Army veteran Samuel Innocent, a member of Mayor de Blasio’s Veterans’ Advisory Board, spoke at a meeting Thursday night on housing for veterans.
By Jessica Brockington
An oral agreement has been reached between the owner of 330 W. 95th Street and NYC’s Human Resources Administration, transitioning the building from a homeless shelter and SRO into permanent affordable SROs for veterans, residents of the area were told on Thursday evening at a public information session organized by Community Board 7 at PS 75.
The meeting juxtaposed neighbors and community activists, angry that another social service was being dropped in an area supersaturated with shelters and SROs, with veterans and advocates eager to support President Obama’s 2010 Call to Action to find housing for every veteran.
The final agreement for 330 W. 95th Street is expected to be signed in a matter of days, according to Daniel Tietz, Chief Special Services Officer, HRA, Department of Social Services, with as many as 20 veterans moving into the building before the end of the year, and a total of 135 housed within the first few months of 2016. Tenants in the other 57 SRO units, which are rent stabilized, will continue to reside in the building.
If all goes as planned, Bailey House and Harlem United, both organizations with backgrounds in community-based care and housing for people living with HIV/AIDS, will hold master leases with the owner of the building, and administer security and support services to the veterans. According to the CEOs of those organizations, Gina Quattrochi and Jacqui Kilmer, respectively, 40 veterans have been interviewed so far.
Before engaging questions from angry area residents, Lincoln Restler, Senior Policy Advisor for the de Blasio administration, introduced Loree Sutton, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and psychiatrist, and Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Veterans’ Affairs.
“We hope to make things better for veterans in a way that has never happened before,” Sutton told the crowd. She introduced experts she had brought with her from the supportive housing network, Harlem Vet Center, NYC Veterans Alliance, and Veterans’ Advisory Board.
Samuel Innocent, a member of the mayor’s Veterans’ Advisory Board said “When I first came back I was living in a studio with three other veterans.” He said the message to the residents from the community should be “I care about you, and thank you.”
Larry Dugan, a Navy veteran who has lived in the neighborhood since 1982, asked how NYC could answer the call to find housing for every veteran with an SRO. “As a veteran, I think you can do better. I really do!”
He cited Urban Pathways in the Bronx as an example of other possibilities. “They deserve at least a one-bedroom, not an SRO sharing a bathroom and kitchen.”
But residents are also angry about lack of communication from the HRA and the time frame, and they have raised questions about the stability of the incoming population. “How many mentally ill and drug addicted are you going to give us?” asked one woman.
Tietz emphasized that the veterans being interviewed do not have serious and persistent illness. “These are not people with serious issues,” he said. “Do they have challenges unique to veterans? They may well, but we are going to offer services that meet those challenges.”
Walter Bridgers, a social worker at the Harlem Vet Center, and retired team leader from the US Army, shared his concern for the community.
“I lived on 96th Street in the early 70’s. I understand your complaints about SROs in this community,” he said.
“There was an open door policy and they took long-term, mentally ill patients, put them on psychotropic drugs. This area became saturated with those kinds of issues. The supportive services were not there and this community paid for that – a heavy price.”
“This is not the same. These are people who have served this country. They’re not the same individuals who came into your community 20, 30 years ago,” he said.
Kristen Rouse, of NYC Veterans Alliance, made an impassioned plea to give the veterans the support they need and deserve.
“I served three tours in Afghanistan. I advocate for veterans. I’m not here to support the administration. I’m here to support veterans. Please embrace veterans just like me. Please embrace us; we make good neighbors. These units are a lot better than the barracks I lived in in Fort Knox. We’ve lived in some dumps in Afghanistan,” she said.
“Veterans are choosing to take the vouchers they have and money they have earned, to choose this. I call bullshit on the Administration all the time, but embrace us.”
Residents were also concerned about the ongoing litigation between the building owner and the city and demanded a capital expenditure plan, and floor plans.
Tietz indicated that city engineers have walked through the building and residents will be moved in as renovations to kitchens, in particular, can be made. The building owner’s litigation was a motivating factor in securing this agreement, he said, since the master leases with Bailey House and Harlem United will add a layer of oversight in an historically troubled location.
While there will not be criminal background checks on the veterans, he told the crowd, they will be run against national sex crime registries. Generally, the vets will be in relatively good shape, need a little assistance and support. “Folks with complex needs would not be suitable for this location.”
Borough President Gale Brewer showed up in support of the project. “We don’t like the owner or the [current] manager of the building, but we do want the veterans. The issue is how do we do it right.” She is also worried about the financial deal the City has cut.
Council member Helen Rosenthal said the units will rent for slightly more than what the landlord would be getting from a rent stabilized tenant. It will be a permanent fixed number for the next 10 years and is “exactly what was asked for.”
A community advisory board for the project will be set up as soon as the agreement is signed. According to Martha Calhoun, General Counsel, HRA, that should happen in the next few days.
I’m for supportive housing for vets. In fact I’d remove families engaged in criminal activity from the Douglass Houses to make room for more vets. Supportive housing is a privilege not a right, these guys have served and they’re 1000% more entitled to these scarce units than the families of gang bangers.
Criminal activity results in eviction from public housing.
Past criminal activity serious enough results in ineligibility for 2-6 years depending on crime.
https://www.newdestinyhousing.org/get-help/nycha-criminal-background-ineligibility
Or perhaps what you are implying is that the families of people who commit crimes shouldnt be helped, even if they didnt do anything. Got it.
Sure Debbie… why don’t you ask the family of the officer shot and killed by Tyrone Howard about the policy of evicting criminals?
This loser had a dozen prior incarnations and was never evicted from the nyc housing projects. He went on to shoot and kill a cop in cold blood.
Finnegan, I doubt Debbie is concerned with things like “examples.” Probably is a pseudonym for another well-known poster here who makes excuses for the gang element at Douglass.
I apologize for allowing facts to enter into this conversation 🙂
I’m for moving vets into these (and more houses) including vets and their families. But I am NOT for moving troubled, homeless vets previously living on the streets because they have possible head trauma issues or other more serious psychological issues which could present by bad behavior and put other in jeopardy. I want to have that distinction made clear before we use the blanket term “vets” and start placing extremely troubled, damaged individuals in areas where our children and other will be in harm’s way. The vets from the most recent wars where IEDs were used has caused much brain damage which often manifests in ways that cause the vet great anxiety, panic attacks, flashbacks, and self-medication. So let’s do a vetting process and be certain the vets who need help, get help and the vets who are psychologically sound get housing.
You can’t be serious! If anything those Vets damaged by the wars we send them to, should be first on the list to begin a normal life, which includes housing. Shame on you.
The “blanket term” of vets you’re talking about… do you understand what you’re implying? Look, they are putting appropriate people in those units, ones who are capable of living on their own. But to act like there are classes of veterans is sick. Also, TBI doesn’t make you a bad person. I’m sure you would agree that you should not be judged based solely on your words, as that would certainly qualify you as someone unworthy of anyone’s kindness.
The whole “Won’t somebody please think of the children” routine is ringing very hollow. Do you even have kids? Exactly what the other poster said, you only want to help people as long as they are the right kind of people? Shame on you, you are the type of person who makes the whole area unlivable. Way more than any homeless person or street vendor. Here’s to hoping you never need assistance or help getting back on your feet. Merry Christmas.
The whole area is unlivable?
So you want to help vets, but only vets who arent too much trouble?
Got it.
You’re a terrible person.
You have no concept what I’m talking about. That’s not what I said at all.
I figured that I wouldn’t hear from you on this topic again. Take care Jez.
You rambled on about your smart brother for about 200 words which frankly has no bearing on the conversation…
You then went on to make this assumption “Sadly the vets who they would be house would most likely be from the most recent conflicts – the people who have incurred the most physical and emotional damage.”
This simply is not true. Those who incurred the “most physical and emotional damage” will certainly not be placed in this type of housing.
Those Veterans need a lot more help. As far as PTSD goes, I have a brother who suffers from this condition and has been for 15 years. He wouldn’t harm a fly on the wall, and has never, not once even raised a hand in anger towards anyone.
So Jez I most likely have a much better concept of this than you think. I have seen my brother crippled in emotional pain and his suffering is something that I don’t go a day without thinking about. I’ve seen first hand what this has don’t to my family, to my parents finances…
I have also seen my brother volunteer his free time at animal shelters, wounded warriors, neighborhood food banks. He goes to supermarkets and picks up food to deliver to people who can’t make the trip.
But yeah I suppose yiu do all that too right? I would take him as my neighbor over you any day of the week. You’re a small minded person who can’t even grasp the concept of a paragraph!
Providing a Veteran (or anyone for that matter) who suffers from severe psychosis into a housing situation that doesn’t not provide the necessary support is not really helping the person at all.
I believe what Jezbel was trying to say (albeit not so well) is that she’s nervous that some of the Vets may suffer from serious mental disorders. The UWS has always welcomed those who are down on their luck, we contribute more beds to supportive housing than anywhere in Manhattan. That being said Jezbel has a valid concern and calling her a terrible person for this concern is not warranted.
Move in tons of Veterans, I’d love to welcome them into our neighborhood. But it’s important to provide those Vets who are in need of intensive psychiatric care to provide them with just that. Failing to do so is a huge disservice to them. Set our Vets up with tha best chance to succeed, some very well may not so so well in this type of housing.
Nearly every member of my immediate family works with vets in a variety of different ways. My brother who is a PhD in Psych, diagnosis head trauma from those who have been injured by IED’s in the middle east. He evaluates them for whether the vet should be compensated by the government and then his further analysis determines the severity of the brain injury to determine how much dollar support they should fight for from the government. He assesses whether or not critical thinking can be sustained. Fighting head trauma is a long and labor intensive battle. Vets suffer from PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) which if left un- medicated can rear its ugly head and manifest as anger, aggression, and even mania in some cases. Sadly the vets who they would be house would most likely be from the most recent conflicts – the people who have incurred the most physical and emotional damage. I’m not saying don’t house vets. I’m saying lets offer house to the vets and their families who truly need a home and an opportunity for a job while have a roof over his/her head is a great thing. But I think just saying lets put vets in there without doing your homework as to whether or not each person is healthy and well adjusted is just a ticking time bomb. There are those who voluntarily self-medicate the “demons” away and that’s never a good scenario. There are many with anger issues, aggression issues, anxiety issues, will be suffering from depression, some with limb-loss and memory loss. This is not a one size fix all band aid we can come up with to fix all vets. They are people first. With many personalities and many responses to their life situations. Let’s figure out a way to ensure that this solution is the answer to the problem for the most homeless vets. This will not answer other problems may need to resolved in other ways, therapy, counseling, therapy pets, etc.
Jez did you bother to read the proposal? It seems like as if yiu missed most of the important points. The Vets that are being offered housing are not a threat, nor do they require supervision. What gives yiu the impression that no one is found their homework?
Perhaps you should read the proposal.
Our community’s reaction to the announcement was surprising. Very few people thought this was a positive thing for the veterans and the community. Some stated that they did not want housing for “people with problems”; others said that veterans deserve better. The homeless veterans simply want (and deserve) a place to live. Opposing permanent housing for veterans does not reflect well on the residents of the UWS.
thank you, well said.
my only quibble is that i don’t believe “the community” reacted this way. i think SOME in the community did. these tend to be the same people who are against any sort of public policies oriented toward the poor, elderly, working people, etc. Some of the people who were speaking out against the Vets housing also spoke out IN FAVOR of evicting the seniors from the Williams.
i think most of our community is very fair minded and realizes that this vets housing can be a PLUS for the community.
I left the meeting with the impression that the opposition was overwhelmingly louder than the supporters.
understood. I think as many or more people support the program on this site as opposed.
I guess i just can’t believe that we have fallen to the level where the majority of UWSers would oppose permanent affordable housing for vets.
the meeting might not have been representative: it might have self-selected for the NIMBY crowd.
Racist and Classist.
that is true for some of them. for others, they are simply racist and/or classist. sorry to say it but it’s true.
The loud voices are expecting a complete and perfect solution. A solution that is inoffensive and not visible on the outside. This building is a resource that can be utilized to solve one aspect of a complex problem. It should be understood that compromises and adjustments will have to be made along the way.
BRAVO SCOTT—–you got it right…..
I think it’s a great idea. Truly. I just don’t know how completely thought-out it is. In concept, I’m down with it. I absolutely believe that this is not a panacea. It will not cure as many problems with homeless vets as you think. I get it that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to the issue of homeless vets. This has been an issue for decades, perhaps most pronounced since Viet Nam era vets came home with truly damaged individuals. Some people could adjust to life after war — and some could not without many resources, loving family, friends and outreach programs. And many fell through the cracks. I assume those are the ones we’re discussing here. We are talking about people who cannot support themselves, have difficulty finding full time employment, have trouble saving money, have difficulty with personal relationships, etc. They do need assistance. They do need homes and programs. That was all I was attempting to point out. Those who do not need assistance are not the folks we’re discussing because they have the ability to function effectively in society, keep a job, pay rent, have relationshps, etc. They don’t need our help.
I welcome them and wish them the best. I hope the neighborhood proves to be a good neighborhood that gives proper thanks for what these vets have done for all of us.
There seems to be a disconnect in the understanding of what so many folks in the neighborhood are opposed to with regard to this project. It’s not about Veterans, it’s not about affordable housing, and it’s not about race. It’s about the City dropping yet another shelter in an area that already has too many shelters, again with no prior community dialog or input. And by not being held accountable for the way the other shelters are run, and the ensuing decline in the QOL that they’ve caused, the City has failed the West 90s in a miserable way. Therefore, the community has a right to be upset – and suspect – that this may only add to the problems of the area.
The city has made its intentions public. The street is not really getting any additional shelters. The building has been an SRO for many years and will be used as such. What is the metric for determining that there are too many shelters? I’ve walked there at many times of the day. The quality of life on that street is not any different or worse than other UWS neighborhoods.
The quality of life emphasis on the UWS for public action has been to limit bank storefronts, preservation of neighborhood aesthetics , creating additional landmarking and limiting development of tall buildings. None of these initiatives have attempted to deal with really important issues of poverty, housing and joblessness on the UWS.
Except that it’s not a shelter. It will provide PERMANENT housing.
I know that’s what they are calling this, but I can’t find too much differentiation, given that City agencies are involved, and the general structure of how it will be run. I think everyone involved, including Brewer and Rosenthal, are grasping at straws to define this as anything but another shelter, or at least shelter-like supportive housing. It’s been proven a bad deal for the community in the past, so why should this time be any different?
Here is the difference in my opinion, and I’ll preface this by stating that I have no personal experience in any kind of supported housing.
When you’re a shelter resident, you could be here one day and gone tomorrow. It’s very much a transient situation. You really have no reason nor need to came about the community that you’re being TEMPORARILY housed in.
When you’re offered PERMANENT housing (and also paying a portion of your rent) you are now part of the community. You will not want crime, nor scumbags living alongside you in your new home. You will contribute to the local economy, you will belong. I truly feel that it’s a lot different even though, to your point, that government agencies are involved.
Thank you, Paul RL. Well put. (We need a “like” button here.)
This is really not a race or vet issue. It’s about a public housing density issue on the uws, specifically in the 90’s. I think it is bullcrap for folks to use the argument that people opposed to shelters temporary/ public or otherwise are simply classist and unsympathetic. If this were a case where a proportionate amount of public housing was on the uws folks would be a lot more understanding of the social implications of veteran housing. I would support this building going to permanent veteran housing if two homeless shelters or halfway houses that already exist on the uws were relocated to another neighborhood in new york. Until we really address the fact that the uws has a highly disproportionate amount of public housing it is difficult for many folks in the community to accept this.
I quickly put together a map with locations that have some sort of subsidy. Which ones would you want to remove?
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=z7-dSaAbSwHc.kWDNvIB35oGQ&usp=sharing
Please tell us if we are missing any key locations.
Unfortunately, your map does not include the homeless shelters and not for profit halfway houses. I live across the street from one on 92nd street. Also, up the street y’all should check out the Senate on 92 between broadway and ams. Its just lovely how the fire trucks come at least once a week for false alarms and I get to watch drugs deals on the steps. I get it though, it is an easy commute for the needle program at the church on 93rd and broadway. That show up on google maps?
BTW if you want see see the density of nycha, and supportive living facilities on the uws you can easily look at the maps on https://n90s.org/
Heres a few more you missed.
The Narragansett, on Broadway between 93rd and 94th Streets HRA
The Senate, 92nd Street and Broadway HRA
Camden Hotel, 206 West 95th –ranked the 24th Precinct’s 2nd most dangerous building—the scene of a murder by a City Placement tenant on Friday – HRA
306 and 308 West 94th Street provide emergency homeless shelter HRA
311 West 94th Street is a Section 8 with some problem residents
200 West 94th Street houses some serious mental hygiene cases HPD
Yale/Rose on 300 block West 97 HDS/HPD
Royal York, 200 block West 97th, adjacent to The Columbia HRA
Huntersmoon, Broadway.99th St HRA (Lantern)
Frant Broadway/101 DH
Yes. That’s true the Camden became so crime ridden that the building manager was stabbed by one of the tenants and out of some chance finally one of the sro’s was released to market, likely due to just how bad things got there.
Let’s hope on more market rate building in that stretch will have some effect in filling the empty storefronts in Amsterdam between 90 and 100. Here’s hoping.
the Camden is closed.
Wow! You really did your homework. Look how densely populated the area between 100th and 110th Street is. It’s kind of a shame that the housing can’t be more evenly distributed throughout the area. It seems pretty clear that the residents with higher income has influence in City government. But what else is new?
which “subsidies” are you including and which are you not including?
almost all housing in NYC is subsidized. start with the mortgage interest deduction. and J51 tax credits.
The original source for some of the data is from https://furmancenter.org/data/search
where you can lookup additional areas.
I don’t think of housing for veterans is a ‘social service’, it is a right for any man or woman who has served this country to have a real roof over their head. I live on W.96th St. and welcome all veterans. If, after they are housed and need other services, I say make sure they get what they need. Veterans are a unique group of people that have attributes that many of us lack, bravery, commitment and experience. We need to embrace them rather than discriminate against them.
Of course this is a social service. And it is a good an necessary social service. Just like housing folks with mental illness and providing halfway houses for those who have made mistakes in life with drugs and alcohol. I applaud those organizations that care for battered wives and minors from broken homes. My father grew up in an orphanage because his parents used to put beer in his bottle to keep him quiet until the state took him from the home.
This is not a question of the merits of providing housing for veterans more or less than any group in need. It is about the density of socially subsidized housing in such a high density in one neighborhood of new york.
Why aren’t they running criminal background checks on the future residents? I’m the son of a decorated and disabled Vietnam vet so I respect and appreciate the challenges some have. However, not all vets are good people and the safety/quality of life of the neighborhood are extremely important to me.