As reported by The New York Times, Justice Sabrina Kraus ruled yesterday that the city provided a rational basis for moving the intake operation from the deteriorating former Bellevue intake center on East 30th Street to the East Village facility to the Renewal on the Bowery facility.
Neighbors who sued to block the move argued that converting the site into an intake center — where people typically stay only a few days — would have a different impact on the neighborhood than the substance-abuse shelter that has operated there for decades. They contended that the change should have triggered additional public review.
In her ruling, Kraus acknowledged residents' concerns and frustration over not having an opportunity to weigh in on a decision that could affect the character of the block, but said the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the city.
Attorney Randy Mastro, who represents the residents challenging the move, told the Times that his clients are considering an appeal.
The city announced plans in March to move the intake operation to 8 E. Third St. after determining that the longtime men's intake center near Bellevue was in poor condition and needed to close immediately.
Project Renewal was founded in 1967, and the organization has used the spaces at 8 E. Third St. and 333 Bowery for decades.
34 comments:
Here we go!
Just to clarify - the Third St building is not currently operating as a shelter. The (former) residents were moved out, and the only thing in the building now is a couple of medical clinics and a skeletal security staff.
Hallelujah!
Hallelujah? That 100+ men a day will overwhelm our neighborhood and be sleeping on our doorsteps because the city will be trying to cram them into a building too small to hold them all while processing them for intake? This is not fair to the residents nor to the homeless men. This will be a disaster just like it was in 1986.Thank you Mr Mamdani for this executive order which over rode the trial which was clearly in favor of the neighborhood.
I'm more frustrated that the city let the 30th st facility rot. And now their solution is to send everyone down to the EV. I'm all for helping people but am also tired of the EV being the go-to for sending everyone with nowhere else to go.
I’m with Anonymous at 10:16. Why didn’t they maintain that facility? This neighborhood already has many shelters and services concentrated in a small area. The fact that a large amount of people are going to be constantly processed through that building is just mind-boggling. I live right around the corner and have for decades. We’re used to shelters and people need shelter. This is not a regular shelter and just too much for an already overcrowded neighborhood. I hope Mastro et al appeal.
Right! Y'all stop using the EV as your dumping grounds
Exactly my feelings as an East Village resident.
I remember that place.As you walked past it you could hear a cop screaming through a bullhorn at all the winos.God,he must have screwed up big-time to deserve to draw that duty
There’s already barely any seating available in our parks and st marks church. It’s all taken over by delivery drivers who spend much more time loitering than they ever do delivering, but explain again why these are such vital services. Yawn.
How does this kind of thing happen to us all the time... Carlina was a tool of the Dem Party.... Now we have Harvey... another tool of management. Where was he during this fight? Where is he with the reno of TS Library and a possible temporary space. Why was he elected too represent us when he represents... himself and the wishes Mamdani.
just facts--this will not have people sleeping on the streets--just the opposite. We have many homeless people sleeping on the streets because they will not accept the type of shelter beds that are available. People who come to this facility are looking for beds. They will be assigned to shelter same day or, if they arrive at night, will be given a bed until the next day. A percentage of these homeless people have jobs. The City even has
employment shelters, a type of transitional housing facility that provides temporary, often emergency, shelter to homeless or at-risk individuals who are employed or able to work. Speaking of "dumping" people here sou;nds as if people are junk or garbage.
Oh boy, there goes the neighborhood.
I wonder what Lander and Goldman would say pertaining to this new development?
This is an overall bad situation. I do volunteer homeless outreach work for DHS and I have spoken to several homeless men who often refuse to be helped and want to remain living on the streets and continue self-medicating themselves with drugs and alcohol. These men clearly suffer from severe mental health issues and need to be placed into a long-term mental health care facility that can take care of them. A shelter or an intake center for them is not a long-term solution.
The generation who love standing in endless lines but hate to walk a couple of blocks to pick up their food.
Harvey is most definitely not a Mamdami tool.
Really? How many social workers do you have doing intake to accommodate 100+ men a day? There are only 117 beds at the 3rd street shelter. There were 250 in the Bellevue shelter.Where do you think the overflow will be hanging out? We are definitely not against a shelter (which has been in our neighborhood for 50 years). We are against this poorly planned intake center that cannot possibly do either the neighborhood or these men justice.
Then where is he on the issue? He should be leading the fight to stop the shelter. But he didn't... as far as I know... do anything to protect the EV.
Epstein and other local elected officials held a community meeting on April 7 at the Sirovich Senior Center ... During the meeting, he criticized the rushed and non-transparent process and questioned why the decision was presented as a done deal with little advance notice or community input. We posted a flyer about the meeting as well as a quick recap...
I don't know enough about the plans for this particular facility to agree or disagree with the judgment about what the operators will or will not do in terms of managing inflow, but what I do know is this: those without homes whom we all encounter in our neighborhood — like the asylum seekers who were dropped off at the Catholic school on 7th and Avenue B during that era — became our neighbors the minute they found themselves here and we are meant to look after our neighbors. Similarly the people who will come to this new facility seeking shelter need our support, not our scorn. I also recognize the sound and smell of real estate developers and opportunistic property owners who chose to set up shop a steps from the Bowery and are now complaining loudly and expensively about their quality of life - aka property values. Carol on 5th, I hear you, I really do — but I'm also pretty sure that when you and I first moved into this area decades ago, we were displacing someone too. We should check ourselves and maybe even think of how best we can help our new neighbors. Maybe our recently elected councilperson can do something about mitigating negative impacts resulting from the increased traffic, or maybe he will do nothing which is more likely. Best, jg
There is an appointed Community Advisory Board appointed to address any neighborhood issues and work with electeds and agencies to address
Epstein questioned the project but didn't object. He never protested the project. With One Party Rule local officials have no say in major questions supported by the party in power. They merely fill potholes. Long gone are the independent pols who supported their communities first... party affiliation second.
Jose - these men will not be our new neighbors. They are here for 1-2 days. The shelter will no longer a shelter but an intake center, It'll be like Grand Central Station. I would cheer to have the building remain a real shelter.
Scorn? I see no scorn in my, Carol's, or many others remark. And we are definitely not real estate shills which is what you are stating. If you have lived with shelters for a long time as we both have, there is the reality of shelter over crowding affecting the neighborhood and our lived truth. The reasoning is reflected in the numbers Carol refers and those are facts, not scorn.
Grieve at 6:37 AM. We appreciate that you did post about Epstein's meeting. It was on a weekday during working hours if I recall correctly and aside from your posting, I did not see it advertised in the area and it seemed as if it was very after the fact.
It started at 5:30 pm on Tuesday, April 7.
Thinking with your heart not your brain defending a haphazard poorly conceived plan while criticizing tax paying businesses. This is the reason Mamdani is in office, lord help us there should be be tests one has to pass before voting.
I was surprised at the lack of or maybe I missed Grieve's reportage about the individuals or organizations behind the various lawsuits to keep this out of our neighborhood.
We've reported on this a good deal... we listed the names of the residents behind the lawsuit, filed by neighborhood coalition V.O.I.C.E. (Village Organization for the Integrity of Community Engagement), on May 11... per public records.
Sorry nimby millionaires - the old EV is coming back
Different things can be true at the same time.
Some miscellaneous things.
1. The shelter by Bellevue was in bad shape but it is the City's fault for not addressing and not planning for this obvious need. The location (though not near a subway) was a good location as it was by Bellevue and NYU hospitals so medical access plus overall security associated with those institutions.
2. The EV is a bad site for both those who will need shelter services and residents. It is bad logistically and geographically and no not a good thing to place this shelter in a residential area that already struggles with the impact of gentrification/NYU etc. Though rare to get it, NYC residents are entitled to some minimal
daily life - to be able to sleep at night, to have bus-subway, not trash/rats everywhere and not be fearful every day....
3. Longtime neighbors have a son who is now living on the streets. He was smart (Brooklyn Tech), good-looking, charismatic . Then adulthood which included substance use, mental health decline. He has refused all efforts by his wonderful family. After years of trying, the family has given up. They will no longer allow him in their homes. Nor want a men's shelter.
4. Personally no longer have any faith that the City will properly run this shelter and will properly safeguard the local community.
It's fine. Everybody just chill. I would rather get rid of all the expensive housing that brings in the gross people, bros and whatever the ladies are called, etc.
That's a harsh take... But the real problem will be the bulk of the new building. it will cut light and views... Village View won't be as... well... viewable for the tenants.
Post a Comment