Hi Caitie - thank you for writing and thinking in public.
In your essay you say " And in this moment — with our housing future uncertain, a charter revision looming, and the character of the city hanging in the balance..."
Given the tenor of the debate. See our thoughts below, how do you reflect on the debate now and what it testified about Kamal and Joe's character, and about Hudson's collectve character as a city?
When I wrote about “the character of the city hanging in the balance,” I wasn’t talking about whether someone was polite on stage or maintained a particular tone. I wasn’t talking about decorum or professionalism.
I was talking about whether Hudson will still have long-time corner stores. Whether kids can afford to live here when they grow up. Whether we still see long-time businesses downtown, or hear different languages spoken in the park. I was talking about community memory, belonging, and whether the people who shaped this place still have a place in it.
I don't mind debates getting scrappy. I want leaders who are in it with us, who carry the mess of it all with them too because they deeply care.
So you were writing not about individual human or moral character but the built environment, urban character, affordability, multiculturalism, and the subjective concept of "community memory".
I do care about the moral character of our leaders, and I believe debates and blogs can indeed be messy and scrappy, and intellectually honest and passionate, but needn't sacrifice good character.
For example, Kamal could have thanked his neighbor for moving here, buying a home, paying extortionate property and school taxes (he has no kids in local schools yet), and humbly stepping up to the plate to serve, while still arguing for his preferred causes and sub-communities, and still attacking Joe on an irrelevant detail and falsehood about postage stamps... Instead of mocking Joe for being in Brooklyn during covid where he was taking care of his very ill father who passed away during lockdowns. To turn that into a punchline for applause /meme, or to blame new residents (regardless of their income level, or the place and situation they came from) for all of Hudson's ills is in my opinion... both petty, factually wrong, and self-defeating.
It mistakes a neighbour for an invader, grievance for justice, and nostalgia for solutions. Hudson does not need more blame. It needs more people willing to roll up their sleeves, like Joe did, and look beyond race, victimhood, and perpetual government funded subsistence.
~
In your comment answer, and other essays on your Substack, you talk a lot about "belonging" and the "people who shaped this place". Generally economists and urbanists can miss this perspective and since it is less quantifiable it is hard to capture. Hence my appreciation for your attempts.
But that makes me wonder... the only original inhabitants of the area were the Mohican/ Mahican, and while they were not killed in one major war, they were essentially pushed out West in slow-motion via land fraud, war, and coerced migration. They were also attacked and harmed by other Native American tribes (I believe the Mohawks?) in the area exploiting the dislocation of the time and guns.
Then the area had Dutch inhabitants and English Quakers.
When I walk around Warren I do not hear much Algonquian, Dutch ( I am proficient, there are one or two other residents) or meet many quakers?
But obviously those communities shaped Hudson's built environment, culture, and got the fly-wheel going, often for centuries, arguably more than other groups as measured by buildings built, absolute number of residents, self-reliance, and tax revenue that fueled local public investment.
Has the Spark of Hudson funded any programs aimed at preserving Algonquian, Dutch history, Quaker history, or funding their descendants, many of whom have been priced out of Hudson for a very long-time and forgotten? (Of course you are privately funded, and this may be out of scope for spark, which is entirely your right, and your personal blog might just be about your own personal experiences, I am more asking the rhetorical question.)
My broader point is that when we as a community in Hudson want to preserve those who "shaped" a place and believe they ought to have a "place" in it, what time period and community do we choose? Who is saved from market forces and who is left out to dry?
Who decides which time period and which Hudson group is preserved? Do we spend money and political capital to preserve the Hudson of your youth in the late 1980s / 1990s, or do we choose the Irish and German residents and the ship building and manufacturing vibes of the 1880 and 1890s, or why not focus on the 1780s and 1790s when Hudson was more austere, capitalist in spirit, and Anglo-American and what we would call "preppy" today, with native-born New Englanders settling up in Yankee territory?
In the end, are those who reshaped Hudson in the recent past, the ones protesting its reshaping today?
And it is good to hear you don't mind "scrappy" debates and things getting "messy", you wouldn't be a Hudsonian if you did. After all the Dutch were the original drivers of diversity, discourse, and corporations. 😉
Hudson is lucky to have you as a resident, but more importantly, as a resident who got out on merit and _chose_ to return. That choice, and that merit, is worth acknowledging and normalizing.
Thanks for doing this. Very insightful.
Hi Caitie - thank you for writing and thinking in public.
In your essay you say " And in this moment — with our housing future uncertain, a charter revision looming, and the character of the city hanging in the balance..."
Given the tenor of the debate. See our thoughts below, how do you reflect on the debate now and what it testified about Kamal and Joe's character, and about Hudson's collectve character as a city?
https://www.hudsoncommonsense.com/demdebate2025
Thanks for the thoughtful question.
When I wrote about “the character of the city hanging in the balance,” I wasn’t talking about whether someone was polite on stage or maintained a particular tone. I wasn’t talking about decorum or professionalism.
I was talking about whether Hudson will still have long-time corner stores. Whether kids can afford to live here when they grow up. Whether we still see long-time businesses downtown, or hear different languages spoken in the park. I was talking about community memory, belonging, and whether the people who shaped this place still have a place in it.
I don't mind debates getting scrappy. I want leaders who are in it with us, who carry the mess of it all with them too because they deeply care.
Got it, and thanks again for writing.
So you were writing not about individual human or moral character but the built environment, urban character, affordability, multiculturalism, and the subjective concept of "community memory".
I do care about the moral character of our leaders, and I believe debates and blogs can indeed be messy and scrappy, and intellectually honest and passionate, but needn't sacrifice good character.
For example, Kamal could have thanked his neighbor for moving here, buying a home, paying extortionate property and school taxes (he has no kids in local schools yet), and humbly stepping up to the plate to serve, while still arguing for his preferred causes and sub-communities, and still attacking Joe on an irrelevant detail and falsehood about postage stamps... Instead of mocking Joe for being in Brooklyn during covid where he was taking care of his very ill father who passed away during lockdowns. To turn that into a punchline for applause /meme, or to blame new residents (regardless of their income level, or the place and situation they came from) for all of Hudson's ills is in my opinion... both petty, factually wrong, and self-defeating.
It mistakes a neighbour for an invader, grievance for justice, and nostalgia for solutions. Hudson does not need more blame. It needs more people willing to roll up their sleeves, like Joe did, and look beyond race, victimhood, and perpetual government funded subsistence.
~
In your comment answer, and other essays on your Substack, you talk a lot about "belonging" and the "people who shaped this place". Generally economists and urbanists can miss this perspective and since it is less quantifiable it is hard to capture. Hence my appreciation for your attempts.
But that makes me wonder... the only original inhabitants of the area were the Mohican/ Mahican, and while they were not killed in one major war, they were essentially pushed out West in slow-motion via land fraud, war, and coerced migration. They were also attacked and harmed by other Native American tribes (I believe the Mohawks?) in the area exploiting the dislocation of the time and guns.
Then the area had Dutch inhabitants and English Quakers.
When I walk around Warren I do not hear much Algonquian, Dutch ( I am proficient, there are one or two other residents) or meet many quakers?
But obviously those communities shaped Hudson's built environment, culture, and got the fly-wheel going, often for centuries, arguably more than other groups as measured by buildings built, absolute number of residents, self-reliance, and tax revenue that fueled local public investment.
Has the Spark of Hudson funded any programs aimed at preserving Algonquian, Dutch history, Quaker history, or funding their descendants, many of whom have been priced out of Hudson for a very long-time and forgotten? (Of course you are privately funded, and this may be out of scope for spark, which is entirely your right, and your personal blog might just be about your own personal experiences, I am more asking the rhetorical question.)
My broader point is that when we as a community in Hudson want to preserve those who "shaped" a place and believe they ought to have a "place" in it, what time period and community do we choose? Who is saved from market forces and who is left out to dry?
Who decides which time period and which Hudson group is preserved? Do we spend money and political capital to preserve the Hudson of your youth in the late 1980s / 1990s, or do we choose the Irish and German residents and the ship building and manufacturing vibes of the 1880 and 1890s, or why not focus on the 1780s and 1790s when Hudson was more austere, capitalist in spirit, and Anglo-American and what we would call "preppy" today, with native-born New Englanders settling up in Yankee territory?
In the end, are those who reshaped Hudson in the recent past, the ones protesting its reshaping today?
----------------------------------------------------
And it is good to hear you don't mind "scrappy" debates and things getting "messy", you wouldn't be a Hudsonian if you did. After all the Dutch were the original drivers of diversity, discourse, and corporations. 😉
Hudson is lucky to have you as a resident, but more importantly, as a resident who got out on merit and _chose_ to return. That choice, and that merit, is worth acknowledging and normalizing.