I feel compelled to respond to the seemingly purposeful mischaracterizations and misinformation regurgitated by one of your columnists regarding the financial and political picture portraying the City of Kingston.

To begin with a parking ticket that seemingly broke the camel’s back: In 2024 the Common Council provided overtime for parking enforcement in the budget to extend hours into the evening and on Saturdays to address what we heard from our constituents as disregard for parking laws as soon as enforcement left for the day. While the program has generated unexpected revenue, the goal has always been to correct the scofflaw and improve the quality of parking in the city, particularly our business districts. We also made our parking law more forgiving of those who have accumulated tickets as enforcement increases. As always, all are welcome to appeal their tickets at City Hall.

Further, the author states that sales tax revenue has been static. This is simply not the case. While sales tax revenue has not achieved unprecedented levels like 2021 and 2022, revenue continues to grow, and importantly for taxpayers, the city continues to underestimate projections by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some of this is safe, conservative budgeting but I believe it is past time to realistically estimate and have been a consistent advocate of it in each budget I have been a part of.

Additionally, the author also states we have levied an occupancy tax. This is not true. The council, as of Wednesday, has asked the state to grant us permission to levy an occupancy tax of up to 3 percent. This is the start of a multi-step process, with opportunities throughout to change course. Having heard from hotel and short-term rental operators, we no longer think a 5 percent occupancy tax is appropriate and will seek a 1 percent tax if and when the state allows us. These funds, could go to the general fund, as the city approved in the 2026 budget, but it could also go towards specific programming, including a right to counsel program for low-income renters who have borne the brunt of gentrification, which the author cruelly derides, but could also be used to promote business and tourism. To shut the door on this process is in my view short-sighted and financially irresponsible.

There are a number of other policies the council will be considering to address rising costs. We have required the Noble administration to return to the council after a grant has been awarded to ensure we truly believe any matching grant cost and legacy expenses will ultimately benefit the public. The Finance Committee will also be examining utilizing unanticipated state support dollars to seed a tax stabilization fund to reduce the burden that falls on the community while maintaining the services the public expects of us.

There are many points in this column that are simply false, but what made me feel obligated to write this was the line “some members of the Common Council in debating this proposal say they want to use revenue from the new tax to pay for free attorneys for renters to sue their landlords … This tax doesn’t attack just one industry — it’s a two-fer.” As this column admits through both ignorance and omission that author views providing low-income tenants with adequate legal representation in the face of eviction as an attack on landlords. This line of thinking is part of a larger erosion of due process underway across the country and I would encourage the author to watch eviction proceedings in City Court and see the difference between a case where one of our neighbors has access to an attorney and when someone does not. I wish the author the grace to see he is far closer to being in their position than he is to be in the position of the forces making our country unaffordable for the majority of Americans.

In addition to the actions the council has taken above, there are a number of bills New York State could pass to ensure greater support for municipalities and small businesses as well as the creation of more homes that will increase the supply of truly affordable housing and reduce costs for nearly all New Yorkers. The state legislature and governor should pass the package of bills collectively known as the Invest in Our New York Act which would require the wealthiest and cruelest among us to pay what they owe in taxes, and pass the Permanently Affordable Social Housing for New Yorkers Act, which would create thousands of units of publicly owned housing, reducing the housing costs for hundreds of thousands of our neighbors, presently half of whom spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.

It is undeniable there is work to be done and I believe this Common Council is equipped to address challenges ahead.

Michael Tierney is the alderman of the Second Ward and chair of the Common Council's Finance & Audit Committee.