Above: Project Renewal, 8 E. 3rd St.
City officials and local residents packed a meeting last Tuesday (April 7) evening to discuss the planned closure of the Bellevue men's shelter and the relocation of intake services to the East Village.
As previously reported, the city — via an "emergency executive order" from Mayor Mamdani on March 5— said it will close the longtime Bellevue facility on 30th Street by the end of April, citing deterioration of the building.
Beginning May 1, adult men seeking shelter would be directed to Project Renewal's facility at 8 E. Third St. between Second Avenue and the Bowery, while intake for adult families (without minor children) would move to 333 Bowery between Second Street and Third Street.
The proposal drew criticism for what several elected officials and residents described as a rushed and non-transparent process.
Local City Councilmember Harvey Epstein questioned why the decision was presented as a done deal with little advance notice or community input.
Assemblymember Grace Lee also spoke, raising concerns about the neighborhood impact beyond the East Village into her 65th District, the Lower East Side and Chinatown; the lack of advance notice; and the absence of a clear operational plan for how the intake site would function day to day.
A central theme throughout the evening was the distinction between an existing shelter and an intake facility. While residents said they were generally supportive of Project Renewal and familiar with the current shelter operations, several speakers emphasized that intake sites function differently — with a higher volume of people coming and going, often in crisis.
Representatives from the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), including Commissioner Erin Dalton, said the site would have a limited number of beds and that people would be processed indoors rather than lining up outside.
Still, many attendees expressed skepticism that activity would remain contained or limited to a steady flow. One official described arrivals as a "trickle" throughout the day — a characterization several neighbors challenged as unrealistic.
Several residents raised quality-of-life concerns, including potential increases in drug activity, theft, public urination and emergency vehicle traffic.
Others focused less on the use itself and more on how the city handled the rollout. Some opponents also circulated materials ahead of the meeting, raising additional concerns about zoning and safety — including whether a citywide intake operation is appropriate for a residential block and whether the change would trigger a "fair share" or environmental review.
That question came up during the meeting as well. DHS officials said a fair-share analysis was not required because a shelter already exists at the site. However, some attendees argued that converting it to an intake facility constitutes a different use.
DHS officials said they would continue working with the NYPD and local stakeholders on a safety and operations plan, though details remain limited with the May 1 start date approaching.
A Mamdani administration official told the Post the East Village intake sites would be temporary until a permanent location is developed elsewhere, a process expected to take years.
Meanwhile, some Third Street residents say they are planning to file a lawsuit to block the relocation.
For now, the plan remains in place, with intake services set to shift to Third Street next month.
An EVG reader on Second Street attended the meeting and shared notes; other residents also contributed insights.
9 comments:
Please continue to cover this issue. I am a resident of East 3rd Street and live nearby. This is being-rammed through in a rushed manner without any impact studies or opportunities for residents to fight it. There is something sketchy about the whole thing. I support a lawsuit and would appreciate any additional followup that keeps me informed of what I can do to stop this. I wish the Bowery Hotel, Sweetgreen, Chobani, The Bean, Gotham Dispensary, Il Buco and other local businesses would be more involved, and wonder if thy even know what is coming their way.
it is a bad situation for our neighborhood especially with the warm weather coming as the area will be saturated with homeless men many of whom suffer from mental health issues. They will be on the street drinking and aggressively panhandling while standing in front of businesses like bars and restaurants holding the doors open and requesting a dollar. They will also keep the NYPD 9th Precinct cops busy as calls to 911 will be made regularly for the problems they will cause.
This will be a disaster for the neighborhood. In comparing the crime statistics from the 13th Pct (Bellevue precinct) and the 9th Pct the number of petit larceny and grand larceny crime rates are double for the original shelter and and the retail theft rate is TRIPLE. And although I'm sure.most of the homeless men are just unfortunate souls, many of them are drug addicts, the mentally ill and convicted felons who, while waiting for "placement" , will be trolling our streets looking to score or sell drugs, pick pockets, steal items from grocery stores and harass outdoor diners and residents.
why don't they sell the sell the Bowery Renewal Building as its very valuable and use those funds to build a larger and more modern facility that is better suited to its residents in a less expensive neighborhood. Its called using one's assets wisely.....
They shouldn't sell the Bowery Renewal building because, frankly, people in need have been on the Bowery (and using that building!) for longer than any of us have been alive. This isn't like Children's Aid Society or Planned Parenthood where a property owner needs the money and can use their asset's value better elsewhere, the City owns the property and selling it would not necessarily benefit anyone besides developers. Just because the neighborhood's fortunes have changed does not mean we need to abandon its history or our neighbors. It's called compassion...
As the EVG post says: "A central theme throughout the evening was the distinction between an existing shelter and an intake facility. While residents said they were generally supportive of Project Renewal and familiar with the current shelter operations, several speakers emphasized that intake sites function differently — with a higher volume of people coming and going, often in crisis."
I've been on the block for decades and, personally, I'd much prefer a homeless shelter over "luxury" housing. My concern, and it sounds like many of our neighbors' concern, is that it feels like the City is pulling a fast one here and once this change is done it is going to be hard to undo.
Thank you EVG for covering this!
Really? Homeless shelter with homeless men with mental problems is preferable to luxury housing.
There used to be a homeless shelter and it was so bad the sanitation dept. wouldn't collect trash without police protection.
Folks having a rough go Absolutely Preferred to Luxury and Bro Culture anything you don't think the often times heavily medicated woo's and doods who roam our streets looking for what no longer exists have mental problems and don't cause any trouble ha Talk to one of the cops at the 9th
that said City is once again def pulling a fast one and needs to be checked
I too live on the block and have been here for 40 years. I would much rather have luxury housing than what is being proposed. Just because there used to be homeless shelters in the past doesn’t mean that for all eternity in the future they must remain. It’s illogical and it doesn’t solve the problems that the changing times bring.
I don’t mind project renewal but given a choice I would prefer a cinema or a theater or a museum. And yes, use the money to build something bigger and more modern and efficient in a different part of town.
Post a Comment