<aside>
</aside>
Publication Date: July 15th, 2025
“Grant Ponzi Scheme” is a reference to the Strong Town movement’s “Growth Ponzi Scheme”.
<aside>
Why did the City of Hudson not budget and allocate reserves when it committed in 2022 to spend $110k?
Hudson is poised to accept a state grant to renovate Oakdale Park, but doing so requires a $110,253 city match and commits taxpayers to years of unbudgeted maintenance and future expansion. This is not a gift, but a liability masked as progress, emblematic of a broader pattern of well intentioned short-term thinking and grant-driven governance. True fiscal responsibility, in this case, may demand cost-sharing with Greenport, budgeting for ongoing maintenance, and awareness (possibly limits) on 3rd parties shaping policy without accountability or democratic input.
</aside>
In 2022, the City of Hudson received an Environmental Protection Fund Grant to rehabilitate the Oakdale Lake playground and today the City of Hudson Common Council is scheduled to vote to approve and accept the grant by committing to a one-time matching payment. When the City voted to approve the original application, in better times, it should have set aside the matching funds but failed to do so.
But in reality the City will be voting to raise taxes on future residents and setting an unwise precedent that will backfire.
<aside> 🐮
Oakdale Park and its storied history, along with the City of Hudson Youth Center, is held in such reverence, the product of generations of struggle, that criticizing it, let alone indirectly (lobbyist) Peter Frank, is tantamount to poking a Holy Cow, while tap-dancing on a **Third Rail,** and setting fire to a Sacred Totem on Hudson’s holiest of days. And that is exactly why we should ask questions of fiscal discipline, balanced budgets, and the gaps in the City that lead to deficits.
This does not mean Oakdale will not be rejuvenated, nor that any resident, your editors included, wants to halt its revitalization. Quite the opposite. But as the editorial makes clear, this is not about Oakdale. It is about financial PROCESS, Council discipline, and unchecked budgetary expansion. Not the what, but the how.
A functioning City Hall and a wise citizenry scrutinize spending, whether it concerns the most beloved City asset (Oakdale?) or the most contested properties (Galvan Housing?). That is why we have laws. That is why City Charters exist.
As James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers, laws exist to prevent factions from advancing interests “adverse to the rights of other citizens.” They ensure cities act for the common good, not to reward the well-connected or presently popular.
</aside>
The larger grant was heralded as a win, in 2022 and last week. But buried in the small print or forgotten by City officials: the city must (or had to) set aside and contribute $110,253 of its own cash money in a separate capital account, and should have budgeted those funds in 2022, or last year. This grant is not a gift. It is a bill, that may grow into a small financial liability with annual and unknown maintenance costs. Of course Oakdale maintenance may not be significant, but other capital projects do have enormously spiraling maintenance cost that if neglected can be very costly. See Hudson’s misadventure with sidewalks. If you love Oakdale and have a hard time separating the emotional and the procedural, then swap out “Oakdale” for “7th Street Park” or the “Riverfront Park,” or some forgotten public space that is not beloved, when you read this editorial.
The grant was championed by Peter Frank, founder of Friends of Hudson Youth, with help from the City of Hudson and the Spark of Hudson, and others. Peter fairly points out to our editors that the Laberge Group (an Albany based grant and municipal planning consulting firm) first applied for the grant on behalf of the City, and that the then Common Council voted to support it. His civic commitment is admirable. But this is a textbook example of what Strong Towns calls the Growth (or should it be titled Grant) Ponzi Scheme: cities chasing short-term capital injections for shiny new projects, often grant or donor funded, with limited or no planning for long-term operations or upkeep. Hudson is once again chasing flash while ignoring fundamentals. We bought something with leverage, using and IOU, or the municipal version of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) and now when the final payment is due we do not have it.
The City of Hudson now runs an almost $1 million annual budget deficit. It is, fiscally speaking, on fire. It has failed to pursue, as a matter of policy, hundreds of thousands in unpaid property taxes. The now lame-duck Mayor and Common Council President has delayed the City-wide tax-reassessment for more than 8 years for political reasons leading to unequal and some say unlawful tax burdens. Sidewalks crumbled, and yet another tax was levied. The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Add to this mess a growing list of Article 78 challenges due to the missteps of Theresa J’s Planning Board, and Welcome Stranger Tax lawsuits, and you have several budget categories that, like the City of Hudson Youth Center, grows on its own accord. The City’s parking meters are coin operated. And tonight, for the umpteenth time residents will descend on the Fire House to see Planning Board dysfunction on the Colarusso Waterfront fiasco. And yet, the city is signing up for a new unfunded liability for a discretionary park. Meanwhile, the largest landowner in the City just announced that it is gifting most of its holdings to Bard College, who is yet to announce their plans, and its impact on Hudson’s parks and amenities.
Hudson's recent DRI-funded waterfront projects are a warning. Delayed, various debt requirements and complications, and broadly regarded as underwhelming, the result felt like a bad cat-fishing dating app experience: The profile promised charm and hope. The reality was late, aging (infrastructure), with none of the promised character or function. Will the Oakdale Park be built and managed by the same parties who built and managed the construction of the DRI funded infrastructure? See **DRI plan vs. reality (Gossips of Rivertown, henceforth “GoR” link)See the infamous stairs to the train station (GoR) promise and reality, here is a crowd throwback to **Mark Allen’s “wickedly sardonic” satire video on Hudson’s infrastructure (GoR).
Worse, grants like this embed hidden costs. Politicians and their hanger-ons love a ribbon cutting for a new playground or stadium. No one budgets the annual maintenance costs and life guards. Over time, these recurring costs balloon the budget and leave cities dependent on the whims of well-meaning but unelected residents with spare time to apply for grants. City planning by hobbyist is not a model for sustainable governance.
The city already has several half-finished parks scattered across town. At the last Democratic primary debate, Mayor Kamal memorably claimed, “I literally built three parks.” He did not. He initiated three underfunded, unfinished projects that now sit idle or require more city funds, or private resident fundraising, to complete.
The City of Hudson now also has to foot the bill for Rebecca W’s Housing Grant, which lead to the hiring of the City of Hudson’s “Housing Justice Director”, who then became romantically involved with the mayor, and along the way got a significant pay bump.
<aside> 💵
</aside>
What about the Bangladeshi community in Hudson and their **unfinished community center?** If the city can produce $110,000 from thin air on command for the Youth Center lobby, why not use it to support our longstanding Muslim community trying, for more than a decade, to complete a community center of its own? If the city is in the business of matching funds and completing civic assets, there are worthier and more inclusive options. Leaving aside the obvious points of separating religion and state, the Bangladeshi community pay taxes, but have to gather in residential basements while the City and its largest landowner has several empty buildings and converted a prime but incredibly expensive building (Hudson Boys & Girls Club) into a dedicated asset for the City of Hudson Youth Center.
Hudson’s political theatre has its memorable, and often tragic, moments. When beloved former mayor Rick Rector tried to balance the budget and align spending with resident demographics, he was publicly heckled. A youth activist threw dog feaces at him in full view of City leadership, Nick Z, Michael C, and all on camera. Some current mayoral candidates were in attendance and have cited the moment as a rupture. No consequences followed. Out of the spectacle emerged a new class of salaried “community leaders,” devoted to the quasi-religious mission of serving the youth “community”.
<aside> 🥊
In future editorials, we will examine the legal and practical distinctions between three categories of speech: threats of violence, threats of reputational harm, and forewarnings of litigation. Each occupies a different place under the First Amendment. True threats and "fighting words" are generally unprotected, as they are intended to incite immediate harm or unlawful action. Your editors have been on the receiving end of this in Hudson. Have you?
A threat to harm someone’s reputation by spreading knowingly false information is also not protected speech, as it crosses into defamation and malice. Your editors have been on the receiving end of this classic in Hudson. Have you?
Finally, and in contrast, a forewarning of legal or administrative consequences, particularly when based on facts and existing obligations, is not only lawful but often a civic duty.
Alerting a city, agency, or corporation that a preventable failure could result in costly consequences is not a threat. It is an effort to save time, money, and public trust.
Most people do not drive their cars like bumper cars, not because they lack the urge, but because they know if they cause a crash, their insurance may not cover the damage, their premiums will rise, and they can be sued. The threat of legal consequence encourages lawful behavior. Someone wrote those laws, set the penalties, and enforced them. That is how the American system works.
</aside>
First, cost-sharing. Nearly half of Youth Center participants live in Greenport. Oakdale serves both towns. Greenport should pay half of the upfront payment and half of the ongoing maintenance. If the Oakdale Park rejuvenation grant is a good deal, the Town of Greenport will surely sign on right away? Why are we not even allowed to broach the subject?
Second, governance reform. Hudson needs a professional City Manager and/or City Planner, instead of a Mayor ($80k p.a.), Mayoral Aide ($50k p.a.), Housing Justice Director ($80k p.a.), not including benefits, and their expensive consultants ($220k for failed Community Survey, to name just one misadventure) and various lawsuits and Article 78s they leave in their wake. A part-time Grants Manager would be a rational, minimal intervention, and can be mandated to limit scope of projects secure additional funding for project maintenance, and align grants with voter priorities. The Treasurer’s Office is the traditional home of grants managers in Cities and Colleges.
Third, better fiscal planning for future grants. Hudson should have a policy or at very least “best practice” to give the Treasurer or BEA, and effectively the public, a formal written notice of any grants planned on being applied for, so they can at least debate and if required earmark and allocate the required funds as legally required by the City’s own resolutions.
As for the $110,253 match plus maintenance for a decade that the City of Hudson ought to have budgeted for in 2022, 2023, 2024 and now in 2025? Friends of Hudson Youth and / or the Spark of Hudson, both 501c3s, could contribute to it if they support this project and use their own private funds to do so. Supporting the Youth Center is their stated and revealed mission. What better way to show donors that private funds can leverage public impact (NYS Funds) without coercing middle class taxpayers?
But the best theoretical and practical outcome remains a City with a balanced budget, and City residents then coming together and voting on a shared priority and project, and then jointly levying a tax to pay for that priority upfront.
<aside> 🚨
But the liability and responsibility lies with Tom DePietro, Kamal Johnson, Heather Campbell (jointly, the BEA during this period) and possible the Laberge Group (?) who prepared for and signed off on this grant in 2022, knew that the city had to reserve the matching funds in separate Capital Accounts, and then failed to do so. Their oversight is now putting Peter Frank and all of his selfless hard work at risk.
</aside>
<aside> 💡
Why not cut costs elsewhere in the City of Hudson’s ~$800k annual budget to make up for the matching requirement? Or why not deputize, transparently, a team of council members and City executives, with an assist from the 5 member City of Hudson Youth Center staff to go and raise the needed $100k funds.
</aside>
Peter Frank’s resourcefulness and care is admirable. And he is certainly a sincere and hard-working resident and Hudson owes him more than most. But he has not been elected by the people to indirectly raise taxes, nor has Caitie H (yet) from the Spark of Hudson, and area 501c3s should not dictate City Hall’s priorities and our future tax liability.
The obvious counter to this point is that Peter Frank, many others, and the Spark of Hudson, are stepping into a leadership void created by the current failed City leadership, and honestly working to pick up the slack, lead from behind, and get projects funded. But this is not the way in a democracy, especially one where tomorrow’s taxpayers pay for today’s mistakes.
The Merantis, Hilvermans, Crosses, and Spampinados were here before Galvan and Spark, and they will likely outlive both and all of us.
A responsible city cannot build policy around unfunded grant applications and a mayor’s need for a positive news cycle. It must budget for what it builds, and stand on its own fiscal feet. It must consider the tax burden on homeowners, retirees, working families, and public workers who will face the tax consequences of this “grant” when the long-delayed citywide reassessment hits after the current administration exits stage left.
<aside> ❓
The real question we should ask is how many other matching grants were approved over the last decade, and then not appropriately funded or managed, that now wait like deficit landmines ready to explode next year as a welcome gift to the new Council and mayor.
</aside>
According to the most recent U.S. Census, Hudson has roughly 2,500 households. The median age is 41, and only about one in four households include children. Now imagine if, before approving this grant and committing to the $110,253 match, the city had paused to do some basic math.
Add in a conservative estimate of $10,000 a year in upkeep over a decade for cleaning, repairs, insurance, and the inevitable plumbing issues that come with outdoor bathrooms. Not to mention lifeguards…. the total obligation comes to around $200,000. Divide that by Hudson’s households, and the cost is clear. Every household would be on the hook for about $80-$100.
Now picture this. Peter Frank, Common Council President DePietro, and acting Youth Center Director Calvin L knock on every door in Hudson and ask for $100 in cash. Not just in the 1st Ward, but in all Wards. Not for potholes. Not for Winter Walk. Not to support the local church that feeds the hungry every morning. Not for tax relief. Not to fund the immigration visas for family members of immigrants working for DPW. Just for Oakdale Park’s landscaping to “create an engaging and inclusive play environment for all ages and all abilities”.
Just for this one grant, and our intrepid fundraisers have to mention and leave a hand-out that they might be back next month for the 7th Street Park, then for the Charles Williams Park, then for the **public swimming pool next to the train station and cement truck route.**
Now imagine they go around with a hat in hand in early November, right before the next mayoral election.
How would that go over?