In the interest of transparency/context, here is the email exchange between Tassilo von Parseval and myself. Please read from the bottom up
Tassilo von Parseval<vparseval@gmail.com>
To: Rich Volo
Cc: Margaret Morris;
Linda Mussmann <mussmann.linda@gmail.com>; Richard Wallace <richardkwallace@gmail.com>
Tue 7/9/2024 10:22 PM
Hi Rich,
thank you for getting back to me so quickly and as much as parts of your reply are disheartening, I appreciate it nonetheless.
I will send a message to Kamal, Tom and the treasurer soon and express my disgust. The 2024 budget which I checked earlier has indeed earmarked only a little over $13k for the CAC. This is pathetic and there are a lot of frivolous items in this budget that ought to be redirected to something useful.
I had a longer conversation earlier over the phone with Margaret where we were, amongst other things, discussing short-term rentals. I have a very different perspective on SRTs and I believe they are detrimental to Hudson’s economy. I understand that Hudson is very beholden to the proceeds from its lodging tax. I believe this tax should be coming from hotels and not from houses that, if they were available as proper rentals, could offer shelter to a family that would call Hudson their primary residence. There was an article recently that talked about how hotel prices shot up in NYC once the city started to drastically regulate SRTs.
The article puts a negative spin on something that would in actuality be a boon to Hudson. If it was up to me, I would raise the lodging tax to 5.875% (this is NYC’s lodging tax rate), adopt NYC’s regulations regarding SRTs and see nightly rates at hotels in Hudson soar and thus Hudson’s lodging tax income. This won’t of course solve affordability of housing by itself since not all of those 25% of houses considered vacant would be put up for sale or for rent. But some of them would be. Additionally, it would buy some goodwill with the local population who increasingly believes that the City of Hudson is exclusively catering to owners of second homes and/or visitors.
A final point I want to make is that the current (de-facto absence of) SRT regulation is not increasing the number of people here. On any given, miserable Tuesday in February, Warren St is entirely deserted. 80% of shops are closed because Hudson has gone all in on an economy that is seasonal. If Hudson had more primary residents, those folks would be forced to endure the awful winter and spend their money here. Just as I am – I moved here not that long ago but the house that I bought, here in Greenport right across route 66 from Hudson, is my only residence. I therefore spend all my money in Greenport and Hudson and I guarantee you that it exceeds the combined expenditures of all visitors that lodge in a given SRT property in Hudson throughout a year (which is capped to 60 days whereas I am spending money the whole year).
Despite my above complaints, I am excited that you responded so promptly and I am grateful that something like the Tree Ordinance is even being discussed. It is sorely needed. I will continue and think about avenues that Hudson can explore to fund more trees.
Cheers,
Tassilo
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:30 AM Rich Volo <richvolo@cityofhudson.org> wrote:
Hi Tassilo,
Thank you very much for your email.
- The CAC (Conservation Advisory Council), which I’m the chair, is currently reviewing the Tree Ordinance. There are many examples from other municipalities, and we are trying to reach a level of agreement, where trees that provide shade in public areas are not cut down, while still respecting the rights of property owners. It’s not an easy needle to thread. The CAC will send the Legal Committee an updated version within the next couple of months. Please keep in mind that all other members on the CAC are volunteer, and meet monthly.
- The CAC currently has a budget of approximately $13K/year from the City’s budget for more street trees. The trees planted along Harry Howard cost about $40K, via a grant from the state, written by CAC volunteer and Hudson resident, Hilary Hillman.
- Last year, I requested double the amount of money for street tree planting, AND IT WAS REJECTED BY THE CITY’S BEA. (the three-person Board that puts together the City’s annual budget estimates.) If you would like more street trees planted, then please email the city’s Mayor, Common Council President, and Treasurer and ask them to increase the street tree planting budget.
- The Short Term rental tax raise requires an OK from the state. We recently asked the state that the City be allowed to raise it to 5%.
- Considering that the Lodging Tax (including short term rentals) raises over $400K/annually for the City’s General Fund, I do not see it going away. More people in town also helps local businesses that rely on tourist dollars.
- Planting trees on Warren Street has proven difficult because of the wires both underneath and overhead.
- The $30K in event funding is appropriated annually by the BEA as well.
Margaret may be able to address some of the other issues you raised.
Thank you for being engaged.
Rich
From: Tassilo von Parseval <vparseval@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2024 6:03 PM
To: Margaret Morris <margaret.morris@cityofhudson.org>; Rich Volo <richvolo@cityofhudson.org>
Cc: Linda Mussmann <mussmann.linda@gmail.com>; Richard Wallace <richardkwallace@gmail.com>
Subject: The state of the Tree Ordinance
Dear Margaret,
dear Rich,
we’ve been following from afar the fate of the proposed Tree Ordinance. We believe that Hudson should be a city where every street running parallel to Warren Street, as well as Warren Street itself, is lined by trees. Of all investments a city can make, planting and maintaining trees offers the highest return on investment.
Yet, the impression is to be had that this Tree Ordinance isn’t going anywhere. Rick Scalera has been lobbying against it for months and while we don’t agree with the general sentiment, we believe we have an idea why.
The ordinance as proposed absolves the City of Hudson of most duties and places the burden solely on its residents. We assume that that is mostly due to financial considerations – the city, like most municipalities, is cash-strapped.
We have a few questions for you. Both of you are members of the Common Council and probably have an understanding what type of ordinance would be amenable to it. Rich, a member of the Conservation Advisory Council, was most likely involved in this draft whereas Margaret as a prominent member of the Legal Committee recently suggested that this ordinance be revisited.
What would the Common Council say about an ordinance that obligated a city agency such as DPW to plant a certain number of trees every year along its public streets? Even that might still earn the ire of Scalera unless the city was also taking over the maintenance (watering, pruning) of these trees.
We have some ideas on how financing for this could happen but are unsure on how feasible they would be. Here are things that we think should be considered:
Raise the short-term rental tax
The 4% that is currently being levied could be raised by maybe a couple percentage points and those excess proceeds should be used to plant and maintain trees. As a matter of course, we actually believe that there should be an absolute ban on short-term rentals in Hudson given its ludicrous vacancy rate and the precarious state of housing affordability.
We’ve been assured by the mayor (a person known to shy away from anything even remotely tricky) that no such thing could ever pass the Common Council. Assuming for a second that this is in fact the case, maybe Hudson instead needs to go all in on profiteering from this tax even more and turn it into something that is to the benefit of all its residents.
Redirect questionable budget items to trees
If memory serves us right, the City of Hudson allots $30,000 of grant money to various events throughout the year. We believe that these grants subtract economic value from Hudson: Every time a parade passes through Warren Street it’s a nuisance to adjacent businesses.
Reappropriating this budget item would also eliminate some of the frictions that can arise from certain applications. This year there was an extended debate in the Finance Committee on how to proceed with the LatinX parade grant application as it didn’t make the deadline. All of this can be avoided by cutting the grants in their entirety. Their economic benefit is doubtful at best and has never been proven. Meanwhile, very few people, Rick Scalera included, would argue the positive effects of trees that would be around for decades to come.
Create tangible incentives to contribute to a “Tree Fund”
This is an extension to what the current draft of the Tree Ordinance already contains. It stipulates that there be a “Hudson Tree Maintenance and Planting Fund”. This section of the ordinance incidentally was flagged by Margaret as being in need of a redraft, presumably – and not incorrectly – because it is being perceived as punitive while that was never the intent. When Rick Scalera is arguing against the Tree Ordinance on Facebook and elsewhere, this is the bit that he is referring and objecting to. Residents either need to provide an adequate replacement or pay if they intend to take down a tree on their private property.
Making this fund a voluntary component would take the sting out of this complaint instantly. This is however where legal input is needed. We envision this fund to be a charitable entity to which federal income-tax deductible donations can be made. We do not know to what extent a municipality has the ability to create such a structure but tax-deductibility is critical for this to be effective. We, personally, could not think of a more worthy cause to donate money to.
Allow the sponsorship of new trees by Hudson businesses
While also a voluntary component, it is different from the previously discussed “Tree Fund”.
Businesses in Hudson are trying very hard to set themselves apart from their competitors. There are currently limited outlets to do so in that there’s only so many Pride flags that can be flown or BLM signs that can be put up. A business ought to be able to donate money to the city to plant trees. Some sort of token of recognition from the city to the business should exist – either a plaque that is being put up near the tree or even a financial benefit in terms of reduced taxation, however symbolic it might be.
Even if businesses were, in the most selfish way possible, only sponsoring a tree in front of their store, it would still be a tree. Its canopy would provide shade on a 95 degree day where there currently isn’t any.
The above suggestions are at the end of the day off-the-cuff ideas that occurred to us. It took us almost no time to come up with them. They may well not all be viable and we are aware that raising the short-term rental tax would require the approval of the NY State Assembly. If however someone had the inclination to attempt to make a Tree Ordinance a reality, we believe there are a lot of unexplored ideas waiting to be discussed.
We would love to hear back from you, Margaret and Rich, and get your take on how feasible any of the above suggestions are. We are very much willing to iterate on ideas until we have a Tree Ordinance that stands the chance of passing into law in the Common Council.
With best wishes,
Linda Mussmann
4th Ward Supervisor mussmann.linda@gmail.com
Richard K Wallace
formerly member on the Hudson Industrial Development Agency Board
Tassilo von Parseval