being insufficiently sympathetic to the disadvantaged, a quality Swope himself has not been known to evince in the past. (More on that some other time.)
Now, Marston is known to his constituents as a bright, diligent and responsible neighbor; that’s why he was elected so handily. So it is hard for most to imagine, as Galvan would have us believe, that he’d make up such an assertion from whole cloth. (Of course, there is also the separate matter of whether he was accurately quoted by the Register.)
So how to resolve this stark discrepancy? At Gossips, Marston suggested a simple way this could be done:
I encourage anyone to go to the NYC Dept of Buildings online [...] and explore the Lantern violations themselves. GalVan can marshall lazy deceptions about my ‘prejudices’ against the people supportive housing helps, or they can listen to those very people, and speak to the hundreds of complaints they have lodged against Lantern through the NYC DOB.
Not a bad idea: Rely on an independent, outside source to settle the matter.
The evidence would seem to be squarely on Marston’s side. To the best of this site’s knowledge, each of the following 11 buildings which appear in the New York City Department of Buildings public information system is either owned by and/or managed by the Lantern Organization or associated groups. Spot checks trace these buildings’ addresses back to Lantern, and in any case all of their pictures appear on Lantern’s website.
If you average the number of complaints on file per building, it computes to 26.18—which rounds down to 26, just as Marston reportedly said. If you average the violations, you get 26.91—which rounds up to 27. Below is a building-by-building report:
• 1384 Fulton Avenuea/k/a Amber Hall, in the Bronx (BIN# 2115578): 21 complaints and 13 violations are on record, 8 of them currently “open” or “active.”
Just this morning (April 3rd), a complaint was lodged that “all the doors to the stairwells are locked, only security has the keys. If you go in the stairs you cannot go out. No secondary means of egress in case of emergency.” In the meantime, another complaint lodged says that one of the building’s elevators has been out of order for a week. These complaints have been assigned to the Building Department’s Emergency Response Team and Elevator Division. (Another complaint about one of the building’s elevators was lodged on January 5th, and is still active.) Past problems include other items like a $500 fine related to the building’s boiler
• 111 East 118th Streeta/k/a Schafer Hall in Manhattan (BIN # 1087381): 6 complaints and 30 violations are on record, 2 of them currently “open” or “active.”
Lantern lists this as a building they manage on their website. For example, this building has an active boiler violation dating back to late 2009, and another from 2011 for failing to file a boiler inspection report. (Boilers, elevators and missing reports are a recurring theme of these records.) In 2010, a violation notice was served after a caller reported that both elevators “in a six story b[ui]ld[i]ng are out of service” with disabled tenants.”
• 333 Kosciusko Streeta/k/a Clover Hall, an “immediate care facility” in Brooklyn (BIN# 3332251): 13 complaints and 13 violations are on record, none currently “open” or “active.”
In December of 2010, a complaint similar to the one above at Schafer Hall alleged that the building’s elevator was “not working properly” and that there were “disabled people (HIV)” who “need this elevator.” A violation was served in June of 2011 after an inspection in May.
• 440 West 163rd Streeta/k/a Audubon Hall in Manhattan (BIN# 1087429): 15 complaints and 7 violations are on record, none currently “open” or “active.”
Like several buildings above, this one has multiple complaints on file about an elevator being out of service. However, by the time an inspector came out—typically several months later—the elevator apparently was back in service. Complainants noted that there were disabled people in the building (“everyone has AID[S] and many are in wheelchairs.”)
• 194 Brown Placea/k/a Leeward Hall in the Bronx (BIN# 2114428): 22 complaints and 16 violations are on record, 1 currently “open” or “active.”
As with other Lantern-managed properties, a lot of the complaints and violations on record have to do with uninspected boilers or problems with the the elevators. For example, a $500 penalty was levied in 2005 related to the boiler. (Once fines are paid, the Buildings Department lists such violations as “dismissed,” which to most readers sounds like there was no merit to the complaint, when it actually means that it was resolved by a fine.) Other complaints can stay active for long periods of time, without a resolution. For example, in May of 2011 a caller alleged that “there is an unlicensed super altering the boiler.” The Buildings Department sent out an inspector twice on August 2011, but s/he was “unable to gain access” to the building. There is no indication that the inspector went back on a later date, or that the caller’s complaint was ever resolved.
• 1856 Washington Avenueat 176th Street a/k/a Silverleaf Hall in the Bronx (BIN# 2112853): 9 complaints and 24 violations are on record, 4 currently “open” or “active.”
As is so often the case, this building has four open tickets for elevator problems dating from March 2011 and Febraury 2012.
• 2612 Broadwaya/k/a Huntersmoon Hall in Manhattan (BIN# 1056409): 25 complaints and 47 violations are on record, 2 currently “open” or “active.”
Surprise: The active items (going all the way back to August of last year) are for an elevator problem. A notice that a $2,500 fine would be levied for “failure to maintain [the] building in [a] code-compliant manner” was served on the management on September 26th, 2011, apparently due to failure to service a fire extinguisher and “remove water from [a] pit.” A hearing date is schedule for Thursday the 5th, with the City still awaiting proof of correction and payment of the fine.
• 863 Melrose Avenuea/k/a Jasper Hall in the Bronx (BIN# 2116638): 11 complaints and 37 violations are on record, 2 currently “open” or “active.”
A stop work order was served on the building in 2008 because no overhead protection had been put over the “entry walkway” to prevent residents from being injured by construction. As an example of how landlords technically can comply by responding to City officials, while leaving tenants at risk, the complaint was received on April 26th, but only resolved (without a fine) on June 2nd.
• 730 Beck Street/745 Fox Streeta/k/a Cedars/Fox Hall in the Bronx (BIN# 2005517): 8 complaints and 6 violations are on record, 2 currently “open” or “active.”
There is an active violation listed for, you guessed it, a problem with the elevator reported in February of this year
• 319 West 94th Streeta/k/a St. Louis Hall in Manhattan (BIN# 1034178): 146 complaints and 93 violations are on record, 22 currently “open” or “active.”
This appears to be by far the Lantern-managed building with the most extensive record of problems. Renovations appear to be in progress. The most recent active violation on record dates from just a month ago (March 6th). According to the City’s records, work is “taking place outside [the] scope of plans,” with construction “contrary/beyond approved plans/permits.” In January of this year, a neighbor complained of construction debris “falling all over,” but the Buildings Department sided with management. In late November of last year, another still-active problem was cited about exposed “high beam bulbs” on the construction site bothering neighbors.
• 260 West 99th Streeta/k/a Bilander Hall in Manhattan (BIN# 1056413): 12 complaints and 10 violations are on record, 2 currently “open” or “active.”
A wheelchair lift elevator is the subject here of an ongoing investigation, begun last month, for possible defective or exposed electrical writing. A “professional certification compliance audit” is also underway. In January 2010, the City investigated the building for construction “taking place at the location, throughout the building” with “no permits posted.” An inspector cited a “failure to maintain and clear and [sic] unobstructed corridor and passageway,” with a violation issued.
ENDNOTE: In fairness, it should be said that not all of the complaints on file are borne out by the Building Department’s investigators, and some of them may date back to previous owners or managers. (That’s why the above narrative of specific problems focus only on relatively recent ones.) In New York City, more perhaps than most places, you are going to get some unusual tenants who make a career of phoning in complaints to the building department. For example, a caller claimed that there were illegal offices on the 1st floor and cellar, but an investigation found that the certificate of occupancy allowed for them.
By the same token, NYC is notorious for, shall we say, the cozy relationships which often exist among bureaucrats, inspectors, superintendants and building management. In many cases, the long lag times between when complaints get filed and an inspector shows up gives management a lot of opportunity to clear things up before things ever get to a serious enforcement action, though the timeframe is probably a lot longer than tenants would like.
All that said, it appears from the record that many complaints and violations required some action by the City, and some resulted in fines or other corrective action.
Over at The Gossips of Rivertown, Carole Osterink has a post entitled Hudson Renaissance Blamed for Homelessness, taking to task a Reg-Star report on a County housing study.
Those of us who remember Hudson in the ’70s and ’80s—I grew up about 20 miles to the east, and moved to the Not-So-Friendly City in the late ’90s—don’t remember there being any abundance of quality, affordable housing here. But we do remember there being a surplus of abandoned buildings, as well as grossly substandard housing managed by slumlords. Much of the “affordable” housing was often more suitable for squatters than families.
Sure, you could rent stuff for cheap back then. But dirt cheap might also mean a dirt floor. Whether a tenant could get heat, hot water, a roof that didn’t leak, safe wiring, decent appliances and a vermin-free home was another matter entirely. Enforcement of the most rudimentary requirements—for example, that landlords at least provide working fire alarms—only came about more recently.
So any suggestion that Hudson was once some kind of renter’s paradise ignores several decades when City Hall and HUD turning a blind eye to substandard housing, egregious code violations, and landlords soaking Section 8 for guaranteed rents, while their tenants suffered their neglect.
Does anyone seriously think Hudson would be better off if Gellert and Kravitz got all of their buildings back?
It’s certainly true that some multifamily buildings have been converted to single-family dwellings. But it’s also true that many buildings are sitting either empty or seriously underutilized. The practice of “warehousing” apartments (keeping them off the market, in anticipation of a bigger payday at a later date) is a topic I dealt with in depth last Spring.
Rather than scapegoating those individuals who risked their own time, money and sweat equity to improve one building so they could live in it comfortably, why not pose these questions to those few speculators who have bought large buildings, emptied them of their existing tenants, and left them unused for five or more years?
Ask Eric Galloway why the large apartment house on the corner of 2nd and Warren is still locked up; or Eleanor Ambos what she plans to do with her huge Allen Street and Union Street properties. Ask why Richard Cohen’s buildings on Warren and Fourth are likewise sitting fallow, with neither renovated apartments nor the long-awaited hotel. Instead of pointing the finger at those taxpayers who are filling the City’s coffers and taking pride in their homes, ask why other absentee owners are keeping so many units empty. Even a casual stroll around Hudson will turn up a big inventory of opportunities to house people and alleviate rental pressures.
Whether such buildings and apartments would be best used as temporary homeless shelter, or instead as affordable housing, is a separate debate. But if the City better served the latter, there might be a lot less of the former...