Judge Margaret Chan dealt a setback to opponents of the homeless shelter on West 95th street, dismissing their claims that the shelter violates the city’s “fair share” rules that say no one neighborhood should have to accept a disproportionate number of shelters. Neighborhood in the Nineties, the group that brought the suit, plans to appeal the ruling.
The ruling also dismissed former comptroller John Liu’s decision to reject the five-year $47 million shelter contract. The contract also allows DHS to determine whether to extend the shelter to a 9.5-year contract.
It’s not clear what happens now. Aaron Biller, the leader of Neighborhood in the Nineties, says that the Department of Homeless Services has to submit a new contract. A spokesman for Comptroller Scott Stringer said Stringer is reviewing his options, but that the judge’s order forces the office to register the contract. Stringer could potentially appeal, though it’s not clear whether he will. Mayor Bill de Blasio and Council member Helen Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment and clarification. We last wrote about the shelter earlier this week.
Biller said he hopes de Blasio’s office decides to give up on a five-year contract and instead works on transitioning shelter residents to more permanent housing and closing the shelter within a year. “We don’t want to kick people out on the street,” he said. “We want these SRO buildings to be used for affordable housing.”
Biller sent a letter to de Blasio pleading with him to work with locals and stop a long-term contract.
“Neither the operator’s nor landlord’s track records justify the city’s blessing to operate a shelter with 400 adults, much less locking taxpayers into a 9.5-year wasteful contract. Nor does DHS deserve a reward for ramrodding a short-term “emergency” contract into a long-term one using deceptive tactics to avoid public scrutiny. DHS claimed that there were no shelters within 400 feet, despite being immediately behind St Louis Hall, home to more than 100 mentally ill chemically addicted DHS clients. The St Louis is run by an organization which harassed many long-term residents out of the building to make room for a more lucrative deal, and brings the special needs population on a single block to more than 500.
Given the progressive agenda you have outlined, our City’s approach to homelessness must change so that it better serves the homeless and communities like ours that have been generous and tolerant despite bearing more than our fair share of the burden for providing support to troubled populations.
The solution is to engage, not litigate. Work with us on solutions that help the homeless, but not at the expense of existing SRO tenants, and not by supporting bad actors. We urge you: tear up this proposed, flawed contract and help the community to restore the shelter to affordable housing within 12 months.”
The judge’s ruling is below:
“Council member Helen Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment and clarification.”
Seems to me we’ve been seeing that a lot here. Did anyone tell Ms Rosenthal that she was getting herself elected to do a *job*, and not just winning a snazzy title?? Can anyone cite to anything she’s actually done as our Council representative??
I agree with Cato. In a similar situation, I recently sent Ms. Rosenthal a letter about a matter before the Council — a rather constructive and polite letter — and have yet to even get a form letter acknowledgement let alone an actual response to its content or her stand on the issue.
By the way, when I called her district office to ask where to send the letter there was no answer. No voicemail. Nada. I had to call the downtown office to get someone to speak with; this person sounded like an intern who seemed a bit amused that someone wanted to send a “letter'” as if it were quaint. I ended up sending it both snail mail and email but regardless, no answer.
It might be that electing her was a mistake. (And I voted for her) Or she’s just another example of all the novices we now have in city government. But jeez, this zero communication with her constituents is very troubling….
To date, I’ve sent two respectful and polite letters of concern, with questions, to Helen Rosenthal, Gale Brewer, our Community Board, and one to Scott Stringer. Responses from any of them? Nada. Not even from their representatives. It is terribly frustrating, but I will keep doing so.
Let me communicate on her behalf.
Rosenthal cosponsored the bill, along will Gale Brewer to illegalize SRO hotels from being…..hotels – and affordable overnight stays for guests who cannot afford the Waldorf.
Using questionable fire safety codes, Allegedly their intent was to force the owners to go back to SRO use, but the laws against SROs owner are so arbitrary and capricious that they will anything but reinstate sro tenants. So despite warnings that this would happen, Other City Agencies cut deals with the owners as the City is obligated to house every person who demands housing no matter where they are from – by court order – no other City is required to do this.
So this is the situation created by our elected officials and biased judges.
Lets not forget community activists that further complicate the problem. The community board and the incumbent politicians respond to some perceived outrage by proposing or enacting new legislation resulting in many unintended consequences.
Let’s clear up some confusion here
1- At the time the legislation that you refer to was passed, Helen Rosenthal was not an elected official, but a member of CB7.She is now a member of the NYC City Council. Linda Rosenthal was and is a member of the NYS Assembly.
2- Linda Rosenthal and Gale Brewer could never have voted for the same piece of legislation as the never were in the same body. At the time, Gale Brewer was a NYC City Council member and Linda Rosenthal was a member of the NYS Assembly.
3- If you are pleased or displeased with any of our elected, you have the vote, but please find out who they are first.
4- The actual law that limits the use of SRO’s as hotels is the NYS Multiple Dwelling Law.
5- The actual issue here is not that law, but NYC Fair Share reqs.
6- Feel free to speak for what you think our electeds said when you are better informed as to who they actually are.
7-PS – I don’t like the shelters either!
I stand corrected on the Rosenthal mixup.
However, that does not excuse Helen for not responding to this important issue.
The wall of silence from the political machine is deafening
Welcome to the Tea Party, Neighborhood in the Nineties.
Democratic voter farms you no longer support since they stink up our streets? Welcome to civilization, wise ones.
I’m confused by your message and association of this issue to the Tea Party. These ‘democratic voter farms’ are already being supported at the cost of $3600 per unit per month by the city. Whether the homeless are truly benefiting from this or if that money is being spent honestly and well is certainly a legitimate conversation to be had.
But having clean, safe streets and neighborhoods is the expectation and goal of most civilized humans, and is not a liberal or conservative issue.
so true KG !
This is about everyone’s quality of life.
and yet, if you dare question it, your liberal cred is discounted and you are viewed as some right winger.
Most people are center left, and yet the far left controls everything and screams bloody murder (or radio silence) if you question their actions.
Do we care about other people? of course, ! Does that mean we have an open check book ? no
There seems to be no immediate answer to housing the homeless. The UWS has an abundance of buildings and resources that can be used for this task. Other neighborhoods in the city may not be able to sustain a much smaller number of people.
The recent announcement of renovating A. Phillip Randolph Houses in Harlem at a cost of $95.5 million for 314 units gives a clue as to how much it costs to maintain permanent existing housing. At a cost of $304000 per unit, it will take seven years to recover the construction cost alone at $3600 per month. In addition, adding the cost of land acquisition and long term maintenance, it would take many more years to pay for a shelter.
Planning a permanent facility would take years with many additional hearings and potential law suits. The city is probably getting a good deal for a temporary short term solution until something better comes along. Putting aside the inconvenience to the community, the homeless have a place to stay potentially saving lives.
“The UWS has an abundance of buildings and resources that can be used for this task.” Even this statement were true, so what? Why should a residential neighborhood ALREADY struggling with quality-of-life issues, ALREADY over-saturated with shelters and other social service facilities, take on EVEN MORE of this burden because of bad policy and short-sited politicians? Where is the logic in this?
What neighborhood in NYC doesn’t have quality of life issues? If you put these shelters in some building on the Upper East Side, you would still have the same problems. We need to fix the issues that created a need for homeless shelters.
I agree, every neighborhood has QOL issues, but not all are the same. I believe that ours have reached the tipping point, largely because of the reasons that we are all discussing here. It is true that root causes for homelessness need to be fixed, but that’s beyond my expertise. I am simply looking at the street-level view. I maintain that our neighborhood is in serious decline, and for politicians to continue to use it as a dumping ground because of flawed policies is not acceptable.
By virtue of the NYC law requiring the city to house any homeless person, even if they just came from another state, we’ve turned the most expensive city in the country into a mecca for the long-term homeless. There is no other place where it would be more expensive to house then, feed them, etc. And since our current system does next to nothing to get them back on their feet, and everything to attract the people least likely to ever get back on their feet, this situation will only get worse. Moreover, we give every incentive to greedy and unscrupulous operators to get rich off the situation, and no incentive for them to either provide real services to the shelter residents or to keep their properties from being an utter nuisance to the neighbors. (In a further irony, there is no place where the shelters would be more closely packed in amongst their neighbors.) Furthermore, we dump mentally disturbed, drug-addicted, potentially dangerous, chronically homeless people into the same warehouses we put people who might just need a temporary hand to get back on their feet. We’re handing them all a rancid sardine tin at exorbitant expense instead of teaching them to fish.
There is nothing right about any of this, and it helps no one except the shelter owners to shrug our shoulders and defend the status quo.
Yes, it would make sense to put people in appropriate environments and facilities designed for them. Are there facilities in place to handle the extreme cases that are causing the problems? Can agency case workers make the right decisions in placing the homeless?
Given the insane amount of taxpayer money that’s being spent, there certainly should be!
Heaven knows it’s insane to give so much to Aguila and his ilk, and get so little in return. There is something very, very wrong when it’s way more lucrative to own a homeless shelter than to own a luxury building! (You could get a nice, spacious place in a doorman building for the price of these boxes.) If I understand correctly, the owner gets 3600 per room. If there are 400 people, 2 beds to a room, he’s pulling in more than 8.5 million a year from the 95th street shelter alone. And in return, he’s providing… mini fridges, a toilet down the hall, and a roof? Well, I suppose at least now he’s occasionally sending someone out to pick up the garbage once in a while. And that might cost as much as $5-$10 a day in labor.
We should throw that money at real solutions, not at the warehouse owners.
Building additional long term housing in NYCHA sites could be a good use of the money. You would still need temporary facilities until the housing is built. It would take years to plan and fund before it would happen.
2 shelters on 95th & the one on 94th, is that not rather a lot within less than 1 block?
From https://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/21/nation/na-cruise21
“In the early 1990s, city officials put several thousand homeless families on empty, little-used jail barges in the East River. The plan was shot down by a court, which ruled the ships an inappropriate site.”
“Last summer, the city put homeless families in a Bronx jail as a stopgap measure. They spent 45 days there until a court ruled that the jail should not have been used for housing.”
I just wanted to correct some of Aaron’s Biller’s facts concerning the former St Louis on 94th Street. Fristly, it is now called Rustin House. Secondly, there are NOT “over 100” DHS residents- there are 94 plus 29 commuity residents. Thirdly, no one was “harassed” – Aaron is referring to one perosn he made friend with who illegally annexed two rooms, plus possibly a bathroom and who did not pay his very affordable rent for many, many months. This person made life difficult for other residents and was known to be difficult and disruptive. Anyway- it is always important to get your fact straight and present objective, straightforward, undistorted information!
It’s all very depressing – SCOTUS removes limits on campaign contributions, Eva Moskowitz gets her schools priority over regular public school children, and now on the UWS being overrun by homeless shelters does not violate “fair share.” Is there anyone looking out for the regular Joe or Jane or are we no match against big money interests?
Are we going backwards or just forgetting what it used to be like around here. Not a fan of the shelter’s and the drug addicts and the panhandlers. 1.2 mill won’t even buy you quiet neighbors. But I don’t have to worry about my safety block to block any more. I’m still a target for anything with wheels. Sure all the mom and pop stores are going out of business but look at all the great new banks and chain stores. Soon we will look just like Long Island. I’m making new friends with homeless people. Some of them are nicer then my snooty neighbors who think I can’t afford where I have lived for the last 30 years. Cabs still speed recklessly . Buses
still crash. Contracts are awarded to dubious track records, people still get mugged in the park. Everything cost 4 times as much here as just about anywhere else. It still is exciting vibrant drama filled adventure that is the exclusive triumph of money over brains with the tragedies of abundance. Though we may all be slaves to technology or greed , politicians and the public love their own noise,
Still one other thing has remained constant.
When the chips are down Please Please Please send me a NY’er They are kinder, more generous more resourceful and can overcome anything. They always have and we always will! So lets not forget the past or repeat it but know we can always fix our own house if we look at our similarities instead of our differences. Still Proud To BE a NY’R ? If you are not sure find an old timer who can tell you what your block used to be like.You might be surprised.
I’ve been here since 1988. I remember what it used to be like. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better.
I Remember the 80’s and the 70’s and part of the 60’s ( its not what you think, I was too young)
I agree 100%. Mediocrity is no goal at all.
Our software indicates that the same user (or spambot) may be using several aliases on this and other recent posts. If you want to comment, please choose one alias. WSR Tech
Sorry about the Alias problem. I really dont remember the other names. If you tell me I would be happy to choose one.
Thanks For your help
Why? Were we going to vote on something? If someone wants to voice two opinions — so? As long as they are respectful about it, what difference does it make?
I completely disagree!
As one of the only news sites out there that still lets people comment anonymously, we’re trying to keep the Rag from turning into a spamfest (like half of the Internet). Pick a name and opine away, Cato/Not Cato!
Avi