Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public opposition mounts as Red Hook board reaffirms eminent-domain legal strategy
Summary
Public commenters condemned the Town's pursuit of eminent domain for the Red Hook Boat Club and urged the board to stop spending on litigation; motions to discontinue the acquisition and to send the question to voters failed, and the board ratified outside counsel and authorized continued payments for ongoing Article 78 litigation.
Supervisor Robert McKeon and a 5-member Town Board met July 14, 2026, amid repeated public objections to the town's pursuit of eminent domain for the Red Hook Boat Club property.
Residents spoke at length during an extended public‑comment period. Roxanne Fischer said the proposed retroactive resolution to authorize hiring outside counsel was "a confession of unauthorized spending" and demanded that the Board "rescind the eminent domain acquisition of the Red Hook Boat Club and stop wasting taxpayer dollars." Al Trezza told the Board he believed the Town had "squandered over $300,000," and called attention to what he said were inconsistencies in the timeline of executive-session discussions and subsequent court filings. Other residents raised concerns about memorial sites on the property, possible sale to Bard College, and a lack of demonstrated public support for the acquisition.
Councilmember Kristina Dousharm, citing two lost court proceedings and what she described as inadequate planning for a proposed Waterfront Park, moved with Councilmember Kenneth Migliorelli to discontinue the Town's eminent‑domain effort and direct counsel to prepare rescission resolutions. The motion failed on roll call, 3–2 (Ayes: Dousharm, Migliorelli; Nays: McKeon, Hamel, Testa). A follow-up motion to submit the acquisition question to voters, "if there is a lawful procedure for doing so," also failed by the same vote.
The board then turned to legal strategy. After an executive session, the Town approved hiring Zarin & Steinmetz LLP in the matter of Trezza v. Town of Red Hook (summons and complaint 2026‑53464) and authorized the Supervisor to execute a July 13, 2026 engagement letter. A later resolution (Resolution No. 39) ratified and confirmed prior and ongoing retentions of Hodgson Russ LLP and Keane & Beane, P.C. to represent the Town in multiple Article 78 proceedings and in the eminent‑domain litigation. That resolution passed with Supervisor McKeon, Councilmember William Hamel and Councilmember Jacob Testa voting Aye and Councilmembers Dousharm and Migliorelli voting Nay.
Councilmember Dousharm said the board had not adequately documented the cost, feasibility or logistics of the waterfront plan, arguing that the Town had lost two court cases because it "did not adequately explain or study what they plan to do with the property." Supervisor McKeon replied that revenue from the Cookingham project would cover current and future legal fees related to the matter.
The board also debated who should be liaison to newly engaged counsel. A motion to make Councilmembers Dousharm and Migliorelli points of contact for Zarin & Steinmetz failed; the Board instead appointed Supervisor McKeon as liaison.
What happens next: the Board retained and ratified counsel and declined motions to halt the eminent‑domain effort. Opponents urged rescission and reimbursement; proponents on the Board voted to continue legal defense and prosecution of existing proceedings. The resolutions authorize payment of legal invoices subject to the Town's ordinary bill‑approval process.
