Residents accuse Red Hook board of planning eminent domain for boat club; board reiterates willingness to explore partnership

Multiple Red Hook residents used the Sept. 24 public-comment period to press the town for a clearer account of a proposed public-private partnership and what they said was a parallel plan to acquire the Red Hook Boat Club property by eminent domain.

Lisa (last name not provided) asserted a detailed timeline that, she said, showed town officials and outside counsel moved toward acquisition discussions soon after passage of Local Law No. 1. Lisa said the boat club filed an Article 78 challenge on Feb. 21 and that, according to invoices and filings, the town signed a letter of engagement with a different law firm that included "assistance with the acquisition of property from the Red Hook Boat Club and a potential eminent-domain action." She asked the board to disclose communications between Feb. 22 and March 19 that she said she had requested via FOIL but had not received.

Roxanne Fisher, citing Judge Rose’s Aug. 15 ruling that struck down parts of Local Law No. 1, said the town’s public statements that acquisition was "speculative" conflicted with documents and communications she had reviewed. She told the board that, as of Sept. 23, she saw no public record showing an appeal filed within the 30-day window and asked the supervisor to clarify next steps: whether the town would resubmit local law 1, commission additional environmental studies, or otherwise act.

Other speakers echoed concerns about transparency, the appropriateness of eminent domain without an identified public need, and requests that board members recuse themselves or refer the matter for independent review under the town’s LWRP (Local Waterfront Revitalization Program).

Supervisor Robert McKeon responded that a public-private partnership requires meetings and mutual agreement and said the board has invited the boat club to meet without conditions. He reiterated the town’s stated intention to explore options "to try and make something work for everybody," and said the board remains committed to discussion and outreach. The supervisor also said that earlier public notices and outreach on waterfront parcels had identified this site as one of the few locations feasible for a public park in town.

Why it matters: The comments reflect sustained community opposition to acquisition of the riverfront site and ongoing litigation and public uncertainty about the town’s legal posture. Speakers cited specific filings, invoices, and communications that they say show acquisition planning preceded some public statements. The town’s next steps — whether to appeal Judge Rose’s ruling, to resubmit Local Law No. 1, or to pursue a negotiated public-private agreement — remain unsettled in the record presented at the meeting.

What the record shows: Participants in the comment period referenced an Article 78 filing by the boat club on Feb. 21, a Hodgson Russ engagement letter dated March 19 (signed March 27, per the record read by speakers), conference calls in late March and a court filing on April 1 mentioning eminent-domain intent. Residents asked for the corresponding emails and records and criticized the board for not correcting what they called misstatements in recent public remarks.

Next steps: The board accepted comments and invited written submissions; the supervisor offered that those who wish to preserve notification can sign up on the town’s "notify me" system. The board later moved into an attorney-client session; the record shows the board voted to enter that closed session.