With the looming possibility of an incoming 125-family transitional housing facility at 78-16 Cooper Ave. in Glendale, nearby residents have since flooded Community Board 5 meetings, rallied on site with local politicians and lit up the Glendale Civic Association Facebook page in disapproval of the proposal from Samaritan Village, homeless services.
Following what seemed to be an unusually quiet CB5 meeting last week at Christ the King High School, located at 68-20 Metropolitan Ave., the board responded on Fri., Jan. 11 by announcing a special committee to further review the proposal.
In addition, a number of elected officials also wrote a letter to the de Blasio Administration and new DHS commissioner Gilbert Tayler to, “express their strong reservations.”
The letter sent on Wed., Jan. 8 from Congresswoman Grace Meng, Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, Assemblyman Mike Miller and Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley to de Blasio and Commissioner Taylor; and CC’d to NYC Public Advocate Letitia James, Comptroller Scott Stringer hüpfburg kaufen and NYC Officer of Management and Budget director Dean Fuleihan, states:
Dear Mayor de Blasio and Commissioner Taylor:
We are writing regarding the proposal for a 125-unit transitional housing facility at 78-16 Cooper Avenue, Glendale, NY 11385, which was submitted to the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) by Samaritan Village through an open RFP in August of 2013. We would like to collectively express our strong reservations about the suitability of this location to house a facility that is able to meet its stated goal of transitioning families into permanent housing.
We all fully support the legal mandate under Article XVII of the New York State Constitution, which has been upheld by court precedent, that the state and its local governments have an obligation to ensure shelter for vulnerable and in-need residents.
According to the Fair-Share Analysis dated December 6, 2013 from Commissioner Ovesey to Mayor Michael Bloomberg (the letter), DHS argued its needs to build this particular facility “to meet…legal obligations as well as fluctuations in shelter demand and shelter census.” (p.2)
The reality is that the vast majority of the arguments made in the letter for building this facility were so generic and broad that they may be used to justify the building of transitional housing facilities anywhere in the City of New York. While we fully support the city in its efforts to meet its legal obligation to ensure housing for all eligible in-need residents, we have multiple concerns specific to this particular site.
Simply stated, we collectively believe that DHS has failed to meet its own regulatory criteria in its fair share analysis, and some of their specific statements in the letter are quite frankly not legitimate. In sum, DHS has not made a plausible case to move on to the second phase of analysis for this site.
While there are multiple concerns about this particular proposal, the vast majority of our reservations are focused on the site’s relative proximity to the castillo hinchable necessary public resources that would be needed to help residents successfully transition into permanent housing.
The proposed site is nearly 1.3 miles away from the nearest subway station, which has only a single local-service line in operation. First and foremost, a distance of over a mile to the subway cannot be considered convenient or accessible to residents of the facility, who will need public transportation to commute to off-site linkage services, educational institutions, stores, and workplaces. In addition, our offices regularly receive calls regarding overcrowding on the limited MTA bus service that runs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. This distance completely invalidates DHS’ argument that “because of the Site’s proximity to public transportation, it is not expected that the proposed Shelter will negatively affect neighborhood traffic.” (p.2)
That particular statement from the letter also directly conflicts with a later determination as DHS cites the facility’s “proximity to…major thoroughfares will allow its residents and staff to access the Site in a convenient manner.” (p.11) These implausible justifications regarding suitable transportation directly lead to questions about the efficacy of the site, the ability to meet its goals, and, most importantly, the first phase of DHS analysis.
In addition, the likelihood of “cost-effective delivery of services” (p.1) is a factor cited by DHS in support of this proposal. However, in a recent hearing on the matter, DHS received a bid citing the facility would cost $27 million to operate over the initial five year contract period. Considering this Fair-Share Analysis does not address any specific cost-efficiencies that demonstrate the benefits of the development of this particular facility or proposal, in addition to the location deficiencies highlighted above, such an excessive commitment of tax-payer funds to this project appears hasty and illconceived.
If one of the primary criteria for evaluating a proposal’s cost-effectiveness correlates to the ability of the facility’s residents to quickly transition to permanent housing, we fail to see how developing a program at a location that is not conveniently accessible to basic public resources needed for a families success can be classified in such a manner.
Finally, we take issue with the assertion used in favor of this particular proposal in the letter that DHS, by its own accounting, has documented that shelter bouncy castle stay lengths have increased by 16% over the past year (p.3). If that is the case, then it does not stand to reason as a basic policy matter that the solution to that particular failure on the part of DHS is to continue to build facilities, including ones that don’t meet its own basic criteria for success like this one. We hope that, as a new administration, you will look to address that particular problem by undertaking a comprehensive analysis of how all DHS operations have combined to create that very unfortunate increase in turn around time for families in need.
In sum, we respectfully request that the city lay aside this proposal and investigate alternative solutions that address both the short and long term needs of our city’s homeless and in-need families in a responsible manner. We are available to meet in person to further discuss this matter further and in greater detail. We thank you for your time and consideration.