5th Ave. Committee plans housing for junkies at 575 5th ave.

anonymous

575 is on 5th between 15th and 16th. I'm totally against it! Section 8 is on thing but this is "supported housing" and that means ex-cons, sex offenders and recovering addicts. If I see any politicians involved with this proposal I'm voting for the other.

I really think this should be a topic post. But I'm sure mr. pious moderator will find a reason to move or delete it.

Anyway we should at least be able to get some liberal coonservative polemic mileage outta this. There's gonna a lot of cliche's so everyone put your stupid helmets on.

pitu

"mr. mod" here! not really sure I qualify as Pious; that seems like an awful lot to take on . . .

you're free to discuss Section 8 housing planned in Park Slope on this board if you can keep yourself from acting like a flaming troll.
Need a refresher on the Rules of Engagement ?
+ spell check optional but recommended
+ don't play if you're not enjoying the game
+ we'll pay more attention to you (and follow your argument better) if you register a name

lostingreenwoodhts

This is NOT sec. 8 (coming from another mod here). It's "sustainable housing" 60% from the shelter/rehab sys and 40% affordable housing from the community. Not casting any votes here, just the facts ( I sat through a pre-presentation). FAC has their stuff together with HPD.

Read the posts on the topic here http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32859&highlight=

AND

http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32662&highlight=

And to mirror pitu's points ( I think ): have an opinion, express it within the bounds of the forum and don't pick fights on yer first post.

Best of all, put your $$ were your booshwaw mouth is and show up to the community group meeting or CB7's public hearing...where you can voice your concerns and ask questions.

See you there, sans bucket on my head...

anonymous

if raising this issue is trolling then i'm sure it will be justifiably ignored. i dont see why i have to enjoy myself here. why cant i be bitter and self-embroiled?

is the game of the self-righteous gain-say really that enjoyable to you?

screw it! ghettoize the whole freakin neighborhood for all i care. if it soothes your bourgeois apologetic soul. i just hope all those affluent hipsters dont take their money with them when they leave.

i hope i dont have too many spelling errors!

anonymous

Subject: Poor people are scary!

Here is a letter from the Executive director of FAC.

Diversity means economic diversity also. Not just Benetton ads of beautiful well groomed people with nice skin tones.
_____________________

Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:22:59 PM
Subject: [south_south_slope] Another Invitation to tour FAC's current supportive hsg. building - 2/24

Over the past several weeks, there have been a lot of questions and speculation
about FAC’s proposed development at 575 5th Avenue . Many people are wondering,
what is supportive housing? Who will live in the building? Will it be an
attractive addition to our community? In response to these questions, we look
forward to presenting facts about affordable, supportive housing in general and
specifics about the proposed 575 5th Avenue building at meetings on both 2/13
and 2/15. In addition to these meetings and to the tour/open house that we
hosted this past weekend, I’d like to also extend another invitation to everyone
to tour a similar affordable supportive housing project that FAC developed at
551 Warren Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues on Saturday, February 24th from 2
pm to 4 pm.

FAC developed 551 Warren Street, an award winning 68 unit affordable, supportive
housing building, over five years ago and we continue to manage the property and
select the tenants – at least 50% of whom are from the local community and all
of whom have to go through a thorough tenant selection process to ensure that
they can meet their lease obligations and live independently with the on-site
social service supports that are provided. An entire floor of apartments at 551
Warren Street is set aside for senior citizens. Apartments would be similarly
set aside at 575 5th Avenue for senior citizens and youth aging out of foster
care since the community has expressed a desire to prioritize affordable housing
for those individuals and 100% of the apartments for low-income folks (earning
up to a maximum of $29,775 annually) would be set aside for local residents. We
would also work to maximize the number of local individuals who would apply for
the apartments for formerly
homeless individuals.

You are not alone in your concerns. When FAC first proposed the 551 Warren
Street building more than five years ago, some of the neighbors and civic groups
in the community shared several of the concerns that you all have expressed
about the proposed 575 5th Avenue project. Despite those original concerns, they
have come to embrace the tenants and the building and recognize it as an asset
to the community.

I am hopeful that as many of you as possible will come out to tour 551 Warren
Street on Saturday, February 24th from 2 to 4 pm so that your opinion about
FAC’s proposed 575 5th Avenue building can be as well informed as possible. I
have also attached an information sheet from the Corporation for Supportive
Housing, a national organization, which describes what supportive housing is in
general as well as a Myths and Fact Sheet that NYC HPD has written about
supportive housing including the cost effectiveness to all of us as tax payers
to house low income people including those who are homeless and have mental
health issues, in affordable, supportive housing.

Please do come to see what affordable, supportive housing is (and isn’t) on 2/24
anytime from 2 – 4 pm – 551 Warren Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues.

Thanks - Michelle



Michelle de la Uz
Executive Director

Fifth Avenue Committee, Inc.
621 DeGraw Street
Brooklyn, NY 11217

(718) 237-2017 ext. 116 office
(718) 237-5366 fax
(646) 285-2978 cell
mdelauz@fifthave. org
www.fifthave.org

lostingreenwoodhts

Also highlighted on brownstoner.com today:

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/02/fac_development.html

drea

So what do you guys think about it?

anonymous

Kensingtonmom has the ultimate moral authority on this board - she should decide.

anonymous

If people need to decide about this project,then they should observe the properties that FAC currently run and manage. 231 5th Avenue is one of their buildings that, in my tainted opinion, has blemished the revival of 5th Avenue.

Talking about affordable housing is nice in theory, but if the organization cannot implement and manage it's facilities properly and in a manner that will not cause the area to fall once more into disarray and blight, then the project should be rejected.

friendlypitbull

What is your issue with 231 5th - I think a large % of owners and merchants do a horrible job of making 5th ave attractive (garbage everywhere, unneccesary full roll-down gates, graffitti not cleaned promptly) but I dont notice that 231 is any better or worse.

smitty

i have to admit I'm a little scared. The idea of an influx of homeless/drug addicts doesn't sit right with me. The neighborhood seems to be on an upswing and is currently very safe...I can only imagine the scene outside OTB once this is built.

mrdennis

Hey Foxy, I think the Germans had a program in the 30s and 40s you might be interested in.
MOD NOTE: mrdennis is not crazy - he's just responding to a trolling post that's been removed.

As for me, I see great hope in the idea that people under prior hardships trying to reclaim their lives. Any failures of these facilities are that of the management, social directors and the public.

teafolks

As someone moving to the neighborhood, I'm concerned with this news. Can anyone tell me who the local government representative is, or who to write to regarding this issue?


Edited b/c I read a little more about Warren St. and am trying to keep an open mind. Will there be security in the building? Will there be a no-tolerance poilicy for offenders?

belzjm

I have to say I'm rather disgusted by some of the comments on here regarding this topic. To those of you that are against or upset about this news....what exactly is it that has you so upset? Is it seeing those trying to get back on their feet find permanent shelter instead of sleeping outside? These places are monitored and looked after by a multitude of agencies. If you are planning to move to this neghborhood and this has you upset before you have knowlesge of what it even entails, I suggest you look at another neighborhood....perhaps a nice area I've heard of called Westchester.

You all do realize that when interviewing for co-ops that nothing is typically asked either of drug addiction nor sexual offense? And you do realize that those wall streeters you are buying a brownstone next to quite possibly do a ton of cocaine, among other things...

I suggest for those that have issues with this, they should absolutely hit up the meeting.

EVERYONE deserves shelter. And no...that doesn't mean that they should be all put in one area together so that everyone of one class or situation or illness be alienated. That's called segregation.

teafolks

belzim:

are you saying you don't think this will have an effect on the quality of life in the immediate area?

I have lived near several supported housing buildings (though perhaps they weren't run as this will be) and here's what I have experienced outside them/on the corners: panhandling, drinking, loitering, and smoking (drugs). I think that's what people are afraid of.

smitty

The part about the reformed sex offenders moving in is scary. Any young woman would think so.

anonymous

Smitty wrote: The part about the reformed sex offenders moving in is scary. Any young woman would think so.

Well if you go on any of those parole sex offender websites, you would be surprised how many sex offenders live amidst us already (the slope, Windsor Terrace, Sunset Park and Kensington). I prefer they are monitored in a program versus sleeping in their parent's basement!

But I think people need to hear the facts and not jump to hysterical conclusions and use buzzwords. That just closes down options for struggling people trying to get their lives back on track who are NOT sex offenders.

I think EVERY neighborhood should have affordable housing.

belzjm

teafolks: i encounter many of the things you speak of outside the key food on 7th avenue, outside most middle schools, and pretty much in most neighborhoods in most cities. and no...i am in fact not afraid of panhandlers who oftentimes are homeless and are trying to scrape some change together. nor am i afraid of smoking...if i were i wouldn't walk by union hall. loitering...nope...not scary to me. drinkin....plan to do it tonight.

i think what you are implying is that you'd rather not see these things done by people of either a lower class than yourself, or those who had a substance abuse problem, or a mental illness.

granted, i am slightly concerned about past sex offenders, although there are agencies in place to keep tabs on those living in places like these, not to mention security. and there are many sex offenders already living all over brooklyn in case you were unaware. do you think we should find all of the past sex offenders and banish them to guam?? or you just don't want them in park slope?? which is it??

these people you speak of are NOT useless objects in society as some of you suggest. they are human beings. some with serious problems, yes but to simply banish them from your minds is so un-brooklyn like in my mind. don't judge before you know the full details.

smitty

Yeah, I've checked the site out before with the registered sex offenders...there aren't many if any at all in my area. The idea that a group would move in is not pleasant.

I sympathesize with the affordable housing element. I couldn't afford to live anywhere else. My income is currently within the range of the affordable income people and I live in this neighborhood.

anonymous

mrdennis wrote: Hey Foxy, I think the Germans had a program in the 30s and 40s you might be interested in.
MOD NOTE: mrdennis is not crazy - he's just responding to a trolling post that's been removed.

As for me, I see great hope in the idea that people under prior hardships trying to reclaim their lives. Any failures of these facilities are that of the management, social directors and the public.

The speech nazis have struck. Thanks for removing my post. If you, mod, were a US Senator we would likely see bills introduced to ban insensitive or politically incorrect speech as you've done here at the Brookynian.com. I didn't attack another poster or even use foul langauge. Thanks for restricting my speech. Good job. Geez people, lighten up.

Foxy news.

anonymous

Some people don't want former sex offenders or recovering drug addicts purposely moved to their neighborhood. The mentally disabled are another story and I apologise for any confusion there (and the double post).

anonymous

Subject: Re: 5th Ave. Committee plans housing for junkies at 575 5th

booshwaw apathetic wrote:
I really think this should be a topic post. But I'm sure mr. pious moderator will find a reason to move or delete it.

And all this time I thought only rants about baby strollers or complaints about waiters were allowed here.

teafolks

belzjm wrote: .i am in fact not afraid of panhandlers who oftentimes are homeless and are trying to scrape some change together. nor am i afraid of smoking...if i were i wouldn't walk by union hall. loitering...nope...not scary to me. drinkin....plan to do it tonight.

i think what you are implying is that you'd rather not see these things done by people of either a lower class than yourself, or those who had a substance abuse problem, or a mental illness.

That first bit seems a bit sarcastic. But okay.
It makes me uncomfortable to see anyone smoking drugs (not cigs, for the record, as I feel you misunderstood), or drinking on street corners regardless of their class.
As for panhandlers, they are a part of life in the city, yes. But the concern here is that they become a constant presence in a localized area.
All these in combination could indeed adversely affect the local quality of life. Now I don't know that they WILL, but it is a concern.
Talk of drug users in co-ops, etc. seem like semantics to me, and unhelpful. In this instance we're discussing a specific building that would have a much higher concentration of previous offenders. I mean, c'mon!

sprite

belzjm wrote: I have to say I'm rather disgusted by some of the comments on here regarding this topic. To those of you that are against or upset about this news....what exactly is it that has you so upset? Is it seeing those trying to get back on their feet find permanent shelter instead of sleeping outside?

Do you honestly think that's why people are concerned? I don't have a strong feeling about this building, but I don't live in the South Slope and will not be personally affected by it in any way. But one of the things that drew me to Park Slope 9 years ago was the belief that it's a pretty safe neighborhood - safe enough for a small woman like me to walk alone on at night. I doubt I'm the only one who was looking for that, so it doesn't surprise me that people are concerned by an influx of ex-convicts and ex-sex offenders. I'm sure 95% of them are like Jean Valjean, but if the remaining 5% are not, then yes, the area may become a little less safe for current residents.

Moreover, the mere fact that such a facility exists will probably decrease the value of properties nearby. Is that a sad reflection of the average homebuyer's fear and prejudice? Certainly; but it still drives down the coop prices. Anyone who's just spent big money on an apartment or house will be affected. Are they terrible people if that bothers them? Most people's net worth is largely sunk into their homes.

And please don't pretend this is a class issue. People who could not afford to live in PS would feel the exact same way. The difference is that in affluent neighborhoods, residents have more money and contacts to fight the things they don't want.

drano

Anonymous wrote: Kensingtonmom has the ultimate moral authority on this board - she should decide.

Wait, I thought she quit...

Um, anyhow. I know that the good, progressive thing to do is to make a lot of noise like this is just pure upside, but I don't see anything wrong with some concern in the matter. I could lie and tell you that if this place was next door to me I'd be honored that I was doing my part for supporting rehabilitation and all, but...nah, I wouldn't be thrilled.

Admittedly, if it's well administered it could be no big deal. I guess we'll find out.

alafairnadia

Foxy news wrote: Some people don't want former sex offenders or recovering drug addicts purposely moved to their neighborhood. The mentally disabled are another story and I apologise for any confusion there (and the double post).

I think people are overblowing (lol) the deal with former sex offenders (as in, there won't be that many). and, frankly, every recovering addict I know is someone I wouldn't mind having as a neighbor. come on - don't you have a friend who drinks too much or does a bit of coke on the weekends? I've got a few. it's hard not to, especially in this city. now imagine your friends in those situations can't stabilize soon enough - they lose their job, for instance, and can't pay rent/mortgage. the degeneration from that point is pretty damn fast. they get arrested, probably paroled to a rehab facility and then get an opportunity for affordable housing, an opportunity to get their lives back on track. sure, there may be a few bad apples -- but frankly, given the posts on this board alone about bad neighbors, muggings and store robberies, bad apples are nothing you don't have already.

go ahead, call me a bleeding heart liberal, tell me I wouldn't have this reaction if I had to live near "those" people. but since I have dinner with a few of "those" people with regularity by choice, I think I've got quite a lot of perspective on this.

ilovecarbs

Sprite,

I could not agree with you more. The reason why I picked this neighborhood over so many others is that I knew I would feel safe walking home alone, as well as living alone. I am small in size and female as well, which obviously makes me an easy target.

I live on the other side of the slope, so I don't have a personal issue with this, but the principle of the matter is that you are introducing elements that are driving down the quality of life in a neighborhood.

There is nothing wrong with affordable housing. The problem here is WHO it's housing.

And to anyone who wants to start throwng a tantrum about how this is all about rich people being selfish, please spare everyone the misery of having to read your nonsensical one-sided post.

drano

I'm just saying I think there's a valid middle ground between, "Nope, don't see any problems there", and "There goes the freakin' neighborhood." Think about the extent to which you would check out a prospective tenant for your basement apartment (heh) - and you still might end up with a lemon. Of course, the neighborhood as a whole is nobody's private property, but if you live there (or here, I guess it's kinda the Slope) it's natural enough to be asking some hard questions about what's going to be happening. Presumably, people will be given the opportunity to do so on the 24th.

alafairnadia

I love how a few folks complaining are petite or small woman. uh. like ... 90% of women are petite and/or small. even the ones that are fat aren't necessarily strong enough to defend themselves. women in this city are assaulted and killed in every neighborhood. a vast majority of those assaults and murders are committed by people known to the victims. that facility is not going to change that fact. if you walk around in terror of being assaulted by a stranger, though, you're increasing your chances of being subjected to such treatment exponentially. I suggest a self defense class and an air of self-confidence.

ilovecarbs

Just to clarify, when I said I was aware if the fact that i was as easy target. I did not say that I was more of a target than a fat woman. And I think its better to be aware than to have a false sense of bravado that usually causes one to end up in unfortunate situations. That does not equate to me walking around in terror. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself.

I simply meant that I feel more comfortable in a neighborhood that is not notorious for late night shootings, murders and rapes. I agree with your point that park slope is far from a crime free utopia and these crimes can happen anytime to anyone anywhere, but the chances are lower here than if I lived in a high crime area. Even if I do have a black belt

michaelkeys

Quick question: where exactly is 575 5th Ave?

Buttermilk Bar is 577 on the corner of 16th and facing it towards the north, across 16th, is a Municipal Parking Lot. Next door to that is a laundromat which is 565 5th Ave. So, btwn 565 and 577 is a parking lot. I'm confused.