Day: October 3, 2025

Kingston Hotel Faces Violations After Inspection

by

By Rebecca Martin

At last evening’s Town of Ulster Board meeting, Warren Tutt, the building inspector for the Town of Ulster, provided an overview of his inspection of the Kingston Hotel. On September 18, 2025, he conducted a four-hour inspection, gaining access to 61 of the hotel’s 66 rooms. Every room inspected was found to have violations.

WATCH the recorded meeting on Facebook. Starts at 1:31:31

He reported issues ranging from mold to bed bugs and cockroach infestations. Even the six vacant rooms had violations, and he stated those rooms should not be offered until they are fully brought up to code.

The Kingston Hotel was originally approved by the Town to operate as a transient hotel, but it is now being used as long-term housing—without any of the infrastructure required to safely support that use. There are no proper kitchen facilities, no legal multi-family approvals, and none of the protections expected in regulated residential housing.

When asked why the inspection didn’t happen earlier, Supervisor James Quigley responded, “BOCES.” He noted that the building department had been tied up with other projects and only initiated the inspection about five weeks ago, after a report by Kingston Wire brought public attention to the issue.  But people have been talking about the poor conditions at the Kingston Hotel for much longer than that. 

As for how the inspection was carried out, the building inspector explained that there are three legal ways to gain access: permission from the owner, permission from a registered tenant over 18, or a court order. In this case, the owner provided him a key.

The Town issued a Notice of Violation, giving the property owner 30 days to fix the problems, with a deadline of October 31st. 

Supervisor Quigley confirmed that the Ulster County Executive’s office has been briefed on the findings. According to Quigley, County officials were “shocked” by the report.

Policing of the property has also increased. Quigley said that the Ulster Police Department has been monitoring the hotel for nearly two years. In September, the Town entered into a formal agreement with the property owner to provide additional patrols, with the owner billed monthly for the added presence.

“There’s a concern for the safety of the people living there, and for the surrounding community.” Supervisor Quigley said. 

According to the Ulster County Comptroller’s report released in April 2025, emergency housing costs are substantial and growing. By 2024, the cost per room for emergency housing is $102.86.  For the Kingston Hotel, if all 66 rooms were occupied year round, the total would be $6,788.76 per day, or $2,477,897 per year. That’s a significant amount of money for the Kingston Hotel.  So why is maintenance being deferred?

“This is a commercial relationship between the County and the owner,” Quigley said. “They have the responsibility to apply pressure to bring the building into compliance.”

The Town has not yet determined what enforcement action it will take if the property is not brought up to code by October 31st, though options include issuing further violations or pursuing legal action.

When hotels and motels end up being used for long-term housing, shouldn’t they be required to meet at least the bare minimum standards of a studio apartment? This stopgap solution that costs taxpayers millions each year and yet families are left to live in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. If property owners are making a profit by effectively operating these rooms as unintended long-term housing, where is the accountability? Are there any requirements in place to enforce safe, livable conditions? There should be. The ongoing neglect is inhumane. 

 

ADDITIONAL READING

Lessons from Kingston, NY  (Tenants PAC)

Families stuck for years in Hudson Valley motels, ‘just trying to survive’ (TIMES UNION)

Update on the Terra-Gen Battery Storage Proposal – Positive Declaration Issued

by

By Rebecca Martin

Last night (October 2), the Town of Ulster Town Board, acting as lead agency, voted to issue a Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) for the proposed Terra-Gen battery energy storage project. This important step formally acknowledges that the project may have significant environmental impacts and requires a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Two motions appeared to be cast during the meeting. The first was for the board to approve the Positive Declaration (Pos Dec) resolution (see page 50 “meeting documents”) —contingent on a letter from Terra-Gen’s attorneys stating they would not sue the Town over the decision or to table it.  The second was to formally adopt the resolution.

We were surprised the Town chose to pass the resolution during a workshop meeting—without setting the public scoping period—despite public requests for a 90-day comment window. Typically, both actions occur together during a regular legislative session, as scoping is automatic with a Pos Dec. We’ll have to wait to see how the board handles this at the next Town Board meeting. Still, we appreciate Board Member Clayton Van Kleeck’s leadership and the thoughtful questions he raised—especially in contrast to continued misleading statements about legal risk that have caused confusion and delay.

For months, Supervisor James Quigley publicly claimed that issuing a Pos Dec could expose the Town to legal action. As recently as the September 25 meeting, he responded angrily to a resident request for a Pos Dec and a 90-day scoping process: “I’ll call for a Pos Dec right now, and then we can get sued.”

These repeated warnings were not only misleading—they were legally unfounded. A Pos Dec is a routine requirement under SEQR when a project has one potential significant environmental impact. It does not oppose or block a project; it merely initiates a full environmental review. Suggesting that complying with SEQR invites litigation misinformed both the Board and the public and fostered unnecessary fear around fulfilling a basic obligation.

For those who continue to claim that issuing a Pos Dec would appear to be a result of public pressure: if you read the Town’s own resolution, you’ll see it explicitly identifies the potential impacts that the public has been raising for months (see page 50 of “meeting documents”). The record shows that the Town recognized the same environmental concerns the community has long voiced—proving that the decision was based on substance, not simply public outcry.

In fact, during last night’s meeting, Terra-Gen’s attorney Rob Panasci (Young/Sommer LLC) said that the company does not oppose the Pos Dec. When directly asked by Van Kleeck whether Terra-Gen would sue over the decision, Panasci responded:

“We’re not suing. I don’t know if there was some implication of that? We wouldn’t be able to sue you if you issue a Pos Dec.”

Despite this clear statement, the Board still insisted on a formal letter from Terra-Gen confirming no lawsuit would be filed—an unusual and unnecessary step that underscores the months of misinformation from the Supervisor and the town’s legal counsel.

Ironically, it was later stated on the record that Terra-Gen preferred a Pos Dec be issued sooner rather than later—exactly as SEQR intends for a project of this scope.

The next step is the public scoping process, which defines the content of the Environmental Impact Statement. We expect the Town Board to outline the scoping process and address the community’s request for a 90-day public comment period at the next town board meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 16.