<aside>
</aside>
Reposted verbatim with permission, first published on The Gossips of Rivertown, August 25th, 2025.
**Publication Date: **August 26th, 2025
Author: Ron Bogle
As a resident of Hudson, I believe that our small city's greatest strength lies in its people. Over the past several months, residents have raised a wide range of concerns about the proposed expansion of industrial operations at the waterfront. Hundreds have expressed their concerns through letters, signatures on petitions, and comments in public meetings. All were united by a shared concern for the future of our community and waterfront. What we've witnessed is a passionate, informed, and civil exercise in local democracy. This is not just about one meeting or one application—it's about the future of our city and the kind of place we want to be.
That’s why I was deeply troubled by comments made during the August 13 Planning Board meeting. In attempting to defend the integrity of the Board’s process, a troubling distinction was drawn between those who participate publicly and those deemed to have more “legitimate” concerns: “We do consider our public, but sometimes we have to know who our public is. Just because the loudest is always not the majority… You got people that have financial interest in something, and then you have people that really, you know, have a concern.” Earlier Board comments cautioned that members should base their decisions on facts rather than “personal opinion or outside influence.”
It is disturbing that the Planning Board seems to be dismissing the very community they are sworn to serve. Whether intended or not, such statements create a false—and deeply unfair—distinction between those who speak out and those whose concerns are supposedly more valid. In truth, the vast majority of those who have testified, written letters, or signed petitions have no financial stake in the outcome. What they have is a stake in Hudson—as parents, as neighbors, and as tax paying residents committed to responsible stewardship of our waterfront. After all, Colarusso has a financial stake in the outcome of this process—so, clearly, having a financial stake is not disqualifying.
These remarks suggest that some voices in our community are to be regarded as legitimate and others as illegitimate—a distinction that strikes at the very heart of the Board’s responsibilities. The job of a Planning Board is not to judge the worthiness of public input based on perceived motives but to ensure that all community voices are heard and respected. That is a commitment its members promised to uphold.
<aside> 🗞️
</aside>
More importantly, the questions raised by the public do not exist in a vacuum. They are grounded in the legal obligations of the Planning Board itself. Hudson’s zoning code includes over 30 specific ordinances that must be applied to the conditional use permit application currently under consideration. These are not mere suggestions; they are the legal standards for consideration of all conditional use permits. The idea that public sentiment should be dismissed as “outside influence” ignores the fact that public concern and local law are aligned in this case. It is not enough to simply rely on consultants and attorneys. The Board has a duty to interpret the facts in light of the code and the long-term well-being of the city.
Any reasonable resident would agree that each Board member is responsible for making an informed, independent decision. But in the same spirit, it is also true that public participation—especially from those with historical or technical knowledge of the issues—should be treated as a resource, not a nuisance. We are not on opposite sides of the table. The Board and the public share a common goal: a healthy, vibrant, and lawfully governed waterfront that serves the whole city.
Indeed, a core purpose of any public hearing is to gather relevant information—especially from those with subject matter expertise. For example, during the reopened hearing, an internationally recognized expert in air quality measurement identified significant air quality risks around the waterfront area. This was not merely a personal opinion—it was a scientific observation supported by credible data and should prompt the Planning Board to require formal measurements before any decisions are made. This kind of expert input underscores the critical value of public comment and validates the hearing process itself.
It’s worth remembering that the original public hearing on the current application lasted a full year. The recent reopening lasted only two sessions—May 6 and July 15. At a minimum, the volume and substance of recent public input should warrant more—not less—engagement from the Board.
No one questions the difficulty of the task facing the Planning Board. But the question now is whether they will see the public as a partner in this work or as an obstacle to be managed. For the sake of Hudson’s future, I hope they choose partnership.
<aside> đź’ˇ
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> 📢
Agreement is welcome. Disagreement is vital. Nuance is rare and therefore prized. Common Sense exists to sharpen arguments, not settle them. Submit your own Guest-Op Ed **HERE.**
</aside>
<aside> đź“Ł
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
✒️ COMMON SENSE EDITORIALS
🗳️ ELECTIONS 2025
💡 IDEAS
đź“•Â REFERENCES
:letters-to-editor:Â 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.