Lucerne Residents Will Be Moved to Wall Street Hotel, But Another Shelter Is Coming


The Lucerne on 79th Street.

There’s been another twist in the saga of The Lucerne, the boutique hotel on 79th Street that became a controversial homeless shelter in late July.

In a development announced late on Friday, the Department of Homeless Services said the men will now be moved into another hotel in “the Wall Street area.” According to UWS Open Hearts initiative, the move is expected to happen on October 5.

In addition, the city plans to site another homeless shelter on the Upper West Side on a longer-term basis, according to a statement from DHS:

The decision comes after the city had initially planned to move the men into a shelter called the Harmonia on 31st Street that was being used to house families, many of whose members had disabilities. An outcry about that decision led the mayor to reconsider, and he put the moves on hold until Sept. 30.

The city portrayed the latest move as also having to do with fairness — the Wall Street hotel-turned-shelter will be “the first of its kind in this Manhattan Community District.” Project Renewal, the nonprofit that runs The Lucerne shelter, will also be in charge of this shelter.

We are awaiting word on when and where the new shelter is expected to be placed.

Legal Aid, which had opposed the original move and even threatened a lawsuit, applauded the mayor’s decision. “We have received assurances that the men living at the Lucerne Hotel will be placed in safe shelter settings, with the City continuing to fully accommodate their specific needs, which will allow them to socially distance and easily access critical healthcare services,” the organization said in a statement.

Attorney Randy Mastro, who represents the West Side Community Organization, the group that led the drive to move the men out of The Lucerne, also praised the mayor, saying, “today’s announcement is a major step forward in doing right by this neighborhood and this vulnerable population.”

But UWS Open Hearts, which didn’t want the men moved, was upset about it, claiming it was motivated by “selfishness.”

NEWS | 123 comments | permalink
    1. blacklikeu says:

      Another move – another turn.
      At this point I must say that I, a person who was against housing these men in the Lucerne, has changed my mind and now I think that they should stay put.
      All the cries for help as if the world is ending on the UWS were a bunch of BS.
      No one was murdered, raped or beaten up by a homeless.
      Kind of BS of the first degree were the cries of outrage.
      Look in the mirror and see – for real:
      “there by the grace of God go I”.

      • JS says:

        “No one was beaten, murdered or raped” seriously? Is that what it takes?

      • Raquel S says:

        I was slammed in the head by a homeless man on 86th and broadway

        i am not against the homeless but lets be real
        many are mentally ill as this man probably was and he did really hurt me

      • Dayvee says:

        Just who is this Randy Mastro and why don’t I trust him?

        • Ian Alterman says:

          Depend on your politics. He was a Fist Deputy Mayor under Giuliani, and was de Blasio’s attorney on a couple of cases (which is what makes their “back door deal” regarding the Lucerne highly suspect). Ultimately, he is a slimy, sleazy high-powered attorney who will do anything for a quick buck.

      • Marti Cassidy says:

        Thank you, We have so much more work to do ro eliminate the systemic bigotry that constrains us!

    2. Nick says:

      The betting pool is officially open: where do you think the new homeless shelter will be?

    3. Newcavendish says:

      Fine. Was all the kerfuffle and upset necessary? The problem was NIMBY, yes, but the fault was with the City for failure to manage the process and control the persons in the shelter properly. Let’s hope that the process and the conduct of the persons sheltered is better managed next time.

    4. ben says:

      I know a hotel, the Continental, in the Wall Street area, frequented by one John Wick 😛

    5. rita says:

      NO MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE ON THE UWS! WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM! TELL THIS TO MAYOR DE BLASIO AND TO HELEN ROSENTHAL! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

      • FYI says:

        No worries …The Belleclaire Homeless Hotel on the UWS 2175 Broadway b/w West 77/76 Streets
        is going rental and will be shutting down for renovations as of October 1, 2020.

        • UpperWest says:

          Do you know something real here?

        • Ian Alterman says:

          That is incorrect information. The contract for the hotel re the homeless expires on 10/28. However, a renewal is possible. So the earliest that the homeless would be out is the end of October.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Rita – your words are despicable. You don’t get to decide what part of the city OTHER HUMAN BEINGS should be in. You dehumanize these men as if you are better than them, but your words show otherwise. If you want to live in a racist gated community, then go find one. The streets of the UWS and NYC should be open to everyone.

        Your words are absolutely disgusting.

        For the record, I live around the corner from the hotel…

      • FYI says:

        There’s plenty available space on the upper Eastside you have the Armory on Park Avenue at 68th Street and the Regency Hotel which is available for A perfect men’s shelter (temporary or permanent) on Park Avenue and 61st Street going for the same room price as the Lucerne hotel. New York Marriott East Side on Lexington Avenue at 49th St. is also available for a much cheaper room price than the Lucerne hotel for a men’s shelter (temporary or permanent).

    6. Delores Del Río says:

      In all the controversy over the Lucerne situation nobody ever mentioned that the located 500 feet from an elementary school (grades 2-8). Housing single men battling drug addiction there might have been feasible during the summer months but unacceptable once the school year started. Siting a long term shelter presumably will be done with greater care.

      • lynn says:

        It was definitely mentioned, and that was one of the initial reasons for the creation of the FB and Twitter groups to remove the men from the Lucerne, which was followed up by the anti NIMBY groups. There’s a whole other (graphic) world shown on those social media sites. I still can’t believe what I’m seeing.

      • StopTheRepetitiousComments says:

        Here we go again. Anything and everything has been mentioned REPEATEDLY by dozens of commenters in numerous articles as if they were the only ones making that revelation.

      • Phoebe says:

        There are worse ways (many) of showing kids why they should be careful with their bodies and minds by finishing school and staying healthy and strong. They are often each other’s worse enemies, when it comes to drug and alcohol use as a passage to maturity. They might learn about compassion and tolerance for others, not from a lecture or book, but by actual practice. Maybe they can learn humility—to be grateful for what they have, and pass it forward, with well-deserved pride for themselves and their families.

    7. Very Sad says:

      The Limousine liberals and their progressive friends
      care nothing about the UWS. They are only interested in their causes and agendas.
      They are creating a neighborhood problem from which we will never recover!! They are destroying what residents have worked all their lives to create. A god quality of life!!
      Hear me !!
      This is why Trump will be re-elected.

    8. CC in NYC says:

      NIBMY wins again.

    9. CC in NYC says:

      (that was meant to be NIMBY)

      • lynn says:

        How so? Do you want the men to stay at the Lucerne when they’re not receiving the services they need, or do you think there is a way to implement these services at this late date?

        • Ian Alterman says:

          That is a lie. The men are receiving – and have received from Day 1 – MORE robust social services at the hotel than they did at the congregate shelters. Do your homework. Learn something, instead of regurgitating misinformation.

    10. Senior says:

      Glad to hear that the homeless residents at the Lucerne will be closer to where they will be able to receive the social services and medical help they need and, at the same time, be placed in a neighborhood using “fair share” guidelines. Wall Street has no shelters of this kind. Given the “ fair share “ criteria not clear who, what, why and how another shelter is being added.
      Long range I hope this challenged population get all the services they require which may also include residential treat centers, addiction and mental health support, job training, access to recreational facilities, etc. which were sadly not offered by the Lucerne’s temporary housing option.

      • Robert O Johnson says:

        These service had been offered at The Lucerne except the recreational area.

        • Elder says:

          The services provided were totally inadequate. I am a mental health professional and have worked with this population. What they are getting now is like one spit in the ocean.

          • Ian Alterman says:

            You are also a liar! The services that these men receive are WAY better than what they were receiving at the congregate shelters. They are receiving robust social services, including treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, both onsite and off.
            you should really do some research, and learn something, instead of regurgitating misinforamation.

        • Boris says:

          So now they’ll get recreational facilities, too. I see that as a good reason for them to go elsewhere. You seem to be arguing against their receiving such a benefit. They have no roots in this neighborhood so why so stubborn about moving them?

      • Da Homeless Hero says:

        Trust me when I tell you we will recieve no services at this new location. That is a lie, don’t be fooled…

    11. Rob G. says:

      Oh jeez, here it comes – smart money bets that the West 90s will somehow get screwed again in this deal!

      • John says:

        Why “screwed”? Doesn’t the leadership of UWS Open Hearts live in the 90s and 100s? Logistical win-win for all – even closer to their hearts.

        • Boris says:

          Duh – that’s why UWS Open Hearts wanted the facilities to be located in the 70’s & 80’s. Fill the quota for locations in someone else’s neighborhood.

        • Ian Alterman says:

          Nope. They live in the 70s and 80s. Only a couple live in the 90s. I live in the 80s, just three blocks from the Lucerne. And despite the fact that there are half a dozen homeless housing facilities in the area, we have no issue with more, because all of THOSE facilities (the permanent ones) have been well-integrated into the neighborhood.

      • Yeahyeah says:

        Without a doubt. They know the outcry that will happen if it’s in the 70s or 80s.
        As long as its not single drug addicted men not receiving services…whatever

    12. UWSer says:

      “ we will site a new shelter facility in Manhattan Community District 7 for the long term”

      This has a very strong ‘shut up and eat your dinner’ vibe. What’s next, we all get smacks?

    13. LongtimeNYer says:

      VOTE AGAINST State Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal. Try to make sure City Council Member Helen Rosenthal, who is term-limited, never achieves another elected position.

      • Liza Merril says:

        And vote our Gale Brewer for City Council as well. Her and Helen Rosenthal and Linda Rosenthal all do not care about constituents’ safety.

        • Jay says:

          Liza Merril:

          “And vote our Gale Brewer for City Council as well. Her and Helen Rosenthal and Linda Rosenthal all do not care about constituents’ safety.”

          Safety? Has there been some huge increase in assaults in the West 70s and West 80s? It would seem likely that there has been a decrease because of the closure of the dubious bars on Amsterdam in the 80s.

          • Ian Alterman says:

            Liza: You are correct, Crime is DOWN on the UWS, and has been for some time. And there has been NO uptick in crime due to the presence of the hotel homeless; this has been confirmed by the 20th precinct. In fact, not a single resident of the Lucerne has been formally accused of, much less arrested for, a “crime against persons.” There were a few property crimes (theft of a Citibike, theft of a package from a building), but NO crimes against persons. Don’t believe the B.S. that the “other side” spews in this regard.

      • Marsha says:

        Agree. Linda Rosenthal is the worst. Helen sadly was a help to me in cleaning up the 70th Street bench lady, but now seems to be forgetting her constituents. Wall Street will have one, while the UWS is getting another . It should be in Wall Street; can easily handle another, there are many unused hotels there, or perhaps Gracie Mansion, deBlasio.

      • LK says:

        That’s reactive ( and necessary ). However, we need to start looking for people that can lead this neighborhood and represent all of its residents regardless of political winds…

        • Boris says:

          Vote GOP down the line. It can’t be worse than the current situation. That’s how you send a message. Continuing to put Dems in office is just dumb and self-defeating. What is the rational for refusing to vote for a member of the other party when the party one identifies with has failed miserably?

          • Ken says:

            “Vote GOP down the line. It can’t be worse than the current situation.”
            Isn’t this what Trump said, Boris? Presumably you can see just how badly THAT turned out for all of us over the last four years. Sorry, but voting for the Repugs “down the line” is the last thing any decent citizen should consider.

            • Boris says:

              I think the last four years turned out pretty well. That is if you discount all the hair-on-fire Dem paranoia and refusal to accept Trump as the President even before he took office. He was never given a chance before the Dems went on an all-out assault. And now they’re too pigheaded to admit to any of his successes of which there are many. The last four years have proved Dems to be all too willing to look the other way when one of their own commits illegal and questionable acts. But they’re real quick to point fingers at Repubs. Where’s Hunter?

          • Ian Alterman says:

            How have they failed? By showing compassion? By wanting to make sure everyone has a place to live? By working to provide shelter for the most vulnerable among us? By making sure our city remains diverse? By considering ALL stakeholders, including the homeless, and not just those with money? Is that how they’ve failed?

        • UWS person says:

          Yes, we need good candidates but unfortunately at this point we seem to have Sara Lind and some other person for council and they do not seem that strong. In fact, they seem worse than Helen and this is then the problem we currently have in local government. Not enough great candidates to choose from.

      • Jay says:

        LongtimeNYer:

        What’s your problem with Linda Rosenthal, that she co-signed, with Helen Rosenthal, Jerry Nadler, etc, that concern trolling letter to the head of the NYC Dept. of Homeless Services about “those men” in the hotels on the Upper West Side?

        Now, true that letter wasn’t as bad as the one Helen Rosenthal sent to constituents, as an email, saying the men should be kicked out of the hotels on the UWS. To her credit, Helen Rosenthal retracted that screed, but you’re right it precludes her from holding another elected office in NYC, even though she apologized.

        Oh, wait…

    14. Otis says:

      There are a lot of old office buildings in the Wall Street area that were converted into upscale condos. The people who paid top dollar for these condos probably won’t be too happy about this.

      Ditto for nearby Battery Park City.

      Now I read the Lucerne will now be replaced with another homeless shelter on the UWS.

      No place is safe anymore. Living in Manhattan is like living on the top deck of the Titanic.

      • Ken says:

        And so I must presume that you’re comfortable living “on the top deck” only so long as none of the unfortunates living below you get to come up for air on “your” deck. Why not at least flat-out say so?

      • Y'z Guy says:

        Re: “Living in Manhattan is like living on the top deck of the Titanic.”

        Well:
        1. The view from up here sure IS great; and
        2. Top deck is the LAST to be swallowed-up by the rising water.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        So I guess you feel that there should be NOWHERE for the homeless to live? No shelters, no transitional housing, no permanent supportive housing, NOTHING? We have gone from NIMBY to BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. Is that really the city you want? If you want a gated community, there are plenty you can move to so you don’t have to live near people of color who may have issues.

    15. West 90's Needs Help! says:

      People in the West 90’s – it’s time for us to speak up now. There CANNOT be another shelter added to the already troubled overrun area – including the abundant street homeless on our 10 blocks.

      Please speak up to Helen Rosenthal and DANNY O’DONNELL as he is over the 90’s also and needs to finally get involved.

      This will be another permanent shelter if we just let this happen. Does anyone care about how out of control the West 90’s are???

    16. Liza Merril says:

      (Typo on previous post) And vote OUT Gale Brewer for City Council as well. She and Helen Rosenthal and Linda Rosenthal all do not care about constituents’ safety. Do not believe UWS Open Hearts. They are twist the facts around.

      • nycityny says:

        Your “correction” remains wrong too. Gale Brewer hasn’t been in the city council since 2013, having served 3 terms. She has since been Manhattan Borough President and will be term limited out of that office so cannot run again. Your admonishment to vote her out is moot.

    17. What about single Moms and kids who live in Shelters. The kids cant do school work because they cant get internet. Perhaps, if Lucerne has internet access, the single Moms and kids could move there.there are several public schools, medical care and maybe a less frightening community. And the kids can learn along with others. Now, at one shelter, the city sent a school bus that kids could get Wi Fi?

      • js says:

        Homeless families would benefit from being in a residential area.

        Currently the City is using several midtown hotels (Penn Station, Times Square areas) for homeless families. Horrible and dangerous for kids and parents.

    18. Ira says:

      Why do we need more shelters in Manhattan? Look at the numbers: Manhattan has more shelters than Brooklyn and Queens and States Island. Only Bronx has more homeless population than Manhattan. Or, does Project Renewal think that shelters to be close to NYC cultural centers? Do they think that shelter population will benefit from proximity to galleries and New York Stock Exchange and law firms and NYC iconic sites?

    19. Susan says:

      Can somebody please explain why the Upper East Side or some of the very wealthy far west side EVER get shelters, SROs or their fair share of the homeless, drug addicted or other special needs populations???

      Why is there such a heavy concentration on the UWS?

      • Ian Alterman says:

        There are actually several shelters on the UES. But they are so well-integrated into the area that you don’t even know they are there.

    20. If you have enough money or threaten to sue the city you can get the homeless out of your neighborhood. Hence, the move to Wall Street. If The Lucerne Hotel is not an appropriate setting for the homeless, why not create a new site in the 70s? Why create a new site in the 90s? We have plenty of shelters and residential health facilities in the 90s right now. We don’t need any more.

    21. The Other Heather Rosenthal says:

      There ARE a number of permanent shelters and government housing in CB7. I don’t seen any finger-pointing or shelters (temporary or permanent) being set up on the UES, in SoHo, in Tribeca, or a large number of affluent areas in the city.
      Separately, Rosenthal has been taking actions to set up her next job for ages. She hasn’t been acting in the interests of her district at any point and frankly should be proud of the history of her district in bringing in government housing and shelters rather than calling its residents racists and grandstanding.

      • Bruce Bernstein says:

        Reply to The Other Heather Rosenthal:

        What, precisely, do you mean by “government housing”? The seems to be an attempt to stigmatize NYCHA public housing. People can’t claim that they are not arguing for a “gated community” if they are trying to get rid of all low income housing, the vast majority of which is occupied by people of color.

    22. FedUpUWSider says:

      Fair share? I hope wherever this “new” shelter will be, it won’t be on the UWS, where despite the “critics” we‘ve have far MORE than our “fair share” of shelters. How about the Upper East Side for a change? In the blocks surrounding Gracie Mansion so that this deadbeat mayor can live with his handiwork for the remainder of his too long, bought term!

    23. Fiorello says:

      Why these “officials” talk about “transparency” is beyond me. They do not know the meaning of the word, although they do know where they are next going to “shelter” homeless men, whether active drug users, persons in need of intense psychiatric care, or just down-on-their luck men. Who are the mental health professionals guiding these decisions? Are there any? Is it just bureaucrats? Past time for the big reveal. For the $3.2 bIllion+ spent annually on homelessness, we the taxpaying public, have an obligation to press for integrity and transparency from the system, such as it is.

    24. JJ says:

      In a non-covid world, shelters on the UWS could have been a good thing for the homeless men – a safe location where they could sleep, shower, etc.. Many people are homeless because they’re victims of circumstance, and stable, safe housing DOES help people get back on their feet (a place to keep your belongings and shower and sleep – pretty essential for nailing a job interview and holding down a job). However, there is no trajectory for these men right now – they can’t utilize this housing to get back on their feet because NO ONE can get a job right now. So this will not be temporary housing. None of this is their fault, but it does make this an unusual situation. The city keeps slapping on bandaids instead of developing a long term plan, and THAT is what will harm the neighborhood and, even more so, the homeless.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        Actually, even in the current crisis, over 20 of the men and women in the Lucerne and Belleclaire have been moved into permanent housing since getting to the hotels. so the process DOES work, and these people ARE getting the help and services they need to move on with their lives. Stop believing the NUIMBY hype and LEARN something about what is ACTUALLY happening.

    25. JS says:

      The City has been able to fund the use of the Lucerne and other hotels due to FEMA Covid money. The Lucerne use was time-limited from the outset.

      It sounds like the City expects to site an actual shelter on the West Side. That likely will require ULURP review.

      Perhaps the owner is negotiating a sale of the Lucerne to the City – to be transformed into a shelter?

    26. John says:

      The Century 21 space would make an excellent long term shelter. Great light and thousands of square feet. Bet it could hold 500 beds.

      • Jay says:

        John:

        Century 21’s old space doesn’t have individual rooms.

        The individual rooms is the reason these hotels were chosen so as to suppress the spread of the corona virus.

        The City closed the group shelters. Such shelters may reopen, but that’s not going to mean a new group shelter in the old Barnes and Noble space some time in 2022.

    27. FJM says:

      Whoever wrote this didn’t bother to get comments from residents who are concerned about illegal, antisocial and/or dangerous behavior from unsupervised & untreated severely mentally ill and public drug/alcohol users – who must be distinguished from the homeless population.
      This was never about homelessness or affordable housing, but always about public behavior which negatively impacts public safety/quality of life and erodes all neighborhoods. When NYers leave, they take their tax revenue with them.
      NYC politicians & advocates have been weak on real solutions for those who need supervision and treatment.
      Compassion without real solutions is just a meaningless word.

    28. Steve UWS says:

      Open hearts is sounding a lot like bleeding hearts. To bad these people aren’t putting their energy and your donated money into more productive activities.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        What’s more productive than providing these men and women with comfort, support and additional services and programs? And they ARE working on the broader issues as well. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And what ahs the opposition actually been DOING to help them? Not a single donation drive, not a single act of kindness. Nope, let’s raise $137,000 to hire a sleazy lawyer to SUE them out! So tell me, couldn’t that $137,000 been used for better purposes as well? And BTW, they raised that money in a few weeks to hire a lawyer. Open Hearts and its supporters raised $500,000 in a single week to pay for programs that the men will not longer be able to take advantage of if they are moved.

    29. ST says:

      Why isn’t it the Upper East Side’s turn to house a shelter? It essentially has NONE. Am not opposed to shelters. I don’t like inequality. Furthermore what the city needs is more female-only shelters and this is never instituted. Homeless women I know say they’d rather be on the streets, where they feel safer, than housed with men who can be very predatory.

    30. Leon says:

      I posted a very reasonable, well thought out analysis of this situation that was politely critical of UWS Open Hearts and I’m fairly sure was within the word limit and it got censored. And I am sure there are others posting similar things and I see none of them here.

      WSR is really dropping the ball here. I know this is a private site but please be consistent. There are plenty of other message boards out there.

    31. mom says:

      It appears that the mayor did not heed the advice of his own staff and commissioners who are actually in regular communication with many stakeholders, what a surprise so many are leaving their posts. I can’t speak for which officials shd be elected, but they shd stay in better touch especially remotely

    32. Jay says:

      Newcavendish:

      “control the persons”, in what sense?

      Have you been to West 79th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam even once over the last two and half months?

    33. Fiorella says:

      The Open Hearts group sounds angelic, but I fear is totally political, not to mention oblivious to the countless documented awful experiences of local renters and owners since the sudden influx of mainly addicted and/or psychiatrically troubled men. Again, these ranged from a surge in street crime, unsettling public behaviors like defecation and shooting up, masklessness, and harassment, to name a few. Many adults, including the dense elderly population, have been traumatized and become more fearful. This was a thoughtless plan that violated the known consequences of “densification,” to borrow Erin Drinkwater’s favorite bureaucratic word, “dedensificatiom.”

      • Jay says:

        Fiorella:

        “Again, these ranged from a surge in street crime, unsettling public behaviors like defecation and shooting up, masklessness, and harassment, to name a few. ”

        You can document these claimed differences of course?

        It’s unlikely you can, since I’ve seen nothing of the sort and I live in within blocks of the Lucerne.

    34. Vic Pinalti says:

      The city should crate a program called “ Adopt a homeless “ and all this good and nice people who stand with the homeless people could host them in their own houses . That will be so nice of them , wondering how many of them will sign up for this program !

      • Dean says:

        Seriously… seems like that would solve everyone’s problems.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        That’s just stupid. The homeless have needs that could never be provided by individuals. They need to have case workers, medical care, and other services that none of us could provide.

        And if YOU have such a problem wit them, why don’t YOU do something constructive about it, instead of just coming on boards like this and complaining and criticizing?

    35. matthew graffeo says:

      I saw a man experiencing homelessness throw feces at a mother and her toddler. Yeah nobody was raped or killed but it’s not ok.

      • Susan says:

        “a man experiencing homelessness”? The Newspeak gets sillier by the day. You can just say “homeless man.”

    36. Act Now says:

      It is unlikely the negative aspects of our divisions, over the right number of homeless shelters in the neighborhood, and over safety concerns with people living/sleeping in the streets, will go away any time soon. May the seeds of division not bring further alienation and deterioration to our community and may gov. officials reconsider that their efforts are tearing our community apart. DeBlasio and the other three politicians, we know who, are making Trump’s prophecies come true not in the suburbs but in New York City. I hope they didn’t get their inspiration from people of good cheer who in the old days referred to the uws as a suburb of Manhattan. A place where the tourist used to complained there was nothing to see.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        With respect, it is you and your ilk who are tearing our communities apart. Your complete lack of compassion and tolerance, your mean-spiritedness and thinly-veiled racism, are what is wrong with the situation. That has NEVER been what the UWS was about. I would rather have the 283 homeless residents of the Lucerne living on the UWS than have you and your hatred-filled compadres.

    37. Pepper says:

      Do something about Carl at 79th & Broadway once & for all & you will be solving one big problem . He should not be allowed to intimidate, harass & threaten people.

      • Anita says:

        Karl on 79 th is not a problem. Stop by and introduce yourself. Chat a little. You’ll see for yourself.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        As Anita notes, Karl is actually a wonderful guy. Yes, he is a slightly mentally ill alcoholic. But he is quite engaging, and kids actually love him; he is funny and engages with students as they walk to and from the park for sports practices. He has been arrested a few times for minor offenses, but he has never harmed anyone.

    38. J says:

      You resent them being.moved to a better place? Why? You say you hav their best interests at heart?

      • Ian Alterman says:

        “Better” is not always the best thing. Yes, the Wall Street facility will be larger, and thus more space to socially distance. But the will NOT get the same robust services they are getting now. More importantly, one has to weight the “better” of the other facility with the amount of instability, havoc and trauma that the men will experience as a result of the move. Stability is the #1 need for people in crisis, if they are going to be able to move forward. Moving them for the third time in as many months is “better” than moving them to another facility no matter what that facility does and does not provide.

    39. MoveOn.NOW! says:

      Some of these men are just poor, which is fine, but they are predatory. Two friends of mine were involved in incidents. One, a senior walking her dog at night, was followed, chased and nearly assaulted; another, a young college student, grabbed and harassed several times. Most residents in the area now see drug deals and drug pushers on a regular basis. Welcome back to the 1970’s. So, it’s not all rainbows and lollipops. Good luck on Wall Street!

      • Ian Alterman says:

        And how exactly were you able to tell whether the perpetrators were from the hotel or from the street homeless population? the question is rhetorical. You couldn’t. So you DON’T know that either of the perpetrators were residents of the hotel. And that is EXACTLY the problem. You are SCAPEGOATING the men at the hotel when you have no idea whether any of them was involved.

    40. Leon says:

      Stating more briefly what I tried to say earlier: UWS Open Hearts seems to want to keep them here for their own benefit and doesn’t really care about what the homeless men want. It seems like being downtown might be preferable since it is closer to where they previously were. But this would interfere with the organization’s mission and they think that is more important than what is best for the homeless men.

      I appreciate their desire to help but perhaps they could channel their energies elsewhere.

      • Ian Alterman says:

        Why don’t you take the time and ask the residents what Open Hearts has done and continues to do for them instead of making a presumption that is wildly far of the mark? They absolutely appreciate what is being done, and very much want to maintain that relationship. Open Hearts has done everything from donation drives of food, clothing, toiletries, and other items to providing AA meetings, to creating a resume-writing workshop, to creating a faith-based program to provide for their spiritual needs, among other things. In fact, Open Hearts is providing them EXACTLY what they ask for and need.

    41. David says:

      Once again, the protesters are killing the men in the Lucerne. Thankfully, the mayor is opening a full service shelter in Wall Street. The medical and therapy care will be state of the art. Unfortunately, the protesters never see the weekly ambulances, the over doses and death because these men are not getting the service they need. Helen Rosenthal has blood on her hands. It breaks my heart to see this. I voted for her and I regret it.

    42. B.B. says:

      In November 2021 thirty-five (35) city council seats are up for grabs thanks to term limits. So will be a few borough presidents, mayor, comptroller, public advocate and a few more offices.

      Next year’s citywide elections (in particular the primaries) are important. Whoever wins those elections will have four or eight years to shape local NYC politics.

      https://www.amny.com/politics/backyard-politics-these-candidates-want-more-housing-in-new-yorks-rich-neighborhoods/

    43. Eddie says:

      I went up to The Lucerne to see what all the hype was about because I now live in Syracuse & was reading all the negativity the Post was printing….From what I saw it was just people out & about up in that area. I don’t want to dispute ppl. because I don’t live there.

    44. charles becker says:

      These homeless people in the hotels should be sweeping street in return for their freebies of rent and medical care,

      posters on this thread should disclose if they benefit from having homeless living in the neighborhood. e.g. health care professionals living on the UWS.

    45. Gary says:

      Totally agree with restoring the upper westside to it friendly safe family neighborhood.

      • UWSHebrew says:

        Gary that’s a normal request. You don’t belong on the Upper West Side with that kind of request.

        • UWSItalian says:

          UWSHebrew….And who died and left you in charge.?Gary….. I think a brilliant idea and you have my support.

        • Drew says:

          Agreed. It’s so bizarre how many don’t seem to have any concern about safety, quality of life or value of their neighborhood. We already have a ton of supportive housing, which is all fine and good, but there is such a thing as a tipping point, and we are very close to it.

    46. James says:

      52 Williams Street is where they are planning a 300 room men’s only homeless shelter for mentally handicapped and substance abusers. Right across the street from from an elementary school, park and right next to Wall Street. They are going to turn the financial district into a totally nightmare. De Blasio and the city are responsible for destroying the area.

      All those tourist seeing Wall Street are about to see whole new thing. This is really dangerous for area and needs to be stopped now.

      STOP 52 Williams Street now!!

    47. Blumpkin says:

      I propose that the city make the UWS a completely homeless community. Move the property owners and taxpayers out of the area.
      They are doing nothing but getting in the way of homeless residents. Hopefully the city can find somewhere to place these annoying property owners. The first completely homeless neighborhood is the city. 72nd to 96th, Riverside to CPW. Now that’s progress.

    48. Manhattanite says:

      Anyone who says they don’t see things going on must not be out that often or are not too observant. I’ve lived here my entire life, there are negative changes occurring. People are upset because of what they’ve seen. If there was nothing to see, we wouldn’t see so many complaints.

    49. HI says:

      With all the time they’ve had, they could have built a temporary apartment just like the temp hospitals they built (Stony Brook etc) – they built those in less than two weeks. They can make one with more privacy for each person and with cafeteria and medical facility. Can’t they build those in Randall’s Island etc where there is space till Covid is over? I understand that the “not in my backyard” mentality is selfish. But it is a fact that it is affecting people’s lives in that children cannot walk outside feeling safe or elder people feel less safe. I am somewhere in the middle, live in UES but seeing more homeless (probably from the hotel in the 60s) and am feeling a bit nervous as i have been yelled at.