By Daniel Katzive
On Tuesday night, Community Board 7 voted to support the opening of the controversial West 83rd Street “safe haven” housing facility. The board decided against recommending a cap on occupancy below the 108 beds proposed by the city. The decision draws a line under an issue that has generated fierce debate between neighborhood advocates for the unsheltered and public safety proponents, though both camps have portrayed their positions as consistent both with increasing housing options and a safer community.
“We should not be micromanaging,” said board member Ken Coughlin in presenting the amendment that removed language calling for a reduction in the number of beds. “They know their business,” he said, referring to Breaking Ground, the nonprofit that will operate the facility and runs other safe havens in the city. “Let’s remember that if the number of residents is reduced, that many more people will continue to be living on our streets without onsite services, case management, or wraparound support, and, as we’ve heard, people on the street are more likely to be victims of crime themselves.”
Coughlin’s amendment passed by a vote of 25 to 8, and the final resolution supporting the facility was approved by a vote of 27 to 6, with 3 abstaining. The approved resolution included a call for the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), Breaking Ground, the 20th Precinct, and the nearby school communities to work together to develop safety protocols. CB7 also requested that DHS provide more advance notice on plans for new facilities and consider proximity to schools when locating safe havens.
According to Board Chair Beverly Donohue, the Breaking Ground facility already has staff working on site. She said her understanding is that, while no residents have moved in yet, the building will gradually fill up as outreach workers identify unhoused people interested in taking up residence.
Members of the public had a final opportunity to air their views on the proposal before voting. Speakers in favor outnumbered those opposed, and stressed the importance of getting people off the streets without resorting to large-scale shelters. Those speaking against the proposal stressed concerns about proximity to schools, their expectation that the facility would bring individuals struggling with mental health and addiction problems onto the Upper West Side from elsewhere, and negative views about the condition of the facility itself.
Later in the evening, the board voted to approve a resolution opposing the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation’s plan for the 79th Street Boat Basin and calling for modifications to be “contextually appropriate” for the historic district. Board members expressed concerns that the proposed design for the dock house structure, which will house offices and facilities important to the marina’s operations, would obstruct views of the river and would be inconsistent with the historic design of Riverside Park. Natasha Kazmi, co-chair of the CB7 Parks & Environment Committee, reported that community responses to the committee’s Google survey were also overwhelmingly negative.
More holistically, some members expressed the view that the scale of the planned dock house was driven by a desire to increase the scope and capacity of the facility for the benefit of an elite few with little upside for the local community.
At least one board member disagreed on that point, however. While she agreed with critics of the proposed dock house design, Kristen Berger called the boat basin marina an important resource. “If we build a significant marina that more boats can access, we are in fact connecting the community with the water in a much more significant way,” she said. “Prior to closing, that was the only affordable place on the Hudson River to get in. It made a big difference for all sorts of boaters in trying to access the river. It has been an important resource for the [Hudson River Sloop] Clearwater and other sorts of school science vessels. So I think the costing on it matters, but we definitely need a marina there. I think it needs to be of significant size to serve the need.”
CB7’s resolution, first debated by the Parks & Environment Committee last month, will be passed along to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) which is providing about one-third of the funding for the project, drawing on Hurricane Sandy relief resources. Because the two-story dock house design impacts views from historically significant areas, FEMA is required to solicit feedback from interested parties, including CB7. FEMA will ultimately make a determination on whether the project can go ahead with federal funding and what mitigation measures would be necessary to address the adverse impact on historically significant areas.
Even if FEMA does approve the project, CB7 will have another opportunity to weigh in on the design. The city’s Public Design Commission will review the proposal in later summer or early fall and is required to solicit Community Board input as part of its own process.
Who are these people? I am embarrassed to be an Upper West Sider. I strongly oppose this Safe Haven. But I saw limited capacity as at least a compromise.
These people are tripping over themselves to help others without concern for those who live here. They are ignoring the challenges that come with housing those in need of significant support and cramming them into a building. I thought someone who was strongly in favor of this even admitted that 100+ residents is illegal.
How much is this alleged non-profit paying these people? If they are so desperate to allegedly help others and feel good about themselves, they should resign from this ridiculous community board and spend their time engaging with the homeless (please stop with the word “unhoused” – it sounds like something Fox News would make up to make us sound crazy).
“please stop with the word “unhoused” – it sounds like something Fox News would make up to make us sound crazy).”
Like “birthing person”? No one has to make anything up to prove some folks are crazy!
Hard disagree – I don’t want the CB micromanaging capacity, the more people this facility is able to support the better
I objected to the term “unhoused” in a comment a while ago. My comment wasn’t printed.
You are not the only one who has trouble with the word unhoused. It should actually be “unsheltered.” Some homeless people are sheltered. The safe haven will serve those living “outside,” including in the subway. ed.
The British have a great term for this: living rough. Let’s not forget that in NYC living rough is a choice, since the city has decided to require its taxpayers to provide shelter to anyone who requests it. The accommodations might not be luxurious, but they are free of charge and tens of thousands of people make use of them every night. Those “living rough” have decided not to avail themselves of this option.
In the meantime, there is no interest in helloing people already living in dire circumstances –
like an elderly couple who live in a walk-up, the husband can no longer manage stairs, they are on a fixed income, have no relatives to help…
Or residents of a small building which is falling apartment as the landlord is trying to vacate the building….
I don’t understand why this marina design includes massive space for offices/services for boaters on public land, but offers virtually nothing for the non-boatowning public expected to subsidize it.
EG for kayaking programs or sailing lessons. Even a bar-on-a-boat like the Frying Pan or Hudson Clearwater downtown.
The current proposal should be nixed. It costs a massive amount of money that will never pay off in terms of docking fees. It will negatively impact the aesthetics of a public park with little benefit to the large majority of non-boatowners.
So boaters should rely on bikes instead?
This is absolutely horrible. What are these people trying to accomplish? Cramming people into this facility across from a school so they can loiter outside and harass school children. And please do not deny that this will happen.
At a bare minimum, the facility should be fully staffed before anyone is allowed in. For each incremental “resident” there should be a certain amount of staffing required. I don’t want to hear about it being understaffed.
If these people want to help shelter people so much, why don’t they open up their own homes, staff these shelters, etc.?
This is utter corruption. Unlimited capacity = unlimited funding, with opportunities for grifters of all stripes. Investigate, prosecute, incarcerate.
If WSR takes on this investigation, I’m sure the outcome would be revealing. CB7members are clearly concerned by the outside issues ALL of the time ( bikes, homeless, etc ) – there is NO concern shown at all for the residents of the community. Who pays these people? Whose interests do they represent?
That’s all for me. Done trying to convince myself to keep just putting up with all of this. Tipping point reached. 20yrs in the UWS and it’s time to go.
It’s CLEARLY a neighborhood in decline, and sadly it’s primarily been caused by the people that are supposed to care about it and the well being of its residents. Anyone who says otherwise is blind to the reality that surrounds them. Are we trying to one-up San Francisco?? How’s it going out there these days?
The CB7 and these politicians seem to live in La La land and are more concerned with their own personal views and ideals Vs the safety of children, residents who choose to walk down their own street after dark or small (and large) local business.
There are 8 apartments on my floor. Since 2020, 6 of those residents moved out of NYC.
And how many of those six apartments were snapped up by new tenants? I’m not seeing a glut of empty UWS apartments on the market.
Bye.
I’m a conservative who has lived on the UWS since the Bloomberg era and even I think this is hyperbole. The neighborhood appears to be thriving, at least where I live. No noticeable decline since the Bloomberg era in my opinion. And yet, despite all the comments I read on this website that would lead me to believe otherwise, I am in the very small minority of people in this neighborhood who vote ‘R’ in local elections. Are we all truly in the minority, or do you all refuse to show up and vote? Did any of you apply to be a CB7 member, or even join meetings and comment? Maybe that would be more productive than kvetching here.
extremely difficult if not impossible for a Republican to become a member of the community board. Recommendations come from the local elected officials. But I do agree with you about the voting. Assembly district 67 routinely turns in numbers that wouldn’t be out of place in Stalinist Russia. There are Republican candidate. Diane Stasio is running against Gale Brewer this November. Pro law and order. Against the constant opening of homeless shelters. It’s a stark contrast to Gale Brewer. We’ll see what happens.
Thank you. The level of panic in WSR comments is wildly out of proportion with reality. Crime and homelessness are real issues but most of the UWS is doing great.
“Most of the UWS is doing great”. Sure – that’s why we have huge swathes of empty storefronts,
I agree. I recognize escalations of some crime categories since before COVID, but I think the “we’re in a hellhole” comments are out of proportion.
Exactly. The fact is that development and renovation work continues here apace. If we’re declining then there must be a lot of morons with the money to buy property and rebuild it into homes that cost a million at a minimum for just one bedroom.
The UWS always had flophouses which, prior to the involvement of the City and the not-for-profits, housed a far more sketchy population that was unsupervised. These buildings, which always existed, are being put to far better, and far more controlled use.
And the fact that developers can put up luxury within a block of these properties and then sell that luxury? Obviously the view that this neighborhood has peaked is wrong.
Agreed Paul, I live around the corner from the proposed Safe Haven and some developer spent three years here building The Charlotte, single floor homes with a minimum price of $10M (!!) If anything, with the relatively new Thyme and Tonic, Modern Bread and Bagel, and the classic HiLife, I’d say this is one of the more vibrant blocks in the neighborhood with no signs of slowing down.
Safety of children is the main issue, not “slowing down “
HiLife is one of my special places!
Ken has it exactly right, glad the CB is supporting this
“We should not be micromanaging,” said board member Ken Coughlin in presenting the amendment that removed language calling for a reduction in the number of beds. “They know their business,” he said, referring to Breaking Ground, the nonprofit that will operate the facility and runs other safe havens in the city. “Let’s remember that if the number of residents is reduced, that many more people will continue to be living on our streets without onsite services, case management, or wraparound support, and, as we’ve heard, people on the street are more likely to be victims of crime themselves.”
Actually the disservice they are doing (knowingly) by raising the bed count is lowering the likelihood that they will achieve the desired outcomes. These rooms are not spacious enough to accommodate 4 people with any privacy whatsoever. It’s a mini-shelter and not a stepping stone to getting those in our community who wouldn’t step toe in a shelter consider coming here. That’s the import-the care and intent they originally stated as their mission. They envisioned 2 max 3 to a room.
That is not true. There are not 100 homeless people living on the streets on UWS. The non profit own words – we will work to identify people who may be interested in moving in shows that.
Please let us know if/when you do leave, as so often this is lobbed as an idle threat.
You would know when your taxes take you to the poor house as all tax base would leave, Who would pay the taxes – the homeless?.
If anything it would be the loss of parking that would really be the final straw.
The capacity is a huge issue and not in line with occupancy and egress requirements that the city has for other projects. Given light and air requirements of sleeping spaces and the configuration of the buildings there is limited space for people. With the maximum capacity that has been discussed (and with no cap on it evidently) the amount of space for even just bunkbeds and toilet/shower facilities makes the place jammed. One needs to realize that this is not really housing – it is merely beds/sleeping quarters. So, of course people will be out and about, which is fine but the effect on the neighborhood with this many new “residents” in a very small space should have been considered. It sounds as if the ship has sailed though and now the neighborhood will need to hold the organization and the CB accountable for the conditions in the buildings and on the streets.
These people are appointed by our elected officials. Apparently they are not afraid to be voted out. Therefore they do as they please. They are aware of their constituents objections and concerns, but they couldn’t care less.
Let’s vote them out.
This is horrible but predictable. Elections have consequences. What do you expect of you vote for the same leadership for decades? These leaders appoint those people who make decisions affecting your daily lives.
And don’t lecture me on horrors of alternative leadership. You didn’t even try to elect them and live under their leadership.
No cap is absolutely insane. Studies have shown that this building can only hold 78 people maximum. This is just criminal. Please vote these CB 7 people out of office.
Citation, please.
CB7 and Gale Brewer are very aware of the concerns. They are simply ignoring us. Why not? There’s no consequences or any sort of liability for them.
Maybe they don’t agree with you? Maybe outraged comments on West Side Rag do not actually constitute an UWS majority opposed to a safe haven housing facility?
This is the obvious conclusion, but the NIMBY’s in the WSR comments can’t admit it.
They are working to identify people who would be interested in moving in. So clearly they are going to be busing these people from all over the city. There are not people currently living on the streets on UWS.
I find it interesting that so many people here claim that CB7 is going against the will of UWS residents. If any of these commenters actually attended a CB7 meeting, they would see how many of their neighbors were speaking in favor of the Safe Haven. There are a large number of people on the Upper West Side who are actively involved in making our neighborhood a safe and welcoming place for all people, and just because they don’t spend their time in the comments section of the WSR doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
You have no idea if the people speaking actually were UWS residents. There is no proof and very easy for activists to join Community Board meetings just to add to the numbers. Especially when these meetings ARE STILL VIRTUAL. This is a joke. Any activist group can sign up and speak under any name. This CB7 is a complete joke.
I spoke, and I am a UWS resident. My friend spoke, and she is a UWS resident. Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean that there exists a vast conspiracy to infiltrate CB7 meetings.
Sorry but this is making news. People came from everywhere during the Lucerne debacle. There is every reason to believe activists would speak and not be from here. The chalk writing has already happened, just like the Lucerne. Until CB7 gets its butt in gear and has meetings in person and asks where you live, no way I’m believing everyone was a valid UWS resident.
Any of them got kids at PS9?
And the discrepancy with CB7’s very own request/recommendations for the size of safe havens that work (50-60 beds) is due to…? Ah, yes, they saw the light and decided to leave it to people who know their “business”…
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/manhattancb7/downloads/pdf/Prioritized-Budget-Requests-FY23.pdf
Because folks on the UWS tend to be liberal, kind-hearted and compassionate, the City is dumping hundreds and hundreds of homeless, mostly men, into the neighborhood, while the East side, Upper and Lower, re mains free. Rich people on the UES don’t like invaders of any kind, and the City respects their wishes. But it ignores the best interests of the UWS. They’re going to turn the UWS into a SLUM!
One has to wonder what is going on at CB7. Are they afraid to actually oppose anything? Already stripped of much power or influence it seems that
They are giving up. The Boat House won’t be a “boat house”. It will end up being a venue. Just watch. Apparently destroying the iconic view of the river isn’t important enough to take a stand.
My goodness they wouldn’t even recommend a cap at the Shelter. Pathetic.
They have become a rubber stamp but they get to keep their titles.
It will take a rezoning that results in the loss of historic district landmarking for anyone to get really loud.
I would like some transparency around the community board members themselves: HOW MANY SHELTERS, SROs and other such facilities have you approved or exist in your immediate neighborhoods?? If you don’t have one, I suggest taking your own fair share before imposing anymore on the rest of us. Those who oppose the CB7 moves to load up even more are not bigots. These shelters are not without impact, The neighborhoods in which there are already way more than our fair share, such as 97th Street, where a third is going in to house recently released convicts, are already full of a constant stream of liquor bottles, noise and drug dealing. Ruth Messenger was the worst, in her own cozy neighborhood where she has lived for decades in a 4-story brownstone.. When are we going to wake up and get some common sense Community Board members?
The UWS has a thousand plus beds. The upper East? Less than forty. We also have all the bike lanes. This is because the community board on the UES actually pays attention.
Here’s the real issue: Mental Illness in NYC’s Homeless Population.
“…there is an undisputed correlation between homelessness and mental illness. SAMHSA data indicates that nationally, about 30% of chronically homeless single adults have mental health conditions.”
But it’s more like 65% in NYC and 17% have ‘SEVERE’ mental illness, acc to recent data. Read on:
“In 2017 and 2018, the Coalition for the Homeless surveyed street homeless individuals in New York City; of those surveyed, two thirds were assessed to have “mental health needs.
“According to HUD data from January of 2020, about 17% of all homeless New Yorkers have a “severe mental illness,” up from 13% in 2015. ”
Source: page 6
https://bronxworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Improving-Care-Coordination-for-Homeless-Individuals-with-Severe-Mental-Illness-in-NYC-2.8.2022.pdf
I am opposed to this housing, it’s an invitation to calamity. Who is responsible when the situation with residents don’t go as planned. Hope the police are ready to manage complaints and crime.
I am (apparently notoriously) well-known for my opinion on this. (lol) I have supported the facility since its inception – though I, too, have always believed that the # of residents should be decreased (though not via micromanagement by the CB).
In that regard, let me suggest that the occupancy situation is likely to work itself out. One cannot force an unhoused person (and yes, unhoused is slightly different from homeless) to accept a place (which is probably why Breaking Ground is now looking to other areas of Manhattan for potential residents). On the other hand, one cannot force someone to remain in a situation if they are unhappy with it.
My guess is that, if incoming residents are unhappy or uncomfortable with a 4-to-a-room situation, they will simply leave the facility and not return. And I believe this fact will determine how many residents ultimately end up there. Breaking Ground may not be ABLE to find 108 unhoused people who want to live in a 4-to-a-room facility.
Having sat through the entire 4-hour Board meeting, I know exactly what occurred. One thing I will point out is that, among the public speakers on the issue, 14 were in favor (including 3 parents of children at the school) and 5 were against (including 1 parent of a child in the school).
So no, Gale Brewer and others are NOT “ignoring” the concerns and comments of those opposed; they simply disagree with them, which they have a right to do, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of people they have heard from support this project (despite what those opposed would like to think). It is called “democracy” – although apparently many people no longer believe in it. And no, those opposed are NOT in the majority; they are a (very) vocal minority who would, if they could, turn the UWS into a form of “gated community” – which is NOT the history of this neighborhood, one which has traditionally been a welcoming, compassionate community, willing to make sacrifices for “those least among us.”
Those are simply the facts. One can dislike them, and disagree with them (even vehemently). But they ARE the facts.
Ultimately, I strongly believe that the naysayers will be proved wrong once the facility is open and running. All the fear-mongering and hyperbole will have been for naught. This facility, like so many others, will integrate into the neighborhood and community in a successful fashion. Might there be some hiccups? Possibly. But in the end, it will do what it is meant to do: provide shelter and services to those who need them most, without having an adverse effect on the local community.
Regarding the Safe Haven, this was a complete joke in every way. CB7 has no influence and the fact that they are still having virtual meetings is an insult to the community. Plus, any activist can call in and speak – no way of knowing where they live. They can be calling from anywhere and say they live “around the corner”. Gale Brewer pretends to care and states the number of beds should be less, well what happened? It was SUPPOSED to be less when this was apparently talked about 3 YEARS AGO, and the DHS did whatever the heck they wanted because this neighborhood NEVER PUSHES BACK. Until these same fantasy idealists in office are voted out with real common sense people, there will be 3 shelters on every block and STILL HOMELESS PEOPLE ON THE STREETS. Let’s see what a BIG change this will bring. Can’t wait to see.
Yes. Stop with the virtual meetings and face us in person.
How carefully are these residents going to be screened?
Interesting that a bar has to be at least 500 feet from a school but a shelter that may house people with possible criminal records, addicts and sex offenders passes muster.
Yes- these people need help and have mental health issues but that still does not warrant their presence so close to schools.
It will be interesting to see if the UWS homeless population that you see every day will choose to move there.
Yes, and I hope the WSR or the Open Hearts people will keep everyone posted. I’m curious to know if the men in the area of 72nd and Broadway (and the surrounding area) will agree to accept help. I remember them all sitting on the sidewalk in the sweltering heat and covered in bug bites last year. Always asking for water more often than food. I hope they will have some improvements in their lives because of this.
The usual CB7 rubber stamp. CB7 never represents the actual community. Why are we not voting for these people? This is not a democracy.