Residents of the Williams Residence on 95th street and West End Avenue are fighting a plan by the Salvation Army to sell the building to a developer and move the seniors to a new building in East Harlem. They plan to pass out the leaflets below on Saturday starting at 11 a.m. at 96th street and Broadway.
We wrote about the last protest, and the Salvation’s Army’s response, here.
Residents of the Williams Residence on 95th street and West End Avenue are fighting a plan by the Salvation Army to sell the building to a developer and move the seniors to a new building in East Harlem. They plan to pass out the leaflets below on Saturday starting at 11 a.m. at 96th street and Broadway.
We wrote about the last protest, and the Salvation’s Army’s response, here.
We are aware that the reply button on the comment form is broken on mobile (it's ok on desktop) and we are working on fixing it ASAP! Thanks for your patience!
You want control over where you live? Buy it. It’s crazy how much power the rent-controlled/stabilized aristocracy has in this city.
If they had the power, they wouldn’t be up in arms, now would they? And if you do own, you often cede control to a board. Touché!
I thought this was a done deal already and just needed approval by the State? I support the sale but hope the current residents are compensated fairly for the move.
The Salvation Army itself has said it does not have the funds to make repairs and capital investments to the building. So over time, the building and residents would suffer if the status quo is kept in place abd the physical plant deteriorates.
The owners of this building should not be subject to coercion by local politicians. The Salvation Army owns the building, they can do whatever they please with it.
… and the elected officials are not “coercing” anyone. they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, supporting residents of the UWS who are being tossed out by rich developers. I am confident that the vast majority of UWS resident support the Williams seniors.
actually, the Salvation Army CAN’T do anything they want with it. there were conditions of usage in the original bequest.
Somehow it doesn’t surprise me to see Paul RL so enthusiastically lobbying to throw hundreds of seniors out of their homes — of course he wants “fair compensation” .. who decides that? — so rich condo owners can move in. Nice.
and yes, I am a condo owner… so what? we don’t NEED more luxury condos. we need affordable housing.
I am sure the rent controlled tenant who formerly occupied your luxury condo has a differnect opinion.
How hypocritical that to have one standard for oneself and demand (DEMAND!) others to behave differently.
I too am offending by your attacks on others – here its Paul.
Ironically the one who twists and turns and calls names and is lobbying enthusiastically and LYING is YOU.
Well, I’m sure that will make the folks who lived there before you feel better! I think everyone’s getting weary of this back-and-forth commentary, so the rest is all yours, Bruce.
Must we do this same dance every time, darling? If you want to be taken a little more seriously on this blog, you might want to think about stopping your habit of corrupting others’ comments to suit your own arguments. But since you insist on keeping things personal, didn’t you out yourself in one of your past rantings as one of those evil condo owners that you hold in such disdain?
No need to answer because it’s in the record. But let me just say that I believe in change. I think the sale of this building and its conversion to market-rate rentals or condos would be beneficial for the neighborhood, which is suffering from a plethora of problems and needs a shot in the arm. Your idiotic, twisted statement that I am “enthusiastically lobbying for seniors to be thrown out of their homes.” Is downright offensive. As I’ve said in past comments, I said that if the sale goes through, I hope the current residents are justly compensated or even grandfathered in, and that the SA helps ease their transition to their new state-of-the-art facility. It’s a legitimate opinion and I stand by it. Sorry if that offends you, but it shouldn’t cause you to behave like a 3 year old that can’t have his way.
you can twist and turn and call names as much as you want. but the fact remains that you ARE leading the lobbying to have the sale go through — which means the remaining seniors in the building thrown out, and the loss of 350+ affordable units on the West Side. and you are doing so ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
these seniors WILL NOT be “grandfathered in”, at least unless they can negotiate that — and your lobbying in favor of a no-holds-barred sale damages their negotiating position. same with this imagined “compensation.”
your position might be “legitimate” in your eyes but it is far less so for those who are being evicted.
That’s right – and by the way, it’s okay to let those same local politicians know that many of their constituents actually support the sale of this building.
Helen Rosenthal – Helen@HelenRosenthal.com
Gale Brewer – info@manhattanbp.nyc.gov
Tish James – outreach@pubadvocate.nyc.gov
The owners of the building have a right to do whatever they want with it as far as I am concerned. It is none of the politicians’ business.
$109 million can be used to help a lot of people. It’s really unfortunate that 350 seniors will be relocated but it’s a good business decision for the Salvation Army. That is of course if they intend to use the proceeds to provide assistance to those that need it.
The thing to me is, the Salvation Army isn’t a business. It’s a tax-exempt nonprofit. They’re reliant on good will and public donations to pay their leaders’ salaries, buy their officers’ homes and cars and gas money, and then do some Methodist good works towards a better community.
This is valuable land and property that they’ve never paid property tax on. That’s an incredible public subsidy from New York City to the Salvation Army over other real estate interests.
The local politicians were working with the Salvation Army, I think, to find a solution for any upkeep the property needed. I don’t think the actual upkeep needs have been detailed, it’s been a little hand-wavy. But Salvation Army in bad faith negotiated a secret deal to sell the senior housing they were running to a private interest (Brack Capital) with a business plan of kicking seniors out of their homes.
The way I read it, it’s super shady. That’s why I oppose this sale and wouldn’t donate to the Salvation Army. AG Eric Schneiderman is a good guy, I think. I’d hope he would stipulate the Williams residents stay in the building, no matter the owner, then take a good look at Salvation Army business practices across the state. Real estate changes hands all the time on the Upper West Side. This deal is different. Seller is taxpayer-subsidized, property is senior housing. One question, WSR – are the apartments market rate or affordable?
The first commenter had it right. If you don’t own your land, you really can’t complain if your landlord sells his property. The fact that this property will now become part of the tax base is a huge win for NYC. As for the seniors, let’s remember that they’ve been the beneficiaries of reduced rents for decades. I’m sure they had alternatives in mind if this ever came to pass. Nothing lasts forever.
Uh, yeah, let them eat cake.
Obviously nothing lasts forever, but Salvation Army is doing its name and its mission a huge disservice. I think the win for the Upper West Side and the city will be to see these seniors stay in their homes.
agreed. what have we come to when people are rooting for and lobbying for hundreds of seniors to be thrown out of their homes?
I don’t see or read about anyone “people are rooting for and lobbying for hundreds of seniors to be thrown out of their homes” (note the proper use of quotes).
The problem in this City is you cannot have an intelligent thoughtful conversation about anything without the extremists coming down and call you the next Carl Rove. (see above).
For example , are the existing tenants protected by rent stabilization and the condo conversion be done over time?
I walked by yesterday Sunday at was truly touched at seeing the folks who live there in the community room. Certainly there should be room for some kind of compromise.
THEN…..I walked on 95th street to Riverside and was horrified at how bad the block has become directly from those two giant shelters on the block. So many clearly disturbed and substance addicts hanging out and with a bunch of security guards too, who made it feel even worse.
Our tax dollars paying $3K a month for each tenant to destroy a whole block , while the elderly up the block are the ones who should be getting the continued benefits.
This City is so messed up. and I blame the extreme left and bleeding hearts who control the purse strings and who seem to have no comprehension of the real world and their illogical policies.
Nicely mischaracterized. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
This says it all, and says it well. Thank you.
Absolutely! If they don’t have bread, then let them eat cake!
You want control over where you live? Buy it. It’s crazy how much power the rent-controlled/stabilized aristocracy has in this city.
If they had the power, they wouldn’t be up in arms, now would they? And if you do own, you often cede control to a board. Touché!
I thought this was a done deal already and just needed approval by the State? I support the sale but hope the current residents are compensated fairly for the move.
The Salvation Army itself has said it does not have the funds to make repairs and capital investments to the building. So over time, the building and residents would suffer if the status quo is kept in place abd the physical plant deteriorates.
The owners of this building should not be subject to coercion by local politicians. The Salvation Army owns the building, they can do whatever they please with it.
… and the elected officials are not “coercing” anyone. they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, supporting residents of the UWS who are being tossed out by rich developers. I am confident that the vast majority of UWS resident support the Williams seniors.
actually, the Salvation Army CAN’T do anything they want with it. there were conditions of usage in the original bequest.
Somehow it doesn’t surprise me to see Paul RL so enthusiastically lobbying to throw hundreds of seniors out of their homes — of course he wants “fair compensation” .. who decides that? — so rich condo owners can move in. Nice.
and yes, I am a condo owner… so what? we don’t NEED more luxury condos. we need affordable housing.
I am sure the rent controlled tenant who formerly occupied your luxury condo has a differnect opinion.
How hypocritical that to have one standard for oneself and demand (DEMAND!) others to behave differently.
I too am offending by your attacks on others – here its Paul.
Ironically the one who twists and turns and calls names and is lobbying enthusiastically and LYING is YOU.
Well, I’m sure that will make the folks who lived there before you feel better! I think everyone’s getting weary of this back-and-forth commentary, so the rest is all yours, Bruce.
Must we do this same dance every time, darling? If you want to be taken a little more seriously on this blog, you might want to think about stopping your habit of corrupting others’ comments to suit your own arguments. But since you insist on keeping things personal, didn’t you out yourself in one of your past rantings as one of those evil condo owners that you hold in such disdain?
No need to answer because it’s in the record. But let me just say that I believe in change. I think the sale of this building and its conversion to market-rate rentals or condos would be beneficial for the neighborhood, which is suffering from a plethora of problems and needs a shot in the arm. Your idiotic, twisted statement that I am “enthusiastically lobbying for seniors to be thrown out of their homes.” Is downright offensive. As I’ve said in past comments, I said that if the sale goes through, I hope the current residents are justly compensated or even grandfathered in, and that the SA helps ease their transition to their new state-of-the-art facility. It’s a legitimate opinion and I stand by it. Sorry if that offends you, but it shouldn’t cause you to behave like a 3 year old that can’t have his way.
you can twist and turn and call names as much as you want. but the fact remains that you ARE leading the lobbying to have the sale go through — which means the remaining seniors in the building thrown out, and the loss of 350+ affordable units on the West Side. and you are doing so ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
these seniors WILL NOT be “grandfathered in”, at least unless they can negotiate that — and your lobbying in favor of a no-holds-barred sale damages their negotiating position. same with this imagined “compensation.”
your position might be “legitimate” in your eyes but it is far less so for those who are being evicted.
That’s right – and by the way, it’s okay to let those same local politicians know that many of their constituents actually support the sale of this building.
Helen Rosenthal – Helen@HelenRosenthal.com
Gale Brewer – info@manhattanbp.nyc.gov
Tish James – outreach@pubadvocate.nyc.gov
The owners of the building have a right to do whatever they want with it as far as I am concerned. It is none of the politicians’ business.
$109 million can be used to help a lot of people. It’s really unfortunate that 350 seniors will be relocated but it’s a good business decision for the Salvation Army. That is of course if they intend to use the proceeds to provide assistance to those that need it.
The thing to me is, the Salvation Army isn’t a business. It’s a tax-exempt nonprofit. They’re reliant on good will and public donations to pay their leaders’ salaries, buy their officers’ homes and cars and gas money, and then do some Methodist good works towards a better community.
This is valuable land and property that they’ve never paid property tax on. That’s an incredible public subsidy from New York City to the Salvation Army over other real estate interests.
The local politicians were working with the Salvation Army, I think, to find a solution for any upkeep the property needed. I don’t think the actual upkeep needs have been detailed, it’s been a little hand-wavy. But Salvation Army in bad faith negotiated a secret deal to sell the senior housing they were running to a private interest (Brack Capital) with a business plan of kicking seniors out of their homes.
The way I read it, it’s super shady. That’s why I oppose this sale and wouldn’t donate to the Salvation Army. AG Eric Schneiderman is a good guy, I think. I’d hope he would stipulate the Williams residents stay in the building, no matter the owner, then take a good look at Salvation Army business practices across the state. Real estate changes hands all the time on the Upper West Side. This deal is different. Seller is taxpayer-subsidized, property is senior housing. One question, WSR – are the apartments market rate or affordable?
The first commenter had it right. If you don’t own your land, you really can’t complain if your landlord sells his property. The fact that this property will now become part of the tax base is a huge win for NYC. As for the seniors, let’s remember that they’ve been the beneficiaries of reduced rents for decades. I’m sure they had alternatives in mind if this ever came to pass. Nothing lasts forever.
Uh, yeah, let them eat cake.
Obviously nothing lasts forever, but Salvation Army is doing its name and its mission a huge disservice. I think the win for the Upper West Side and the city will be to see these seniors stay in their homes.
agreed. what have we come to when people are rooting for and lobbying for hundreds of seniors to be thrown out of their homes?
I don’t see or read about anyone “people are rooting for and lobbying for hundreds of seniors to be thrown out of their homes” (note the proper use of quotes).
The problem in this City is you cannot have an intelligent thoughtful conversation about anything without the extremists coming down and call you the next Carl Rove. (see above).
For example , are the existing tenants protected by rent stabilization and the condo conversion be done over time?
I walked by yesterday Sunday at was truly touched at seeing the folks who live there in the community room. Certainly there should be room for some kind of compromise.
THEN…..I walked on 95th street to Riverside and was horrified at how bad the block has become directly from those two giant shelters on the block. So many clearly disturbed and substance addicts hanging out and with a bunch of security guards too, who made it feel even worse.
Our tax dollars paying $3K a month for each tenant to destroy a whole block , while the elderly up the block are the ones who should be getting the continued benefits.
This City is so messed up. and I blame the extreme left and bleeding hearts who control the purse strings and who seem to have no comprehension of the real world and their illogical policies.
Nicely mischaracterized. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
This says it all, and says it well. Thank you.
Absolutely! If they don’t have bread, then let them eat cake!