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

oh, I agree with you in many ways. but when I hear about rapes in nice buildings on the upper east side, or shootings of actresses in the lower east side, I stop worrying about random violence - it's going to happen. shit happens. and being a black belt isn't what I mean - I took a self defense course (I actually won the course for myself and two friends at a raffle at a pro-choice event) and I really liked a lot of what they told me about how to avoid being the victim of random crime: how to avoid getting hit by a gunshot, how to deal with being threatened with a knife, etc. and, last year (or was it the year before? I don't recall) when two guys attending a birthday party across the street from my home pushed in behind me in my foyer and wanted to get to know me, these skills kicked in and, I like to think, my forceful tone and serious response to their behavior saved me from unknown consequences.
I really recommend a self defense class for any woman - petite or not - to boost self confidence and increase safety.

also, I really recommend not walking around at night, especially, wearing an ipod or cell phone. not because of fear of getting, say, hit by a car or fear even of being robbed, but because you can't hear someone running up behind you, or saying some shit to you. I see women get off the subway all the time in the evening/night with their headphones still on and consider pulling them aside to say that they're increasing their chances of being assaulted by a random stranger. so I think I'm more paranoid than the average woman about these things and the idea of a facility like that opening up doesn't really upset me.

and no, I was not in any way indicting you for any type of sizeism - I was just noting that when people use words like petite or small, we often think about someone very short and slender, and it isn't only women fitting that description that are vulnerable to attack. so please understand that no offense was intended.

certainly, i understand the unease, displeasure, and even fear that this project provokes.

but where, exactly, should these people live? given that they have to live somewhere?

lostingreenwoodhts wrote: OK, as someone who actually attended tonight's meeting, I'll say one thing...

I was a good discourse and Q&A and I'll report in the morn...

Hey lostingreenwoods,

Eagerly awaiting your report!
(I was stuck at work until almost midnight and couldn't go.)

Thanks.

Great meeting last night. Over 50+ residents and community activists (confirming head count today).

While the meeting started off with the fund raising efforts to lower the $80K bill for fighting the 15th St. Katan Tower ant the BSA and updates on development sites in the area, the FAC presentation became the major focus of the evening.

FAC did an excellent job attempting to dispel some of the myths of sustainable housing, the incorporation of the affordable housing component and the screening process for applicants who wish to live in the new 49 unit studio apt. building.

Facts (hope I get all of this 100% correct):

1. 60/40 split: 60% of mentally handicapped (under treatment) from the City's shelter system and 40% for local single applicants making less that $29K (whom may also be under some sort of State or City program).

2. Screening process for ALL applicants including background check (mental, criminal, credit, etc.) and paneled screening process (with potential community input). "House rules" to ensure the applicants not only follow the rules of the building (obvious ones here about single occupancy only, no drug use, paying rent on time, etc.), but also to make sure applicants become part of "the community" rather just transplants to it.

3. FAC has a great track record creating more than 600 affordable housing units and currently manages 400 units.

Community concerns ranged from the screening process (concern of ex-cons, sex offenders, ex-drug abusers...all potential applicants), the fact FAC hat not approached the community until recently for input into the process, a concern about the loss of parking in a commercial district and MOSTLY the questioning of the "fast tracking" of the ULURP process (the City selling FFAC the parking lot for a buck and its change of use). Seems that while the mandatory public hearing by CB7 is scheduled this Thursday ( 02/15/07 6:30 pm @ St. Michael's-Emmanuel Church on Prospect Ave. btwn 5th/6th Aves), BP Markowitz is holding his "stop #2" public hearing BEFORE the Community Board votes on the FAC/HPD application next Wednesday 2/21/07.

It was suggested that folks should reach out individually to the BP's office and ask for an extension. The CB will be formally requesting that as well.

The community wants more time to ask questions, review the facts and hopefully have some additional input into the project than they have had to date...which other than several meetings with CB7, they have had none.

The biggest concern expressed, other than the lack of community input, was that most folks felt FAC/HPD did not think "outside of the box" and adequately address the needs for senior housing and youths aging out of the foster care system, points brought up in the original discussions in October 2005.

While preference will be given to seniors and these young adults, it's still part of the standard 60/40 split.

Thursday's CB7 public hearing ought to be interesting. Kudos to FAC and HPD for coming before the community, giving a comprehensive presentation and fielding all questions...rational or not.

Personally I am not sure which way to go on this one and will reserve my final "personal thoughts" till after the CB7 Public Hearing.

Rather than having knee-jerk reactions, why not wander by their other facility and take a look around. Ask the folks who live near it if they have problems, and what their issues are. These folks are your neighbors. Why send them off to Staten Island or the outer reaches of Queens? Shouldn't the community make a place for them to live as they rebuild their lives?


I don't think I could agree more....

erikka wrote: I'd rather see housing for the people already in the area who are getting pushed out due to rapidly increasing rents.

While I agree with erikka's points the above resonated with me the most. I think affordable housing for the people ALREADY in the neighborhood is the most desired result. As someone who also lives a few blocks from the purported site I'm concerned about safety issues, as well. Especially at night. This place would be in the crosshairs of two bars frequented by young women. Repeat sex offenders right in the midst of it is indeed a sobering thought.

One interesting development--no pun intended--could be the influence of those building condos/luxury apts in the area. 16th St has more construction going on than any other part of the South Slope and I doubt these people are going to let a shelter/rehab facility ruin their payday.

(PS: Thanks lostingreenwoodhts for the info.)

I contacted Community Board 7 and asked what local politicaians we can contact to voice our concerns. They responded as follows:

Community Board # 7 will hold a Public Hearing on this
issue on 2/15. You can express your concerns via
email to us. You should also contact Councilman Bill
de Blasio at (718) 854-9791 and Borough President
Marty Markowitz at (718) 802-3700

FYI their email is [email protected]

homeowner wrote: Rather than having knee-jerk reactions, why not wander by their other facility and take a look around. Ask the folks who live near it if they have problems, and what their issues are. These folks are your neighbors. Why send them off to Staten Island or the outer reaches of Queens? Shouldn't the community make a place for them to live as they rebuild their lives?

couldn't agree with you more, homeowner. and given the rapid gentrification rates in the parts of brooklyn that already have these facilities, it's not like people aren't already living in apartments or houses that cost or are worth a pretty penny with these folks as neighbors.

honestly, I'd be WAY more concerned about living next to an SRO (someone in this thread said they live next to one) than living next to a building housing the mentally ill and poor in their own studio apartments. the people I know who live in shelters have told me that they are terrified of moving into SROs and are encouraged by the social workers helping them to avoid that type of move at all costs, even if it means staying in the shelter longer to save up money or wait for a spot to open. they want to live in buildings like the one proposed because the "house rules" (which are enforced) help to keep them away from people who could drag them right back into their old lives. not all SROs are like this, but the ones people just out of shelters can afford, which are the majority of them, have rampant hard core drug use (I'm talking about crack, pcp, meth) and the folks living there support their habits however they can.

Just remember that homeless and mentally disabled does not mean killers rapists, and child molesters.

I have a good friend who finished hs, got a great job, married and had a daughter. Her husband starts doing drugs, gets addicted, goes through all their money, starts abusing her so she leaves. She has no family few friends and in order for her to be protected goes into a shelter for battered women. She was lucky enough to get a place through the supported housing program and her and her daughter were able to begin fresh and the on-site therapists helped her and her child overcome some of the horrors they had to live through. She completed college, and now works as a social worker.

Another person I know who benefited from this type of living situation was a friend's brother. He suffered terribly from PTSD after returning from the Gulf War and became addicted to pain killers after being hurt there. He came home entered a program and was clean for one year before he moved into his apartment. It was hard for him to live alone, he didn't want to live with his parents and he was not so incapable that he needed assisted living. He called it his all in one support system. He is now married with children and owns his own home.

Anonymous wrote: It doesn't seem like this is supported housing for people in THIS community - they are bringing people in from outside of South Slope.

The hope/want, from FAC's perspective, is the majority of the units (both the 60% assisted mentally handicapped and the 40% low income) will be pooled from the South Slope/Greenwood Hts./Sunset Park area. They mentioned the preference that would be given to displaced residents of the area that are in the shelter system, no matter their current housing location.

Not saying good or bad here, just relaying some of what I heard last night.

PS. there has been a concerted effort to push Markowitz into postponing the 2/20 hearing back...let's see what happens.

sweet tea wrote: ...some people in those positions will move into "good" neighborhoods, too.

I hear you, sweet tea. But my cynical side is wondering--as some others have before me--why not the North Slope? Is it because they are more affluent and better equipped to fight this from happening? Hmmm. Because of that is indeed the case, then it would be a milder version of the "ghettoization" you spoke against in your post.

sweet tea wrote: ...as for issues of safety, again, i understand. but i don't like the suggestion that personal safety is something that only those with more money to spend deserve. nicer cars, fancier shoes -- fine. but it is not nice to say that people who cannot afford to live in a neighborhood like PS deserve less safe lives.

No one deserves to live in drug-ridden, crime-infested areas. No one. By the same token, people that have somehow--be it luck, hard work, etc--find themselves inhabiting relatively safe, hard drug-free nabes shouldn't have it brought to them either. And I'm not talking about property values: I rent and probably will do so--in this neighborhood, even--for the rest of my life. But I like to know that I can walk home at 4AM and not worry about getting jumped. Or have some character waiting for me in my building hallway. Yes, this happens everywhere. But we don't need to push our luck, do we?
Bottom line: If this building is genuinely going to help people in need and not bring more crime and/or mayhem into the neighborhood, I'm all for it. But if it's going to be some mismanaged bureaucracy that will endanger the area's residents and bring down the quality of life, then absolutely not.

alafairnadia wrote:
honestly, I'd be WAY more concerned about living next to an SRO (someone in this thread said they live next to one) than living next to a building housing the mentally ill and poor in their own studio apartments.

i was the one who said it, it's on 15th street between 8th and the park and gets a lot of use from the shelter women and their drug addict boyfriends... having the shelter there, and the friends of the people in the shelter hanging around, doesn't make me very comfortable. adding a huge building of what appear to be transient people in need of help--and i mean transient in that they are studios, which means they likely want people in and out rather than hanging around--is very disturbing to me.

yes, you can be mugged/raped/killed/whatever anywhere or at any time, but the chances of it happening are higher if you're surrounded by people more apt to do bad things.

MichaelKeys wrote:
Personally, in very simple terms, I feel it's "neighborhood fabric" thing. The devil you know and all that. And regardless, why should people--particularly families--be displaced unnecesarily? Especially if there are school-aged kids involved.
Your point about "demographic ebb and flow" being a catalyst "to create diversity and exposure to different cultures and groups, hopefully leading to greater tolerance in the city" is truly a wonderful thing. And I welcome it. But before the Y and Z families move into the 'hood, I'd want that nice Mr. X and his wife and kids to be able stay here for another 10 years and not have to leave and move into a neighborhood where they are not comfortable, but have no recourse. Shouldn't we take care of our own first? I know I'd like to.

Well, here's the problem with that. Basically, you're saying the government should intervene in the housing market to protect current residents of an area by somehow making the same housing cheaper for them than it would be for new entrants. But what about if the original residents were middle class, or upper class? The city has limited resources, and I'd much rather see housing subsidies going to the poor than to the middle or upper class. Indeed, I'd rather subsidies went to a poor person to help him move into a different neighborhood, than to a middle-class person to help him stay in his original neighborhood. Doing otherwise strikes me as a blatantly unfair use of of public money and goes contrary to the whole concept of the city intervening to help out the less fortunate. Also, as I alluded to before, you would be creating incentives for people to stay put and would therefore encourage static, exclusive communities where outsiders were unwelcome.

Finally, you'd essentially be creating two housing markets--the unsubsidized one for outsiders would necessarily be far more expensive than it would otherwise be, and this would discourage people from moving into the city. Since we all know that the constant inflow of people moving into this city, both immigrants from abroad and Americans coming to NY to pursue their hopes and dreams, is what makes NYC so amazing, I would never want to do anything to discriminate against these entrants or to dissuade them from moving here and investing in our city.

(For balance, let me also say that I do largely agree with your argument above about the consequences 575 5th Ave. I'm not sure exactly what to make of that issue, but I definitely think you made some very good points.)