By Bob Tannenhauser
When Community Board 7 meets April 4, the full board will continue discussion of the safe haven for the homeless that the city plans to open on West 83rd Street in April. As the Rag reported earlier, at its March meeting the board deferred voting on a resolution in support of the safe haven, where the city plans to house 108 men and women (the board’s vote is advisory but will put the neighborhood group on the record as either supporting or opposing the city’s plans).
A protest rally opposing the shelter was held on March 23, and the Rag’s stories on the issue have received nearly 200 comments – many for, many against – from readers. Among the recurring themes from those who oppose the project is the perception that the Upper West Side already has more than its share of city shelters providing for the homeless. WSR researched shelter statistics, which we present here and leave it to readers to decide whether the neighborhood is overburdened, underburdened, or just doing its fair share in helping the homeless.
One caveat: the numbers are fluid. They represent data available for a fixed point in time, based on information reported by various city agencies that oversee facilities and programs for the homeless. The numbers collected on those fixed dates may not match the precise number of people at each shelter at that time, due to reporting delays, or today and therefore may be presented herein as approximate numbers.
City Limits , which tracks data through Freedom of Information Act requests, reported that on November 22, 2022, based on data it received, there were 78,529 individuals in New York City homeless shelters. The vast majority – 69,667 (approximately 89%) – were in shelters administered by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), which issues a daily census of its facilities. On March 27, that census recorded 72,449 individuals living in DHS shelters (almost 2,800 more than the number reported by City Limits for last November 22). Of those in DHS shelters on March 27, approximately 1,563 single adults were in safe haven facilities, similar to the facility proposed for West 83rd Street. Safe Havens are a form of shelter designed for homeless people living on the streets and subways with minimal entry requirements and enhanced services.
The daily DHS census doesn’t give a geographic breakdown of where individuals are sheltered. But the city’s Open Data site does. Here are its most recent numbers showing by borough how many people were living in DHS shelter facilities on February 28, 2023.
Borough Individuals Sheltered Number of DHS Shelters
Bronx 18,166 118
Brooklyn 20,281 128
Manhattan 14,025 86
Queens 17,718 87
Staten Island 670 3
And here, according to Open Data, is a breakdown by community district of the number of individuals in DHS-administered shelters on February 28:
Community District Individuals Sheltered Number of Buildings
CD 1 Financial District 438 1
CD 2 Bowery 364 1
CD 3 Lower Eastside 935 10
CD 4 Hell’s Kitchen 2,136 8
CD 5 Midtown East 3,375 11
CD 6 Murray Hill 1,227 4
CD 7 Upper West Side 1,352 7
CD 8 Upper East Side 41 1
CD 9 Hamilton/Morningside Hgts 739 5
CD 10 Central Harlem 1,376 19
CD 11 East Harlem 1,534 15
CD 12 Inwood/Washington Hgts 508 4
We compared the NYC Planning Community District Profiles count of each Manhattan community district’s population based upon a 2021 survey with the number of individuals sheltered in each district. The following chart shows the population of each Manhattan district and the percentage of that population living in city shelters.
Community District Population Percent of Population Sheltered**
CD 1 72,225 0.61
CD 2 87,858 0.41
CD 3 157,101 0.60
CD 4 117,930 1.81
CD 5 49,302 6.85
CD 6 149,052 0.82
CD 7 221,646 0.61
CD 8 217,279 0.02
CD 9 115,788 0.64
CD 10 133,831 1.03
CD 11 126,388 1.21
CD 12 208,994 0.24
** Caveat the individuals sheltered number is as of 2/28/23 but the population is based on the 2021 survey, a shift in population based upon the current census would affect the percentages.
The Safe Haven scheduled to open on West 83rd Street is designed to accommodate 108 individuals that are currently unsheltered. One argument put forth against the proposed safe haven is that it allegedly will bring in homeless people from outside the Upper West Side. We couldn’t find a breakdown by neighborhood of the unsheltered homeless, but according to a survey conducted for DHS by HOPE NYC, there were 3,439 unsheltered individuals in NYC as of January 25, 2022. That number includes 2,142 individuals living in the subways. The other 1,297 individuals were living on the street, of which 163 were in the Bronx, 228 in Brooklyn, 283 in Queens, 571 in Manhattan, and 52 in Staten Island.
Don’t know the dates for City Limit data but the NYC Dept of Homeless Services reported that as of July 2022, the CB7 district had a “usable shelter capacity” of 617 in its 7 shelters, so I don’t know how in the data in this article CD7 (if that means the CB7 district) sheltered 1,352.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/7/26/23279842/homeless-shelters-are-overflowing-and-most-likely-in-poor-areas-despite-fair-share-promises
(hover over map to see stats by district)
I care about my safety….
I am daily harassed for money from homeless individuals that live in the shelters and need $$$ for drugs.
As an older woman, do I have any rights to safety?
As a taxpayer who has lived here our whole life should I be able to walk the streets freely?
Try to keep in mind, these homeless residents are not going to get in the face of a man, but an elderly woman….. they will try to intimidate.
Check the Open Data link for February 28, 2023 numbers
Thanks for the reference.
But at the Open Data site, as of 2/28/23, of the 1,352 in CD7, 535 are people in families with children housed in a commercial hotel, 536 are famiies with children in a shelter. 188 are adults in a family shelter, and only 93 are adults in an adult shelter. The number of adults in a CD7 shelter is lower than 6 of the 12 Manhattan districts.
The Safe Haven planned for W83 St is not for families, but is conceived as permanent housing for single adults.
It is not permanent housing it is transient.
So what’s your point?
Thought I was clear: that the UWS is not “oversaturated” with facilities for the population that Safe Haven is designed to serve.
Further, it doesn’t not envision serving “transients,” as some have claimed here, but is intended as permanent housing, getting people off the streets and into supportive housing and services. Why wouldn’t we want to applaud that, which is likely to increase safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood?
Safe haven is not permanent housing. It is TRANSITIONAL. Pretty clear from all involved. The individuals they place there don’t have to stay, there is no lease, and it’s not until they meet certain criteria will they even be considered for ” permanent housing” which has many different appearances, not necessarily independent living.
I support Safe Haven but it is not permanent housing. It is transitional.
Homeless families have issues too. Every one of those homeless families has an adult male attached to it who may be a peaceful and productive law-abiding citizen or may be the guy I saw an hour ago marching out of Duane Reade on Columbus with an armful of stolen stuff. Seems like there are other neighborhoods that need to pick up the slack before the UWS gets any more shelters.
Note East Harlem, which includes 96 – 110 streets from Fifth Avenue to the East River.
The question is whether there are buildings in any given neighborhood that can be converted for this purpose. Below 96 on the east side? There was 1. On the west side there were dozens of buildings that the city took over because owners stopped paying taxes. Most were put back into the private sector but some were converted to supportive housing and shelters.
This began in the 80s and if you bought here since, well, perhaps their presence isn’t as intrusive as you fear?
Outside of existing properties there are few places below E 96th on east side of Manhattan that can be used for homeless.
One is happening on East 45th, but that is simply redeveloping a current shelter into something larger.
https://patch.com/new-york/midtown-nyc/planned-21-story-shelter-midtown-east-moving-forward
https://newyorkyimby.com/2023/03/permits-filed-for-215-east-45th-street-in-midtown-east-manhattan.html
Land and other costs being what they are doing anything on east side of Manhattan, especially UES just don’t pencil out. There are a few homeless shelters on UES, but they are in Yorkville (one on E 81st between 3rd and Second), and another on E 77th between same avenues. But that’s about all IIRC.
Much appreciated journalism, wsr!
Uws is about to get 600 unsheltered individuals in the next 3 months within 10 blocks of eachother. We saw what happened with the hotels – it’s absurd to even break this down in such a way. The fair share law certainly doesn’t mean one shelter per district – but it certainly doesn’t seem to be applied evenly throughout Manhattan. Breaking it down by population is ridiculous. We all saw resources stretched ( nypd, ems, FDNY) when this scenario played out 3 years ago. Clearly no one pays attention. The safe haven is also an ILLEGAL SRO- with no certificate of harassment, and has been doing construction without any building permits. Happy to hear none of us need to play by any rules anymore as any shelter provider who skirts the rules will have no consequences. No one should ever pay one cent to the DOB, landmarks as they are clearly an unnecessary distraction if you want to renovate or occupy a building.
Maybe we should also look at the new construction in the neighborhood if you want to be fair. Overwhelmingly multi million condos well beyond the means of teachers, public health care workers, public interest lawyers,, most ordinary middle class and certainly working class families. These are people who would need and support our public schools too. That would be a good conversation to have about what you want the future of your neighborhood to be. I happen to live in the Manhattan Valley neighborhood of the UWS for 46 years. Lots of smaller buildings. Because if widespread landlord abandonment in the 1970s, the city came to own many properties which over the past several decades they have basically given to many worthy non profits doing various types of residential support services programming. We are just fine. So please do not whine about fair share within the entire CB 7 district because percapita, micro neighborhood by micro neighborhood, south of 96th St. versus north of 96th St. is a very different story. I am not objecting to the projects and programs in my MV neighborhood, Just pointing out a few things for your consideration.
Hello Fed Up: I’ve been writing and calling constantly. If I could, I would march against the latest new shelter in our neighborhood. Enough! The UES did not allow their hotels to be overtaken. One needs only to work there and live here to see the difference. In addition, Manhattan as a whole is ridiculously over burdened. NYC is huge with room to spare in the outer boroughs. Our children, our parents and all of us are subjected every day to the wandering homeless mentally ill. Sadly, Maria Danzilo was randomly sucker punched this week at CPW and 81st. As a neighborhood, we’re done. Rapes and muggings on WEA and 65th st. There’s nothing left to say. Take Gale Brewer and CB 7’and vote them GONE.
Fed up:^^^ Your summary of this hideous socially engineered experiment is sublime. Thank you.
park ave is, as usual, not shouldering its share.
Which derelict buildings should be bought for that purpose? 740?
There are many churches that are not in use on the UES that don’t pay taxes. Turn them into shelters.
They employ many of us and pay most taxes.
It’s not enough to pay ones taxes. They also need to do their share in allowing homeless shelters. Being rich cannot insulate one from pitching in.
Thanks for doing such wonderful work in terms of % of shelters on UWS. Very helpful. having just returned from Europe, I am aware how many more homeless Manhattan has, and how we don’t have an organized plan to deal with them. It seems to me it’s catch as catch can, different groups try here and there but there is no governmental organization, we just don’t seem – as a country – to care. Even in a selfish way, helping the homeless makes others lives pleasanter. Years ago I volunteered teaching baking at The Other Place, run by Goddard Riverside. The clients enjoyed our classes, it gave them a temporary sense of purpose. Most crimes are committed by the homeless population.
Most crimes are committed by the homeless? What? Please tell us where in the world you got that one.
Everyone has to receive their share of the homeless—-except for the rich folks on the Upper East Side! The system of distribution is rigged by the rich & powerful.
Check the data on home prices and you’ll see that the UWS is more expensive than the UES, and that our per capita income is also a bit higher.
Not true. Especially 10025 has much less income than the UES and 10024 is equal. The UWS homes are more expensive because the UES has many more apartments. If we didn’t all CRY every time a new building was being built on the UWS, there would be more apartments available. I’m not saying cheap, but equal or less in pricing than the UES.
10025? The east side equivalent of 10025 is East Harlem, which starts at 96 Street. Include 96 – 110 from fifth ave eastward?
The price and income disparity grows in our favor and the disparity in number of shelters shrinks to nothing.
From 90th – 100th, streets are very much like the UES, just different street numbers.
And as I also mentioned, 10024 has an equal income – certainly not more than the UES and our housing is only more expensive because we cry when anyone tries to build anything here BESIDES a shelter. The home prices mean nothing here in this instance. As David Kelienber-Levin said…the UES is somehow keeping all the shelters and supportive housing out and not pulling their fair share.
There is no underlying logic or strategic plan guiding the placement of homeless people or “shelters.”. The beneficiaries of these location decisions are the landlords/owners, not the homeless. Most of us know that, and also witness the homeless often being treated worse than cattle being readied for the slaughterhouse. Yesterday I was on a bus. I have a badly damaged knee because of a jerking bus, so I try for an upfront “elderly or handicapped “ seat. I got one. Occupying the opposite “special needs” three seats was very large, disheveled, older, exhausted homeless man. He was allowed to stand, not sit, in the space with his very large possessions cart. The cart would block the aisles. No matter. He is an example of the countless people we see daily living with mega-problems and no currently effective so,utions. I think being on NYZc streets day after day creates a kind of insanity. Open space does not. I think the city must rethink how large a desperate population it can absorb and benefit. I think it’s beyond its upper limit.
“Occupying the opposite “special needs” three seats was very large, disheveled, older, exhausted homeless man. He was allowed to stand, not sit, in the space with his very large possessions cart. The cart would block the aisles. No matter. ”
and…this is why we need *less* housing?
Exactly Sarah. This comment and so many others make no sense.
Susan and Sarah, please see my comment below why we need less housing despite homeless on our streets .
The right to shelter definitely needs to be revisited. There should be a minimum residency time requirement before you qualify, you shouldn’t be able to just show up off a bus and immediately demand free housing.
Article XVII, New York Constitution, was pushed by Roman Catholic Church and other religious leaders in 1938 as the Great Depression and other factors caused great distress to the “poor” of NYS. In particular women and children.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144232265.pdf
Long story short over years via legal proceedings “care of the poor” has been twisted to include “right to housing”. NYC was sued and lost on that matter so there you are.
City cannot place many road blocks or take other actions deemed to deny persons access to shelter as that would violate said consent decree in Callahan v. Carey.
Even if Article XVII of NYS constitution was amended or even eliminated (good luck with that), city would still have to return to court and deal with Callahan v. Carey.
Access to shelter is different than shelter where you want it. It is offered to them. They can take it or not, but if they choose not, does that mean they have a right to establish their home wherever they please and become untouchable?
Ahh but persons can arrive here from Paris, Texas or Paris, France and have the “right” to shelter if needed.
Two things unique to NY make this (housing as a right) possible.
Article XVII of the New York State Constitution
and:
Callahan v. Carey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callahan_v._Carey
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2009/2009-04302.html
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2021/10/how-nycs-right-shelter-mandate-works/185933/
For a minimum residency requirement, do you mean homeless people would need to prove they had been living in the streets of the UWS before qualifying for housing in the neighborhood? How would they prove this?
Not homeless, just demonstrate somehow that they have been in the city and didn’t just come here from elsewhere to get free everything which is what is happening right now. Maybe an interview would accomplish that I don’t know, maybe they have an old paycheck stub or they’ve been in a shelter in the past? Maybe there are HHC medical records. But the current system is unsustainable. .
108 beds for in an out occupants, as needed. A high volume of transient occupants with no background checks. Across the street from an elementary school. Court documents often reveal that drug suppliers live blocks away from the schools where drug use, overdosing, and drug related fatalities occur.
For one, this is only a number of “SHELTERS” and does NOT include the number of “supportive housing” buildings that are ALL over the UWS, like the new one going in on 107th street. Gale Brewer was tweeting how she was so happy to add another one. The 97th Street Fortune Society housing going in next year, which is a “rehabilitation” for formerly incarcerated, does not count as a “shelter” but it’s going on the same block as 2 shelters/supportive housing – all with troubled individuals – or did we already forget someone was murdered a month ago in one.
Plus to have the UES have ONE technical SHELTER is beyond ridiculous. No matter what – the way these are counted is a farce. Count ALL the supportive housing/rehabilitation facilities with the “shelters” and then you’ll have how much more are on the UWS and a real number.
West Side Rag – can you do an article adding ALL of them up? That would be news.
It does seem that every single block has either a shelter, a drug rehab, a supportive housing or some other government subsidized housing program. I’m not sure why this shouldn’t be distributed more equitably. This is not a population who supports our local businesses, as they are poor. This is not a population that is particularly interested in the arts, or have the luxury to think about the arts, as they are poor. The mentally ill are devoid of any connection to this area- they’re not here for the school, or the museums, or the history, or the arts, or the fine dining, or the bike lanes. They may as well be anywhere. You think the elderly men smoking outside the massive supportive housing on Broadway and 86th blaring their radios and sometimes disturbing the diners at the pizzeria, CARE where they are housed?
Like the building on 107 the Supportive Housing facilities are renovated and revived SROs, which once proliferated on the UWS and not the UES.
Note, by the way, the UES ends at 96 street. Go to 110 East of the Park and you’ll see plenty.
Would you rather go back to them being unregulated flophouses?
The City has financed the construction of new Supportive Housing in outer boros and northern Manhattan. The ones we have represent an improvement over the flophouses they once were and have been around since the 80s.
IOW, they were here when the UWS passed the UES in housing prices and per capita income. THAT’s how bad they are.
UES has much better representation. Our reps only care about mentally I’ll and formerly incarcerated population who are not even from our neighborhood.
And Sex Offenders.
The Belleclaire had 13 Registered Sex Offenders less than 1000 feet from a playground.
Many were Level 3 – and had raped 4 and 5 year olds.
They only were removed after there were numerous complaints from the neighbors.
The city’s response was they didn’t realize they were level three sex offenders.
Unfortunately these facilities also draw people to the neighborhood that don’t live in the shelters. People, including myself, have been harassed, attacked, followed and threatened numerous times by transients. The neighborhood has changed dramatically since I moved here 20 years ago.
Seven places seems like a low number. Probably because it only represents homeless numbers being housed. There are more “facilities” that house other populations that are situated in the UWS.
I am not against helping or increasing the number of facilities. But the support systems in the neighborhood needs to be increased. More police, more health services, more food banks, etc.
I think that looking at it this way – as a “fair share” – is the wrong way to look at it. We should all be doing as much as we can to help those “least among us.” “Numbers” (or people, buildings, etc.) should not be the criteria for a given community to be doing what it can. Yes, it is easy to say “Look at the UWS – we have 7 shelters with 1300 people, while the Upper East Side has only 1 shelter with 41 people.” But it shouldn’t be a competition – in either direction. Either we care enough to help people – even if it means making sacrifices to do so – or we do not.
I have no problem helping people, investing in people, who will give back to the community in positive ways and especially those who can and want to work. People for whom local housing will improve their ability to obtain a good education, fill open jobs, and possibly open businesses that help make our community thrive. That was how the neighborhood used to be. There used to be a richness in this neighborhood, where we had a community. Now, our only options are luxury housing or some newfangled iteration of a homeless shelter. Look at the new Park 79. It was originally presented as low income senior housing 50% UWS. Now it’s Section 8, 50% homeless, open by lottery from anywhere in 5 boros. What happened to helping UWS seniors age in place? People who have connections to this neighborhood?
Ian,
I grew up here and have mixed feelings about this issue.
I grew up next to a “bad” building and recall the constant stress and fear from catcalling, music which made sleep impossible etc. But at least I felt positive about the larger West Side community then.
Fast forward to now – am in despair at the luxury gentrification, being hit by Citibkers, trash all over, loss of small stores etc. So in that context, no not happy about yet another negative…..
Sacrifices? I don’t want to sacrifice the safety of my family. Please don’t make decisions about sacrifices for me.
So put it to a vote. Ask ppl on the next ballot – do you believe that there should be a moratorium on any new government subsidized housing on the UWS?
Yes!
Start with helping the locals feel safe again. Helping people is not restricted to helping homeless. Our children and other vulnerable groups are not safe. It is easy to virtue signal when you don’t have children who dodge aggressive behavior on their way to school daily.
Amen.
Censored for length? Trying again.
Let’s reframe this and zoom out. There are two categories of homeless: the down on their luck jobless, and those needing significant help.
For the first group, much of the country has minimal unemployment and needs low skill workers. Supply meet demand: we allegedly have many people here who can work.
For those needing help, this can be done cheaper elsewhere and it would both remove them from temptation and make them less likely to harm others.
This isn’t a NIMBY reply. It’s a simple economic analysis providing the best outcome for everyone.
Looks like UWS, Morningside Heights way overburdened compared to other areas of the city. Also Harlem. This does not include the three just proposed over the last few weeks. Compare to UES with one building.
The BRC was determined to open a shelter on West 25th
They showed all kinds of data etc about how the shelter would have a ” low impact ” on the community blah blah blah
Fast forward to now west 25th st is a disaster area with businesses closed crime and filth.
Property values plummeted
And the ” low impact ” on Chelsea in general has turned the area into a nightmare
The public has never been told the truth about the homeless population because city hall doesn’t even have the faintest idea what to do about it
But putting shelters in residential areas is a ” equity” ploy and the people for it don’t have to live with the horrendous effects of having one next door
Exactly. This shelter is a disaster.
Thank you. Very helpful, including the last paragraph with estimates of people on the street by borough. I have a homeless brother and keep seeing versions of him everywhere. I love the Upper West Side, feel completely safe on the streets and subway, and am pleased to see active debates on how and where to help others. We need local journalism so grateful for the data.
Why aren’t you taking care of your brother and let the system do it? If you are unable to keep him housed, neither will the system.
Great point. Why isn’t more investment going towards supporting family members who, more than anyone, should feel more a sense of responsibility caring their family member? I can understand it isn’t easy, but shifting responsibility to neighbors or the state…..is that realistic?
Thanks for breaking down the data, WSR!
Can we get data on the shelter population? NY1 did a story in 2018 or 2019 about the prison to shelter pipeline. Inmates were released directly to the shelter system. These aren’t your former neighbors who are now ‘unhoused’. The city doesn’t want you to know this.
Ask yourself – how many times a week do you experience aggressive behavior from the homeless? I have to say it is almost a daily experience for me.
For those advocating for more supportive housing to reduce a number of people on the streets – IT DOES NOT DECREASE THEIR NUMBER. It does exactly the opposite.
The housing doesn’t keep mentally ill housed. They are not going to stay in their rooms. They are going to be all over the neighborhood exhibiting aggressive behavior and endangering us and our children. In addition the supportive housing will attract more drag dealers.
There are limits to how many shelters, etc. a neighborhood can absorb without us doing basic errands with our heads on a swivel. We are way past this limit.
Dana!
Awesome post! ITA with your reflective analysis. You said it all.
These statistics suggest that the UWS is not unduly burdened by facilities for the homeless. UES should be embarrassed though!
Vote out Gale Brewer and the rest of the ilk. All this talk about Equity. Irrespective of race given the massive taxes we have to endure why do we have to be ok with the crime and the reduction in the quality of life?? Pay high taxes and have to deal with a homeless guy scaring the crap out of my kids on Broadway.
I still have yet to have one question answered: What is the long-term goal of housing these people in one of the most expensive ZIP codes in the country?
To appease liberals need to feel like they are doing something good- which is to make the homeless disappear off the street. Nevermind that their mental illness is ongoing and unchecked. Nevermind that the nonprofits aren’t actually held accountable for results. The CEO of breaking ground, the nonprofit assigned to running the proposed 83rd St haven, makes $600,000 to help make homeless people disappear. The liberals fall into this trap. This is not good deeds and kindness. This is warped thinking. Hospitalization is necessary for many of them.
Do they want them to disappear? Or is the goal to keep them visible enough so the money keeps flowing in to support their programs. Out of sight, out of mind, out of job. As long as people aren’t rioting there is neighborhood capacity for yet another shelter and CEO who makes $600k.
From Chelsea to Hell’s Kitchen going north through UWS and into Harlem the west side of Manhattan long had large numbers of budget, tourist and residential hotels/apartments. Over years as tastes and other things changed these properties often went further downhill making them ripe to become SROs and homeless shelters.
On UES from Fifth to Lexington starting at 57th north to 96th you just never had sort of decrease in property values that made conversion to “flop houses” or whatever possible. Yes, townhouses or brownstones were converted from private homes to apartments, but no where near low income or homeless affordability.
Long story short city and non-profits keep shoving homeless housing and services on West side largely due to existing use properties (such as 106-108 W83rd), and or because they can find properties that are affordable.
Thank you for posting this! I don’t have statistics but there are several buildings on the UES, from Lexington Ave to York Ave, in the 60s-90s include low-income housing for families. I have friends with 3 br renovated apts that are the same price I’m paying for a 1 br on the UWS. That being said, when I was helping a coworker look for an apt recently we discovered that the ‘regular’ rents on the UES were also significantly lower than the UWS. Maybe it’s time to do some replanning.
If you’re speaking about “affordable” or “low income” lottery housing, that is not same as homeless shelters.
While city reserves right to move homeless families into such buildings, much depends upon rent. If rent is higher than what Section 8 or other vouchers will pay, then that is that. Also those households tend to be persons or families that are working, just cannot afford to pay rent. Like this person: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/realestate/renters-forest-hills-los-angeles-homeless-shelters.html
OTOH typically housing for hard core homeless usually is “supportive”. Meaning place has staff onsite to deal with various needs of homeless, mentally ill, drug addicted.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/realestate/nyc-hotel-affordable-housing.html
The Upper West Side may not be over-saturated, but the Upper East Side is certainly under-saturated. The Upper West Side, and frankly all districts, should refuse any new units, beds, shelters, etc., until the Upper East Side catches up.
Well city is trying to spread things around.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/30/grocery-heir-eli-zabar-tries-to-stall-homeless-shelter/
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/commercial-real-estate/eli-zabar-loses-battle-against-upper-east-side-homeless-shelter-next-door
From the Patch 8-24-22: Goddard Riverside withdrew from the 91st Street Safe Haven after the city changed its model — the latest setback for the Yorkville facility.
https://patch.com/new-york/upper-east-side-nyc/upper-east-side-safe-haven-plans-jolted-shelter-provider-drops-out
Just a rhetorical question, but does it matter that this proposed shelter on the UES was right next door to a gymnastics studio for children, or do they not count as long as the shelters are spread around equally?
NYC Elite Gymnastics did their best, but city still plans to go ahead with Safe Heaven project.
https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/upper-east-side-residents-protest-planned-nyc-funded-homeless-shelter/
Progressive neighborhood should bear a disproportionate share of homeless units. There is the old saying if you talk the talk you should walk the walk.
Let’s face it – most people in supportive housing are there not because of poverty, but because of serious issues such as mental health and/or criminal past. So let’s stop talking about helping the poor.
We clearly see from what is going on on our streets that some members of the population of shelters can’t behave by society norms. In my opinion, they are not sufficiently or at all supervised. Very important to note that mental health issues require constant medical monitoring; however, I highly doubt that the shelter operators provide that to the required degree. It is clear that they are not liable for the behavior of their shelter’s population; hence there’s no motivation for them to provide all the services that actually work and not just for a check mark.
Therefore shelter some residents create all sorts of safety issues, I’m not even saying anything about quality of life. If providers can’t control them, then don’t place them in our neighborhood. Our representatives, Gale Brewer in particular, need to stop her grandstanding and put a stop to the endless chain of shelters, instead of communicating how happy she is with yet another shelter opening. She is happy because she scored a political goal, but her constituents are not. Our only hope is Maria Danzilo who doesn’t care about being popular at City Hall and speaks for us.
We are supposed to live in a society of law and order. We are not supposed to fear for our safety and expose our children to derelict behavior.
The voice of reason in the sea of wokeism.
Thank you! The service providers have no liability for our safety! They want their big bucks at our expense. Our quality of life is degrading while they are getting richer. Aggressive mentally ill are flooding our neighborhood, yet we keep adding shelters without any accountability from anyone whatsoever.
In the previous articles, I saw many comments asking for some critical reflection on the safety of women and children (and anyone — men can be attacked and murdered, too). The question of fair share is interesting, but even more interesting (to me) is why the concerns of women cannot be addressed head on. Don’t women’s concerns about safety matter?
The safety concerns, including women’s, are swept under the rug because they are inconvenient. Gale and her posse are hell-bent on commissioning more shelters and supportive housing because that’s what’s cool in their circle. They are playing these political games under pretence of empathy which in fact has very little to do with empathy. It is a big industry and political flavor of the day. The rest is ignored.
Previous commenter noted that because the UWS is just as expensive as the UES o money is not the reason there are nearly zero shelters on the UES. This is untrue. There a large number of old moneyed and EXTREMELY wealthy long time donors (both over and under the table) on the UES who are paying to keep the homeless out of its boundaries. I’m not talking about your garden variety mid 6-figure income folks who don’t have the resources or connections to play in this big money. game.. Been this way in NYC since Tammany Hall days…
Just to be clear, there is the rich heartland of UES (Fifth to Lexington from 59th to 86th or 96th), and then you have Yorkville (east of Lexington or Third avenue).
You are *NEVER* going to get homeless, low income or even “affordable” housing in Lenox Hill. Property values alone are just too high for numbers to pencil out.
From Third east to the FDR is another matter. Historically due to limited subway access that area was always sort of “no man’s land” which kept rents lower and overall Yorkville sort of frozen in time. Arrival of SAS however has changed things big time.
The approximate numbers provided indicate that 0.82% of the population of NYC are in shelters. The averages in the 12 districts vary from .02% in CD8 to 6.85% in CD5. It appears as if the city could do some better planning to bring these percentages closer to the city average.
CD7 is not far below the city average, but we are much close than CD2, 8 and 12.
It is more of the same from these UWS “liberal/progressive do-gooders” and more specifically, a certain demographic group, WE WANT TO HELP, JUST NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERYONE DESERVES SHELTER, JUST NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!!!!! Gimme a break!!! Thanks for clarifying the actual stats for the population that is in question. Hopefully it will shut down the false narrative these complainers have tried to use for decades