<aside>
</aside>
Publication Date: September 7th, 2025
Author: Tanya Malott
Image taken from Times Union, credit to Will Waldron
<aside> 🏚️
Where are the 21st century solutions to the issues of affordable and below market rate housing? Why is anyone talking about how this project looks without actually asking whether this makes any social, financial, or practical sense in 2024? Have we learned nothing over the last 50 years?
</aside>
Putting all low income housing in one location does not improve the lives of people in the building, nor does it improve the neighborhood. If anything it keeps people trapped in a cycle with no plan or vision for a way out. Let’s evolve and get more creative.
Gentrification is real and there is no solution. Hudson has no extra housing to use for this purpose, so everything needs to be built new, at today's prices, using tax dollars in a community with already outrageous and ever escalating tax rates. How does this work?The rule of thumb on costs for a project like this is: 1/3 of the cost is for the land, 1/3 of the cost is for construction, and 1/3 of the cost is the debt service on the land and construction costs. We know what happens when you cut construction costs. We know banks don't like to lower their rates for anyone, and we know the land is a fixed cost. So again, how does this work?
For starters, I'd ask WHY is this project being proposed when interest rates are at historical highs, and why are we building a new version of the same thing that we KNOW does not work? I suspect the answer might lie in the impending expiration of Opportunity Zone tax credits on 12/31/26. Is there a reason I don't see anyone talking about this? What happens when we follow the money to see who benefits most from this project? What do the architects and developers stand to gain? Who else benefits? I’m pretty sure it isn’t the residents, who will live where exactly for the 3-6 years it takes to actually build this new housing?
Furthermore, why are we talking about demolishing buildings built in 1973, when most of this town predates 1900? The problem here isn’t the buildings, it is the maintenance, which we know government does poorly. A new building is nothing without proper maintenance. Is anyone talking about hiring or training for this? Why spend so much money on a project that will end up in the same place without proper maintenance?
I listened to the entire meeting, and I understand there are 135 units of Section 8 housing that need to be replaced here. I also heard that 200 more units at below market rate were proposed. I also read that this proposal is a $220M project, and we know all building projects tend to go over, and a conservative 20% overrun for this is $44M, so let’s call this a $264M project for 335 units of housing, or almost $790K per unit. Does anyone else find this more than a little outrageous for housing that will not be generating its fair share of tax revenue, and will further increase the tax burden on all surrounding property owners?
Solution 1: Buy houses in the area instead of building new. A quick Zillow search (from late 2024) of Columbia County shows 48 houses available at $300K or less. Raise the bar to $550K and there are 140 available homes in Columbia County. I think we can all agree that, given the choice, many people would choose home ownership over living in a low income housing tower indefinitely. (Has anyone asked the Bliss residents if they’d like to own a home? I get that people want to stay where they are, but what if the choice is about renting to own?) Change the parameters to include a 25mi radius around Hudson, regardless of county, and you get about 140 homes at $300K or less. Why build housing in Hudson for $790K when we can buy it within 25 miles for half the price? Why not create a path for the Bliss residents toward home ownership, instead of rebuilding a building that will be falling apart again in 50 years? Why do the taxpayers of Hudson have to repeatedly pay for our government’s failures? (I’d argue a failure of maintenance has put us into this position). This solves the problem for half the price, then leaves the land available for smarter development that will generate reasonable tax revenue for the city. The same government bond used to pay for this proposed development, could be better spent helping people own their own homes. How does this not make more sense? The people who want to stay in Hudson and keep renting can do so via solution #2.
Solution 2: Change the zoning laws in Hudson. This has worked in several small cities across America with similar housing issues. Change the zoning immediately, allow an ADU with little to no govt. red tape (for instance offer 5-10 preapproved plan designs for alley facing ADUs), allow current homeowners a tax break for creating this affordable housing, and offer subsidized loans to build the units. Current property owners could build a small ADU in a year for $350K that would create a 600 to 1000 sq. ft rental unit that could be guaranteed as $1200-2000/mo. apartments for a minimum of 5 years to renters who make $43,000 to $72K/year (this covers some of the teachers and firefighters, from what I heard from the meeting). Offer different sizes and prices. How many current homeowners would like the opportunity to build income producing ADUs to offset their outrageous taxes here? I’ll bet 100-300 would jump on this opportunity. I would. This is such an easy fix. Create all the new housing needed with zoning changes, decentralize low income housing, create more affordable housing, and get it done in half the time.
Solution 3: Build new market rate townhomes with ADUs. After executing either of both of the above solutions, build new, market rate housing at a density similar to State and Columbia between N Second and N Third, with 24 lots per side of the block. Build individual townhomes in keeping with what we already have, not giant towers that separate low income housing from the fabric of the city. Let these be market rate townhomes of 2000-3000 sq ft, with a 600 to 1000 sq ft ADU above a garage on the alley suitable for workforce housing. Let the new owners pay real estate taxes like the rest of us. But also let them own the ADUs to offset those taxes. Increase the RE and school tax base of Hudson with 48 new townhomes (plus 48 ADUs on the continuation of Long Alley) that will help pay for increased maintenance of the water and sewer systems as well.
Solution 4: Do not let Columbia County build on the 11 Warren St. site! That is prime real estate that needs to become 15-20 market rate townhomes, with 15-20 moderate income ADUs on the alley. 15 buildings at $25,000 per year in real estate tax is $375K per year added to the Hudson tax base. 20 buildings (plus 20 tax free ADUs) adds $500K annually to the tax roll. What makes more sense, government offices that cost us money, take up all the street parking, and pay no taxes, when better sites are available (John Edwards school!), or $375-$500K more per year to the tax base with which we could solve real problems? Why should Columbia County have ANY prime real estate in a city that so desperately needs to expand (not escalate) its tax base? Anything that can reasonably be moved to Fairview, should be.
Solution 5: Create new jobs. Train managers, builders, and people to maintain the new public housing, whether that is homes across the county, or ADUs in the center of Hudson. There is no benefit to rebuilding Bliss as a tower, or a group of towers, with a heavy concentration of low income housing. This hasn’t worked in the last 50 years, and it won’t work in the next 50. We know better now, and we can do better. Governments make lousy property managers, and the main failure of this type of project in the past has been a combined failure of management, maintenance, and ownership. Let’s change that. In addition to decentralizing public housing, let’s build in a new system of management and maintenance. Hire and train residents to be property managers. Train residents in necessary skills like construction, plumbing, electrical and garden maintenance. Inspire residents to become homeowners, and help them own real estate they can leave to their children. Public housing needs to be so much more than building towers of 135 units and forgetting about it. We need whole new systems in place before anyone builds a single new building with a pretty coat of paint and a new courtyard, or our kids will be having this same conversation again in 50 years.
<aside> 💡
The following is a Guest Op-Ed submitted by a passionate Hudson Common Sense Reader. The HCS Editors do not necessarily endorse or agree with any Guest-Op Eds published here, but we do believe in sharing ideas — especially heterodox ideas.
</aside>
<aside> 📢
Disagree with this Op-Ed? Great! Common Sense and our Guest writers welcome heterogenous opinions. Argue, debate, disagree… but submit your own Guest-Op Ed **HERE, or write a letter to our editors at **[email protected]**
</aside>
<aside> 📣
Explainer: “Op-Ed" stands for opposite the editorial page. It originally referred to articles placed across from a newspaper’s editorial, typically written by guest writers expressing independent opinions. Now it broadly denotes opinion essays by non-editorial voices.
</aside>
ℹ️ ABOUT
💡 IDEAS
:letters-to-editor: LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
🔍 SEARCH
Art work and inspiration taken directly from The Economist, we are decades long premium subscribers and we do not monetize the art work but use it honorifically. See full Disclaimers, Ts and Cs.