The Safe Haven shelter is expected to begin admitting residents in April (Google Maps).
On Tuesday, Feb. 28, Community Board 7‘s Health & Human Services Committee held a Q&A with the public over Zoom to discuss the ‘Safe Haven’ homeless shelter coming to 106-108 West 83rd Street, between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenue.
Advertisement
The ‘low-barrier transitional housing program’ funded by Mayor Eric Adams will begin accepting homeless referrals into their 80-bed facility in April 2023, with an additional 28 beds coming in the summer. Breaking Ground, the non-profit from New York City which opened its first Safe Haven after renovating Times Square Hotel in 1990, will manage the program.
Health & Human Services Co-Chair Sheldon Fine led the meeting. “As you know, New Yorkers experience unsheltered homelessness,” said Fine during his introduction. “Those people are our most uniquely challenged population … these are our unsheltered neighbors.” Fine stated that from his experiences speaking with people living on the street that they “light up” with delight when they hear about Safe Haven options as some other homeless shelters can be hard for them to feel comfortable in.
Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs at the Department of Social Services, Hailey Nolasco, spoke next. While a number of Upper West Siders have recently expressed frustrations over the fact that plans for this shelter were never shared with them, Nolasco expressed her deepest gratitude to the community for their support of the program. “We know it’s not always an easy thing so we just want to again, share our gratitude to the community for of course wanting to support our vulnerable New Yorkers here.”
Breaking Ground’s Safe Havens work on a referral program where their outreach teams go into the community to build rapport with the homeless. They share with them the services they offer like 24-hour security and staffing with a clinical and case management team, harm reduction specialists and psychiatric care. They also have programming which includes an art program, gardening, substance use support, and peer groups along with yoga and meditation. They also offer private bathrooms, which they say help people feel safe, and they plan to offer primary medical care down the road.
Advertisement
Courtney Clark, CB7’s youth, education and libraries co-chair, was not in support of Breaking Ground coming to the Upper West Side. “So, to me this location should have been a nonstarter.” Clark expressed concerns with schools and the playground located right across the street before asking what Breaking Ground’s plan was for ensuring safety for the community.
A community outreach team was discussed as a way to work with the community to do their best to ensure safety. “Safety is something that we take very seriously,” said Erin Madden, vice president of programs at Breaking Ground. “Again, we have vulnerable people inside our buildings. Many of them have histories of assault as well as our staff and community members.”
Madden explained that Breaking Ground staff walks around the surrounding area regularly to see if everyone they’ve taken in is okay and not experiencing distress.
Advertisement
During the question and answer segment of the meeting, members of the general public submitted questions and Fine would ask them on their behalf. This begins at about 59:40.
Council Member Gale Brewer expressed her approval of the shelter and told those in attendance that she’s spoken with neighboring schools and businesses.
Breaking Ground is open to all genders as well as pets. Men and women live on separate floors with rooms ranging from 1 to 4 beds. High-speed wi-fi is included.
Community Board 7’s Health & Human Services Committee voted 5 in favor with none opposed to the solution stating they “support the establishment of the planned Safe Haven at 106-108 West 83rd Street, with Breaking Ground as its service provider. Non committee members also voted 5 in favor with none opposed.
The Safe Haven shelter will be discussed again at Community Board 7’s full board meeting on March 7. Those who wish to attend can sign up here.
Sorry, but no one “lights up with delight” at the prospect of a homeless shelter on their street. If the homeless were really just homeless and went off to work each day, it would be fine, but we all know that the root of most homelessness is mental illness and drug and alcohol addictions–which will play out in our streets, stores, and restaurants.
Where do you propose that they live? “Far from you?” I’d ask that you re-examine your prejudice against the homeless. Access to stable housing is a human right, regardless of whether you think people “deserve” it. I am personally delighted that there will additional supportive housing in the neighborhood.
Far from me would be a good start. There’s really no reason they must be kept in the neighborhood. If the city is willing to provide safe haven shelters, surely it would be more cost effective to provide them somewhere other than the UWS. They get the same benefit, and the UWS doesn’t need to worry about individuals who can be dangerous. So yes, far from me. But if you’d like, you can spend time volunteering in their new neighborhoods
Sure let’s go with that logic. The UWS is too expensive for homeless people to deserve to live near securely housed residents. Begs the question…If they should be “far from you” because you have enough money to isolate yourself from reality, where does that empathy cut off happen for you? Do bodies become people to you at 50k, 100k, more?? I hope you heal. As your fellow UWS neighbor, I hope you’ll join me in volunteering at the new shelter. As an affluent community in the best city in the world, we have a duty to take on some level social responsibility rather than pass the burden onto other already-stretched-thin communities.
Again, I hope you heal and work passed the ego that your money inflates. I don’t need to know you to know that you yourself are closer to homelessness than you are to any Forbes list.
AGREED….NOT HAPPY about this AT ALL.. And the level of LOITERING AND SMOKING outside the building will be unsafe and makes neighbors like me very uncomfortable. — AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM PS9 OUR CHILDREN’S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL???
As Courtney stated, this SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NON-STARTER FOR MANY REASONS.
And I guarantee that those who voted on this DO NOT LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
A MURDER OCCURRED INSIDE THIS HOUSING IN 2019 as well as ANOTHER MURDER 2 months ago on the other side of the fire station at the church-run low-income housing facility due to a violent murderer who was just released on a post-prison program who worked there.
ALL ON WEST 83rd. And you are not going to look into their backgrounds?
YOU CAN PRESENT ALL YOU WANT WITH YOUR PARTNERSHIPS—-
THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
WHY CAN’T YOU ACTUALLY TALK TO PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE/HERE????
WHY WERE WE NOT INFORMED OF THIS MEETING PRIOR TO IT HAPPENING?
WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION FOR THOSE OF US VULNERABLE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE/HERE NOW?
This is a BOARD REQUEST – NOT A COMMUNITY REQUEST.
YOU DO NOT VALUE OUR VOICES.
And there’s a small backyard space to smoke?? But you’re ok with the smoke getting into all our windows — PLEASE! How do they have money for expensive cigarettes when they don’t have jobs??
AND there’s no time limit as to how long they can stay there?????
What are YOU smoking?
#IMWITHCOURTNEY
#NONSTARTER
Its not community input if the CB member filters which questions are asked. Regardleas of whether or not you agree w this shelter, why were residents not informed, unable to voice concern about proximity to elementary school and then have their voices silenced during a q&a.
The answers received were vague and unhelpful. And since we could only type into chat and hope it was read, many of us are justifiably frustrated w the lack of transparency.
Hosting zoom mtgs, not allowing ppl to speak only benefits agenda driven CBs. Time to resume punlic sessions.
We the community are being silenced. I can assure you we do not “light up” at the thought of this. Again political agenda’s being rammed down our throats. This city is falling apart and the general atmosphere has a sense of doom. If CB7 is so in favor of this, feel free to open your own home to the mentally deraigned homeless.
We the community are being silenced. I can assure you we do not “light up” at the thought of this. Again political agenda’s being rammed down our throats. This city is falling apart and the general atmosphere has a sense of doom. If CB7 is so in favor of this, feel free to open your own home to the mentally deranged homeless.
Not having a home does not make you dangerous. Stable housing helps people build stable lives, and I’m glad that the UWS will soon have more spaces to share with our neighbors in need.
Yes this is good news and welcome by many street homeless who typically refuse shelter because the shelter system is broken. On the other hand safe havens are welcome by homeless and offer wraparound on-site services and 3 meals a day and stabilization. This provider has an excellent track record. The best solution for homelessness is homes and I’m glad this will be offered as a new solution in our neighborhood. It shows that people have listened to those impacted and are offering them choices that will help lift them up. I look forward to partnering with them to provide opportunities for our children and families to show humanity. The people who object do not represent the full community.
I would love to hear your proof that the “provider has a great track record”, and I would love to hear you back up your assertion that the “on-site services” will be welcomed and used by the tenants. I’m excited that you think you will want to “partner” with them. I lived in a Breaking Ground SRO for 6 years. Have you ever lived in one?
Why would anyone they’ve “taken in” ever be “experiencing distress” in the “surrounding area”?
No no no. Terrible idea. Longtime UWSers, especially vulnerable elders and kids will be paying the price for this latest woke move by the local lawmakers “we” so foolishly elected.
Haha, I knew this comment section would be a beacon of level-headed discourse. Kirsten, thank you for being a voice of compassion and reasonableness. Crankypants, do you realize that every time you use the word “woke,” it just makes you look like more of a joke? Move to Florida already.
There you go, another reasonable and level-headed comment – chase away those you disagree with. Or did you move to San Francisco already?
lol imagine if you were funny. I’ve had enough of this. If you are going to build a shelter in a very populated area, at least make sure it is monitored around the clock and there is always security.
For decades, Goddard-Riverside has operated housing for formerly homeless people across the street from our building on West 92. (When it was created, it was featured in the NYT magazine.) The building is secure; no one (as far as I know) has ever been attacked or disturbed by any of the residents. There are support services there, and people come and go the same way the rest of us do.
West 83 Street is no different from us, and with a strong support system in place, there will be minimal problems.
I’m not against the shelter, but this could be placed in a better location (not opposite a school). I hope it works out well for everyone involved.
Can someone explain how a homeless shelter makes sense anywhere in Manhattan, which is already facing an extreme housing shortage?
Because noone’s livelihood depend on actually delivering efficient problem resolutions in this area – or solving anything at all. “Government work”, padded later by recycling into a lucrative position in the homeless industrial complex.
In short, follow the money – from the start (us, the largely powerless taxpayers).
I also want to thank Kristen, In Support, and Elise for their more compassionate view. I could not even pretend that I am not in favor of this (with caveats), since I am well-known for my work with the street homeless in this community, and my involvement in working with the homeless housed at the Lucerne and Belleclaire Hotels during the height of the pandemic, during which I became the target of the MAGA and conservative types among us. (I wore it as a badge of honor.)
And I have a personal stake in this, since I am a resident of 83rd Street, and have been for over five decades. I also went to the school across the street.
As noted, I have some caveats to my support, and I hope to share them with the service provider and other stakeholders.
In the meantime, my compassionate friends, keep maintaining that compassion, even in the face of selfishness (“put them somewhere else”), ignorance (Breaking Ground has the highest possible rating on Charity Navigator, and a sterling track record), and fear.
I’m sure you aren’t directing that “ignorance” label at my comment, seeing as I literally lived in a Breaking Ground SRO for 6 years. But certainly, a website called “Charity Navigator” would outweigh my personal life experience. I will not be engaging in a discussion with you any further as you are notorious on this website for name calling and forcing your perspective on anyone who doesn’t share yours (MAGA? stop now) but in the event that you mean to label me as “ignorant”, stop immediately. Have a blessed and safe day!
You have now said twice that you lived in a Breaking Ground SRO for several years. But you have given no other information. WHY did you not like it? What was wrong with the situation? What is wrong with Breaking Ground? How about some detail so we have more than just “I lived in a Breaking Ground SRO, so I know better than you.” ???
I don’t owe you a single thing. You are frighteningly adamant that Breaking Ground is a sterling organization without a blemish on their history, but that is simply not factual information. I don’t need to share details of my life on an anonymous platform. I have never posted on this site before and never will again, but I do have somewhat of an issue with those who have had exactly zero life experience living in one of these establishments insisting to others (in fact, name calling as far as even cyber bullying them) that they are safe and wonderful and we should be honored to have one or twenty in our neighborhood, and anyone who isn’t on board is racist, classist, and all of the other “ists” you insist they must be simply because they don’t share your completely biased perspective.
By the way Ian, I DID live in one, so I literally DO know better than you. That’s how life actually works. Virtue signaling does not trump (oops, sorry to trigger) my literal life.
True, you owe me nothing. But you have made certain statements, and in order for all of us to understand why you made them – and even whether they are true – you do need to provide SOME sort of information. No one is asking you for intimate or personal details that you would prefer not to share. But NO ONE can simply make pronouncements about something and expect everyone to believe them simply because they are made.
How do we know you are not just some disgruntled former resident who has an axe to grind? After all, by your own admission, you did stay there for over 5 years. Obviously, you were “fine” with being there for that long.
As for your characterization of me, it is entirely wrong. I admit to being very passionate at times. But I have NEVER called anyone racist or classist or any other “ist,” or engaged in cyberbullying. If you don’t know the differences between observation and criticism on the one hand, and “name-calling” and cyberbullying on the other, that is not my problem.
If you refuse to provide even the most general information about why Breaking Ground is a bad service provider, or why the siting of this facility is a bad idea – which might actually help to sway those of us who support this – then I have zero reason to believe your claims. And that is observation and criticism, not name-calling or cyberbullying.
Ian, You do not have a clue as to how Charity Navigator works. It is an automated program that analyzes FINANCIAL data and certain good governance items that non-profits submit. It does ZERO to evaluate the merits or quality of a charities actual work. Your use of it here is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.
Please educate yourself on the FACTS before you make pronouncements that are inaccurate.(your words)
Also why are its officers getting paid like investment bankers? The CEO made almost $500,000 in 2019. Probably more today.
LOL. I know EXACTLY how Charity Navigator (and other charity rating sites) work, since I spent over 20 years sitting on the boards of not-for-profit organizations. Charity Navigator provides information in four categories: Accountability and Finance, Leadership and Adaptability, Impact and Results, and Culture and Community. Not all listings provide all of this information.
It is obvious that NO site provides, or could provide, a level of detail that would include, for example, the personal experiences of people served by the charities. So, were our friend TalkIsCheap to share some of his experience there, it would be information that would be helpful way beyond the scope of what sites like Charity Navigator provide.
Sites like Charity Navigator can only provide information about how a charity is run – mostly internally, though some do provide community impact information. I never suggested otherwise.
As for salaries, the salaries of NFP CEOs can definitely seem very high, particularly given that we ARE talking about “charities.” But salaries are determined by a Board, based on many factors, including the financial strength of the organization based on endowments, trusts, and/or donations. So while $500,000 seems awfully high, we would have to know much more to determine whether it was somehow inappropriate. If the organization only has a few million dollars, then $500,000 would be totally wrong. If the organization has $1 billion, then $500,000 would not necessarily be outrageous.
And if you are “tired” of someone providing facts, experience, and sense, I am truly sorry for that.
First of all, I am not a man. I am also not your friend. Notice how nobody engages with your endless rants on this website? Do not mention me or my username again. I do not owe you the personal details of my life and time living in a Breaking Ground SRO. You are combatively argumentative and completely unwilling to accept reality. Reality, as a reminder, by definition, is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealist version of them. The reality is is that I lived in a Breaking Ground SRO, and it was a dangerous and unsafe place to live, and I don’t need to share those details with you because you want to insist that because I won’t tell you, a fanatic on a website, I must be a liar. You are completely unwilling to accept that ANYONE who disagrees with you has any ground to stand on, and I will not engage with you again. Do NOT reply to me. Leave me alone.
Reading the comments on here I am reminded of one of the most infuriating quotes about the 2nd Ave Subway and a direct example of why it took literally a LIFETIME to be built: “‘We’re not against the Second Avenue subway. We’re New Yorkers. We need it. We’re just against the siting of the entrance.'”
We know we need homeless shelters. We know it is horrifying that a wealthy country like ours can’t find the bare minimum of resources to shelter people. We see people living on the street–which we all dislike intensely–yet here, we are, arguing about the siting.
“Yes, we need it, but, oh my gosh!!, don’t put it there.”
And so it gets kicked down the road and more people are seen on the street and they build their shelters out of whatever they can find and we walk by them with our children and our pets and our shopping bags and decry the state of the city.
It is beyond frustrating to see the resistance in New York’s citizens to build the things we needs in order to prosper and flourish. NIMBY’s exploit social media and shouty outrage to stop anything from being built and then loudly complain. Just sit with that. Own the fact that your NIMBY tactics do not lead to better outcomes, just more visible distress.
I am one of the formerly homeless that lives in a similar building on the UWS, albeit my housing is supposed to be permanent. There are a dozen or more such buildings on the UWS that I know of. I am middle aged and disabled and living here for about 2 years now. I also used to live on the UWS in my 20’s so when I was offered a small studio I was very happy to be back here in a neighborhood I knew well and liked.
Being homeless is not always about being an addict or severely mentally ill. I do suffer from C-PTSD, Anxiety and Depression but it’s manageable and the stability I’ve finally found here has helped me with that a lot. I’m not in a Breaking Ground property but I’ve not heard much that is bad about them.
I walk down the streets here and nobody would ever know that I was once a homeless woman literally reduced to sleeping on the beach at Coney and on the subway. People are just shocked that it happened to me and they always want to know what happened. All it took was major illness and one very bad tropical storm and I lost it all. No drugs, no alcohol, just LIFE, and it knocked me down HARD. I actually nearly died several times before it was all done.
I’m very fortunate to be living where I am and to be stable now. I absolutely know that. Programs like this they save lives. I get your fear but it’s mostly unfounded. Most of the people in my building are no trouble to the neighborhood whatsoever. If they were they would not be allowed to remain for long. It’s a necessary part of living here behaving yourself. If you want to stay and succeed you get control of yourself and your life.
Not everybody makes it, even with support like this.
I am very happy to say that I am.
A lot of these people they just need a decent chance, a real home, and a little community support instead of automatic disdain. Believe me I have heard my share of that negativity since I came to live here. Usually the people saying it have no idea that they just insulted one of “those people” that they wish didn’t live in their neighborhood. I tell them and they’re just SHOCKED because apparently I don’t look like I might have been homeless.
Well, yeah, I was.
It took me over 5 years of pure hell to get to this point. I’m very happy to be back on the UWS where I spent most of my 20’s and learned to love living in NYC but the one thing that I really don’t like is the NIMBY-ism that has arisen in the decades since then. When I was here before I fed the homeless. Still do, even now. I never thought I’d be one of them and that someone would feed me but I was grateful for the help when someone did.
Homeless people are just that PEOPLE. They all have different stories, different reasons for ending up homeless. Do yourself and then a favor and don’t assume that it’s all about drugs or alcohol addiction or severe mental illness because a lot of the time it’s not. People end up losing jobs and apartments. People come out of abusive relationships. People end up losing it all because of unexpected fires, storms, etc. Older people they simply get priced right out of apartments that they’ve lived in for years.
Believe me I’ve heard it all.
There is a certain percentage of problematic homeless people. But that % is actually not much greater than in any population here. Most of the homeless they’re people, like any, just trying to reclaim their lives and dig back out of whatever hole they’ve fallen into.
Stability is a HUGE part of success. Breaking Ground and other organizations like it are truly doing a lot of good and really helping a lot of people get out of the wretched cycle of homelessness.
Been there, done that and I could not be more grateful for programs like this. I’m alive and housed and fairly happy these days because of programs like this and people who didn’t just see me as street trash and as worth nothing.
I am your neighbor and I am just as deserving of decent housing and your respect as anyone else who lives here. Probably more in some ways because most people here will never go through all that I have gone through and survive let alone thrive. Believe me I’m doing my absolute level best to do just that.
Peace…
Hi Mag Kelly, thanks for spending so much time replying here. The world of the homeless is an odd mixture of ‘right in your face’ and yet complete foreign. I myself know only what I see, as I have never been homeless. That said, I’m going to reply to some of your comments with honesty and a compassion that might not be immediately perceivable.
Being homeless is not always about being an addict or severely mentally ill.
->This is certainly true by definition. However, most of us see or read about the crime in these shelters a lot. The quiet flashing lights of the police or ambulance is a very common part of these shelters. This is our lived experience.
I walk down the streets here and nobody would ever know that I was once a homeless woman literally reduced to sleeping on the beach at Coney and on the subway.
-> Congratulations for getting through all you have.
Most of the people in my building are no trouble to the neighborhood whatsoever.
->’Most’ isn’t good enough. Even if 95% of them were nonviolent, that’s honestly just not good enough. It only take one person spitting on passersby, screaming on the corner, masterbating between cars, etc., to destroy a city block.
There is a certain percentage of problematic homeless people. But that % is actually not much greater than in any population here.
-> I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this. The UWS is a generally wealthy area. Every window is a millionaire. Again, it’s plainly visible to the multi-decade residents here.
I am your neighbor and I am just as deserving of decent housing and your respect as anyone else who lives here.
->Again, I don’t agree. Subsidized housing, paid for by ‘us’, is a privilege. Perhaps some gratitude would be helpful.
My opinion on this is simply ‘don’t tread on me’. If we have homeless shelters, and those people are good people that don’t harm me through crime, noise, pot smoke, etc., then the more the merrier! But I don’t deserve to be harmed in any way, beyond the massive taxes I’m paying, to support others.
I hope this wasn’t too direct.
Bless You and Good Luck
Thank you for sharing your story, Mag. I hope that people read it and, unlike good humor, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. The more people we can get off the streets and into monitored housing like this model, the better and cleaner and safer our streets will be.
If people can’t look at it from a compassionate perspective, then look at it from a selfish one: every person moved off the street and into shelter is one less person they have to step over every morning. Maybe go from the “what’s in it for me?” perspective if the greater societal good aspect of this escapes people. What’s in it for you is getting to see fewer cardboard structures and people sleeping rough.
Thank you for a very well-thought-out and incisive comment!
“Do yourself and then a favor and don’t assume that it’s all about drugs or alcohol addiction or severe mental illness because a lot of the time it’s not.”
But most of the time it is. And I think you know that given your experiences.
As someone who worked with the street homeless for over 20 years, I can say with broad experience that “severe mental illness” is actually rare among the homeless, while “lesser” mental illness as a general matter is more common. But even so, it only affects about 25%-35%. So it is NOT “most of the time.”
As for alcoholism, most people are unaware that people do not become homeless due to alcoholism (or, at least, only rarely). They BECOME alcoholics (and drug addicts) AS A RESULT of homelessness. It is part of what anyone who has worked in this field knows as the “homeless spiral.” Yet even alcoholism only affects less than half of all homeless – so, again, it is not “most.”
Please educate yourself on the FACTS before you make pronouncements that are inaccurate.
People who need help deserve to get it, but not to the detriment of others. Police and ambulances were commonplace when the Lucerne housed the homeless, and the benches on the Broadway median were occupied by troublemakers who often bothered others. Store thefts became commonplace. Maybe this new place will avoid such spinoff.
“Detriment” is a relative term; one person’s “detriment” is another person’s “mere inconvenience,” which they are willing to accept for the good of others.
With regard to the Lucerne, you start with the concept of “detriment” and then mention the emergency vehicles that ended up there. How is the presence of an emergency vehicle a “detriment?” Or, indeed, how is anything that went on inside the building a detriment to you?
As for the benches on the Broadway medians at 79th Street, how were the men there “troublemakers?” I knew and spoke to almost all of them. And although they admittedly did some drinking and pot smoking, I never saw or heard of them bothering anyone. THis leads me to believe that you are conflating them with Kurt, the man who sits on the south side of the median and can be troublesome when he drinks. But he is and was not a resident of the Lucerne.
Only your comment about the rise in store thefts is truly accurate. But again, while those thefts are wrong and problematic, how is it a “detriment” to YOU?
it sounds like you simply want to “relitigate” the past.
Why is the UWS the dumping ground for homeless people? Why not turn Gracie Mansion into a shelter? Oh because our garbage mayor thinks he’s special and anointed by Jebus. This city is in another trough with a delusional mayor and an incompetent city council. Thank Jebus we have Brewer to make everyone’s life worse. Who votes for her and why are you incapable of learning from your mistakes?
Yours is a common – and inaccurate – complaint. In fact, two new homeless shelter opened on the Upper East Side in just the last two years (and I do mean the UES, and not Harlem). And another one is sited to open later this year (part of a plan to site homeless shelters in EVERY community – partly for the very reason that some communities have gotten away with rejecting them for decades).
But yes, the Upper West Side has somewhat more than its “fair share” of such facilities. Your mistake is thinking that the majority of us “mind” that. (Which also explains why Gale always gets ~85% of the vote when she runs.) Because the Upper West Side has traditionally (for many decades) shown a level of acceptance, compassion, and understanding that most other communities do not. It is not that we overtly “want” all of these facilities; it is that we understand that they are necessary, and we are willing to accept them.
Yet even the UWS does not ALWAYS simply allow them. We have fought against some of them (occasionally successfully) and were able to have modifications made to others to make them better and safer.
One example is the West End Intergenerational Residence on my block. It was founded in 1988 as a “model” “Tier-3” facility for rent-regulated seniors (prior tenants of the building) and homeless mothers with children. The original plan was a truly bad one, so a Community Advisory Board was formed (the first of its kind) to see whether and how we could modify the proposal to make it better. I co-chaired that CAB. Over the next year we worked with the HDFC and basically re-wrote the plan from the top down. They accepted almost all of our modifications, and the facility that was eventually “built” was far better, safer and more productive. In fact, after a slightly rocky start, it was completely integrated into the neighborhood, and most people do not even know it is there. (Yes, it still exists after 35 years.) This near-invisibility is true of a few other facilities on the UWS as well.
The CB should be investigated and most members voted out – completely autocratic and self-serving. Has been like this for years – they have no sense of reality and thrive on virtue signaling. Again – where are the planned shelters for the East side? And where does the concept of 108 homeless people inserted on 1 block have no noticeable impact? What is the vetting process – and not the usual heavily cloaked PR information?
Confused by the people who are angry about this because they don’t want this or these people near them.
Isn’t it better that these people be housed and at least ostensibly taken care of, rather than them still living on the street?
I grew up on 103rd St, back in the 70s when there were two SROs between broadway and WEA. They were problematic. But there was also some public housing on the same block, similar to this, and no one even noticed it.
Being resigned and feeling helpless with poor policies and practices is not the same as “no one even noticed it”. WE NOTICE!! No one here is saying that the homeless issue should be ignored, but policies should be considered for the entirety of a neighborhood. The entire city is at a breaking point with the incompetent PTB.
Omg this thread! Can we impose a 2 or 3 response limit?!
This is a disaster in waiting for what is already one of the noisiest, filthiest, most dangerous and scariest blocks on the UWS. Even the mail carriers want out.
Good luck, 83rd!
I have lived on 83rd Street for over 50 years, and I walk that block regularly. It is NOT “one of the noisiest, filthiest, most dangerous and scariest” blocks on the UWS. It is a rather normal block, with a post office, a firehouse (yes, fire engines can be noisy), three parking garages and car rental places, a fitness facility, a church, and a school. The hundreds of people who rent cars from those rental places don’t show the slightest signs of finding the block “scary” or “dangerous.” In fact, neither do most of the parents of the children who go to the school – or the children themselves, many of whom walk home alone or in small groups down that block. Nor do the hundreds of members of the church, or the members of the gym.
As for the mail carriers – many of whom I have known for years – I have never heard a single one complain about the block in any way.
If YOU don’t like the block, you are free not to use it.
Jobs are available, but you endorse adults spending their days sitting around outdoors in the neighborhood where they’ve been dumped, getting drunk and stoned and yelling at each other and at passersby. Then they OD and the police and ambulances respond. There’s got to be a better way.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I was “endorsing” that? That is your word, not mine. I was merely stating a fact.
As well, many of the men at the Lucerne DID have jobs, and went to them every day (or however often they had been hired(. But not all of them did. Nor were all of them “capable” of working: many were on disability (as are many non-homeless people) and could not work; I was certainly not “endorsing” that they spend their time hanging out on the median.
And, again, “yelling at passers-by?” I think you mean Kurt; I never saw or heard any of the men from the Lucerne “yelling at” anyone.
As for “then they OD,” there were exactly three OD’s (thankfully, none of them fatal) in the entire year that the men were there.
You seem to have a serious issue with people more needy than you.
This location was previously a shelter.
It did not go well:
https://nypost.com/2019/11/10/stabbing-at-homeless-shelter-leaves-1-resident-dead-cops/amp/
https://abc7ny.com/amp/rape-attempt-attempted-upper-west-side/3715432/
Knew about the stabbing; apparently a fight between two roommates. Did not know about the attempted rape. Horrible.
I would point out that the building was run by a different service provider at the time. Some are better than others. Which is why Gale Brewer and others are calling for a reduction in the number of residents of the building, and certain assurances re both internal and external security. My own support of the new facility is heavily contingent upon the latter, along with other things.
I am told that background checks are not conducted.
Can anyone confirm or clarify this?
I ask specifically regarding registered sex offenders and the proximity to schools.
If anyone has factual information I would appreciate it.
I was told by the organization that they interview potential occupants but could not get a straight answer on what I thought was a simple question.
I would have this concern with any neighbor and do check the registry because I was a victim of stalking, not by a homeless person. My point is anyone,regardless of housing ,can do something “bad” if they have the intent to.
However, the population (meaning anyone living in NYS)should be officially background checked.
I appreciate any information.
Breaking Ground does not conduct background checks. They do an intake interview, but background checks are not a part of that.
Re sex offender registries, they are not indicative of anything. The person riding with you (and your children) in your elevator may well be a registered sex offender, and you would not know it. Nor would it be an “issue” in the overwhelming majority of cases, since sex offenders become integrated into their neighborhoods – including near schools – without incident. There are currently quite a few registered sex offenders living on the UWS. And some of them live near schools.
As for background checks, I’m not sure why one would expect homeless people to be background checked, but not others. Most landlords do not do criminal background checks (though they may do financial background checks), which means your own neighbor could have a criminal background. 🙁
Thank you for this information.
I was stalked by a resident in my former apartment building and I do read the sex offender report including a 5 mile radius that includes my building (i had to move out of my last one given the situation) which is why I wondered.
I actually expect all people to be background checked regardless of who, and where they live. I was stalked by a lawyer, go figure. So I take this seriously across any and all people regardless of where.
I very much appreciate you taking time to clarify this information for me.
Have a good evening
I very much appreciate your time.
You are welcome. And I am very sorry to hear of your horrible situation! I, too, was stalked recently, by a former roommate. It was definitely unnerving.
I suppose that if background checks were done broadly, I would support them. I just feel uncomfortable when it targets one group but not another.
Take care of yourself.
I’m glad that our neighborhood is doing our part to help those who need help. It’s been a cold winter. It’s awful to imagine people having to spend the entire night trying to sleep on the street or in Riverside Park.
Homelessness is a problem throughout the entire city and it’s critical we all work together to get people on the right track.