Many attendees and online viewers of an "information session" on housing Monday evening were shocked to see Mayor Brian Pugh try to take a microphone away from a Croton resident while he was speaking.
There has already been an attempt to censor distribution of this post by one or more individuals who reported it to Facebook after I posted it on Uncensored and a couple of other village groups. I have appealed Facebook’s decision; such decisions are often very arbitrary and allow people to engage in censorship by simply filing a report. Please distribute this post as widely as possible to counter that.
Thanks Michael, this “information” session as it a presented is in the interest of NY State and Federal mandates. The business model favors big developers and tax incentives to a quick, big not well thought out fix. As a resident who would like to qualify for the ADU loan, I’m out of luck because in order to qualify, I earn too much. If I were to earn less I would not be able to pay my mortgage or property taxes at current rate. I find this “information session” disingenuous. This has already been done and we are being told how it will go.
Great article on this meeting and sad to see how our officials tried to stop a simple Q&A session. As for Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress, I would note that our villages' consultant on rezoning and housing projects, AKRF, are longtime members of Pattern for Progress, I believe that should have been disclosed ahead of the presentation: https://www.pattern-for-progress.org/who-we-are/#_patternsupporters
Thank you for covering this. It was a ridiculous promotion for massive development topped off with the Mayor thinking he was jumping into WWE brawl with a resident. Time for a change in leadership because what we have now is hostile to actual dialogue and residents.
My comment isn't about the confrontation between the mayor and the speaker (which I hadn't seen). I appreciate the Chronicle pointing out that the main presenter may not be completely "independent" and that there are vested interests which stand to profit from certain kinds of development. However, I also believe that the article is unnecessarily heavy-handed with its portrayal of tax incentives and profit motives:
"we do find it interesting that village officials, the Croton Housing Network, and of course New York governor Kathy Hochul, have come to favor this approach, in which the private sector is basically bribed with tax exemptions and other inducements to serve the public good."
I am always skeptical of who benefits from certain legislation and incentives. However, it seems borderline naïve to imagine that a difficult and fairly intractable situation like the housing crisis can be solved without making it more attractive for certain parties.
I received a significant tax rebate for installing solar panels on my house. Businesses also receive tax incentives for reducing their carbon footprint. The same goes for businesses that create jobs in economically disadvantaged regions.
It's worth making sure that the parties involved in this are going to give Croton a fair deal, but we can't imagine that these businesses shouldn't expect some profit.
As I have stated, I could not hear Mr. Riely's comments on TV. and do not know if the mayor intervened to clarify or suppress his points. However, his response to the mayor was disrespectful and hostile.
Now that the video is available (see link in this post or on the village Web site) it seems more clear than ever that Ed Riely was provoked and prevented from getting a response to his points from Adam Bosch by the mayor and by Len Simon. I suggest watching it closely. Disrespect and hostility are sometimes part of public discourse and should not be censored, not does the mayor have the right to shut up citizens who have come to a public meeting. The video also makes clear that Ed did not get riled up until the attempts to shut him up began.
I could not hear Mr. Riely's comments (I was watching the meeting at home on the Village channel). I saw Mayor Pugh trying to intervene for the speaker and answer Mr. Riely. Mr. Riely then started shouting at the mayor, refusing to let him speak. He was disrespectful and out of line. Your article fails to present this side of the incident. I do not recall if the mayor touched Mr. Riely. He went up to him and asked for the mike, which Mr. Riely refused to hand over. He was then asked to leave. However, the incident was resolved by the mayor asking people to submit questions on cards and suspending oral questions. Unfortunately, this has become more common in public forums where people appear who want to confront not discuss. Let the video be the judge.
Ed Riely had addressed his comments and questions to the speaker, Adam Bosch, and was asking Bosch to reply, not the mayor. The mayor interfered with that question and answer which was supposed to be the point of the information session. I do believe the video will support that interpretation of what happened, but I have spoken to a number of others who were watching and had the same view of things as I reported. I should add that the mayor had no business interfering in an interchange between Ed Riely and Adam Bosch, even if he or anyone else considered Ed to be disrespectful. Democracy protects even “disrespectful” speech.
There has already been an attempt to censor distribution of this post by one or more individuals who reported it to Facebook after I posted it on Uncensored and a couple of other village groups. I have appealed Facebook’s decision; such decisions are often very arbitrary and allow people to engage in censorship by simply filing a report. Please distribute this post as widely as possible to counter that.
Thanks Michael, this “information” session as it a presented is in the interest of NY State and Federal mandates. The business model favors big developers and tax incentives to a quick, big not well thought out fix. As a resident who would like to qualify for the ADU loan, I’m out of luck because in order to qualify, I earn too much. If I were to earn less I would not be able to pay my mortgage or property taxes at current rate. I find this “information session” disingenuous. This has already been done and we are being told how it will go.
Hi Lauren, thanks for your comment. There has been an attempt to censor this editorial so please share widely with thanks.
Great article on this meeting and sad to see how our officials tried to stop a simple Q&A session. As for Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress, I would note that our villages' consultant on rezoning and housing projects, AKRF, are longtime members of Pattern for Progress, I believe that should have been disclosed ahead of the presentation: https://www.pattern-for-progress.org/who-we-are/#_patternsupporters
Thank you for documenting the event.
Thank you for covering this. It was a ridiculous promotion for massive development topped off with the Mayor thinking he was jumping into WWE brawl with a resident. Time for a change in leadership because what we have now is hostile to actual dialogue and residents.
My comment isn't about the confrontation between the mayor and the speaker (which I hadn't seen). I appreciate the Chronicle pointing out that the main presenter may not be completely "independent" and that there are vested interests which stand to profit from certain kinds of development. However, I also believe that the article is unnecessarily heavy-handed with its portrayal of tax incentives and profit motives:
"we do find it interesting that village officials, the Croton Housing Network, and of course New York governor Kathy Hochul, have come to favor this approach, in which the private sector is basically bribed with tax exemptions and other inducements to serve the public good."
I am always skeptical of who benefits from certain legislation and incentives. However, it seems borderline naïve to imagine that a difficult and fairly intractable situation like the housing crisis can be solved without making it more attractive for certain parties.
I received a significant tax rebate for installing solar panels on my house. Businesses also receive tax incentives for reducing their carbon footprint. The same goes for businesses that create jobs in economically disadvantaged regions.
It's worth making sure that the parties involved in this are going to give Croton a fair deal, but we can't imagine that these businesses shouldn't expect some profit.
Has the video been edited? The scene you’re captioning isn’t there.
The video has not been edited and the scene was captured right off of it.
As I have stated, I could not hear Mr. Riely's comments on TV. and do not know if the mayor intervened to clarify or suppress his points. However, his response to the mayor was disrespectful and hostile.
Now that the video is available (see link in this post or on the village Web site) it seems more clear than ever that Ed Riely was provoked and prevented from getting a response to his points from Adam Bosch by the mayor and by Len Simon. I suggest watching it closely. Disrespect and hostility are sometimes part of public discourse and should not be censored, not does the mayor have the right to shut up citizens who have come to a public meeting. The video also makes clear that Ed did not get riled up until the attempts to shut him up began.
I could not hear Mr. Riely's comments (I was watching the meeting at home on the Village channel). I saw Mayor Pugh trying to intervene for the speaker and answer Mr. Riely. Mr. Riely then started shouting at the mayor, refusing to let him speak. He was disrespectful and out of line. Your article fails to present this side of the incident. I do not recall if the mayor touched Mr. Riely. He went up to him and asked for the mike, which Mr. Riely refused to hand over. He was then asked to leave. However, the incident was resolved by the mayor asking people to submit questions on cards and suspending oral questions. Unfortunately, this has become more common in public forums where people appear who want to confront not discuss. Let the video be the judge.
Ed Riely had addressed his comments and questions to the speaker, Adam Bosch, and was asking Bosch to reply, not the mayor. The mayor interfered with that question and answer which was supposed to be the point of the information session. I do believe the video will support that interpretation of what happened, but I have spoken to a number of others who were watching and had the same view of things as I reported. I should add that the mayor had no business interfering in an interchange between Ed Riely and Adam Bosch, even if he or anyone else considered Ed to be disrespectful. Democracy protects even “disrespectful” speech.