DNAinfo reports on how the local community board is contesting the condo purchase of a non-profit organization that establishes housing for young men with disabilities. The Savoy West at West 138th and Lenox is being pitched as a luxury development but two of the last units are now under negotiations to convert into a group facility. Communtiy Board 10 of Central Harlem has apparently been voting against having more of such facilities open uptown and argue that there are already enough of such establishments for the disabled, former addicts or ex-convicts. To the developer, this is just another condo sale but apparently CB10 has a say in this transaction and will eventually have to prove that Harlem is overly saturated with this type housing. Read more in DNAinfo:
LINK
This is to be a group home for adults who are mentally retarded and for any one to make a case equating it with a large facility or a residence for former drug addicts or former inmates is just wrong. Group homes have a good ratio of staff to residents and are almost always an asset to the community.
ReplyDeleteThe mentally retarded need homes and should be integrated into society. They are not criminals, just sweet, helpless adults. How is it that people are okay with pets in their buildings but not with developmentally disabled persons??
ReplyDeletePlacing the mentally disabled in luxury condos sounds silly, impractical, and an inappropriate allocation of tax payer dollars. Firstly, the disabled deserve to live an environment that mitigates the many challenges they face on a daily basis, an environment that is specifically designed with them in mind. How does the purchase make sense financially for the non-profit, the condo owners, and the American tax payers? What about that specific location and/or building will specifically benefit the disabled adults they plan on placing into these two units?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with CB10 on this matter, the neighborhood has more than it’s fair share of facilities and they should be spread across other neighborhoods. It should not be hard for CB10 to prove the unfair number of existing facilities in Harlem. Also, I do not understand why they wish to setup these homes in the now expensive Harlem, it would be more cost effective to have a facility in a lower cost neighborhood and they could house more individuals. We also have to be concerned that they move in “developmentally disabled” individuals which may be a politically correct way of saying substance abusers or other antisocial behavior.
ReplyDelete@Guest. Mentally challenged, not physically disabled. Obviously the people who would be residents would not need an adaptive environment or only an easily modified one.
ReplyDeleteWestsider, I know you are not for warehousing people with disabilities but that is certainly how your post reads. My son is mentally retarded and when the time comes for him to move into a group home (which will happen never as I will live forever) I fully intend that it will be in a friendly, small setting in a neighbourhood in which he will be comfortable and safe. Not some place “cost effective”. Trust me when I tell you that “developmentally disabled” does not equate with substance abusers. Since Willowbrook families, agencies and the government carefully monitor and protect those who are retarded and vulnerable.
SM, There are many other places in America that are comfortable and safe and more affordable than Harlem and are not overrun with facilities. For the same budget they can house more individuals, which is a win win, especially for those in need. Also, my point is that the organization may initially propose housing for “developmentally disabled” while in fact they may end up housing people with additional issues. However this may all be irrelevant as Harlem clearly has more than it’s fair share of facilities which CB10 can surly demonstrate with a little effort.
ReplyDeleteMaybe CB10 could propose replacing an existing troublesome group home with this home for the “developmentally disabled”, that may help towards redressing the balance of things in Harlem.
ReplyDeleteThe representative of the nonprofit explicitly says, "The residents are men who have become too old for the foster care system, and do not have drug problems or criminal records."
ReplyDeleteWhy is my community board so embarrassing? What terrible NIMBYism.
Westsider, these individuals don't want to be housed with “more individuals’. Small group homes. Many developmentally disabled people have jobs, either volunteer or in a sheltered workshop. My boy lives in Harlem. If it is deemed that it is better for him, in future, to live in a group setting why should I have to travel to visit him? We are talking small group settings, two individuals per bedroom plus two care givers. Why should my child, or anyone’s child, have a reduced quality of living because of a condition over which he or she had no control?
ReplyDeleteMy dear, I hope in future you don’t have a disabled child or a relative with disabilities. Believe me, you will be singing a different tune.
Right now you just sound like a very mean spirited person
SM, I can’t imagine what it must be like to have a child that needs constant care and will likely outlive the parent one day and have them transition to more self sufficiency. But maybe with limited resources, it is for the greater good to have facilities for many in more affordable neighborhoods rather than facilities for a few in expensive areas.
ReplyDeleteAs for the alleged CB10 NIMBYism, I don’t think CB10 are guilty of NIMBYism. Their point is, enough already in my back yard, please, someone else’s back yard for a change.
ReplyDeleteJust an fyi, I forwarded the DNA article to two advocates with whom I work and there is strong legal precedence that over rules “saturation” issues when it comes to the disabled. YAI prevailed in a similar case in Washington Heights and was able to establish a group home.
ReplyDeleteI can forward the information to those interested.
westsider, what exactly do you HAVE in your backyard that makes you so against having a group of seven mentally challenged men in a small group setting?
ReplyDeleteAnd no, it is not better for them to be in larger facilities in less expensive neighbourhoods. (Less expensive than Harlem? Really?) Like most humans those with handicaps do far better in smaller, more intimate and supportive environments. That was Willowbrook. That was Staten Island, out of the way. Out of sight, out of mind. If that was before your time, Google it.
If I was a unit owner in that building I would be furious. I have lived next to a group home for the mentally challenged, retarded or whatever the current PC term is and believe me it is not easy.
ReplyDeleteThese were 16 to 20 year olds and some of them were pretty stable while others were not so much so. I cannot see how "integrating" them into a "luxury" building can possibly make any sense.
This is not being mean just being realistic, i mean would you want a hospital moving into your home?
Really, y’all? A little light on the ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. Y’all’s lives are so blessed that any inconvenience is out of the question, so good on you.
ReplyDelete"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me."
A good thing to remember, whether one is religious or not.
SM, my point is, with all things in life, there are limited resources to go around, why blow those resources on a few in an expensive area when those same resources could help many. Or maybe those same resources for seven men could be spent at a condo at the plaza for one individual and the other six go without, now that really would be mean spirited. I am not suggesting larger facilities either, I am suggesting similar arrangements in a more affordable neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Harlem is an affordable neighbourhood. I don’t know where you live, but 119th is hardly 72nd and Park. Secondly, money is not the issue here. Resources may be limited but they are there. Thirdly, people, especially those for whom life is difficult, should live in as pleasant and familiar a place as possible, easy to reach for family and friends so they are not isolated and located as close as possible to familiar things—churches, parks, shops. Places where they are known, comfortable and made to feel welcome, just as my boy is on our block, in local stores and the park and swimming pool.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with WestSider and CB10 (a first for me -- agreeing with CB10)! I have a developmentally disabled brother-in-law and uncle, so this is not a case of NIMBY. But it seems to me that Harlem has lots of these places already, and frankly, we don't need any more. I also feel for the people already in the building. If I had paid top dollar for a space there and then this plan came about, I would consider a law suit.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear that Harlem isn't going to be the dumping ground for the neediest anymore. I don't understand why people feel that because Harlem has a history of being a home to the impoverished, it's best to turn an up-and-coming neighborhood to those most in need. There are a gazillion churches in the area. Where is their outreach? How are they helping the impoverished and needy? I see them blocking the streets, taking in funds, but giving back to the community? Not so much! If every church in Harlem gave away 10% of their donations, Harlem would be glowing with love and support. Instead we have crime and suspicion. Harlem churches should pay taxes like the rest of us.
ReplyDelete@GUEST I completely agree. You really hit the nail on the head. All the other backs and forths( sanou) are irrelivent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Change is inevitable. As for the church comment I completely agree. I, in all my years here have hardly ever seen an outreach in our community and that is a shame! Truly if all these churches would help the cause in this neighborhood we would have been better years and years ago!
ReplyDelete@Darlene. I am unsure what the connection is between establishing a small group home for five mentally retarded young men and two attendants and your grudge against churches but I hope you feel better for venting.
ReplyDeleteAs we say on the block,‘have a blessed day’.
btw, when you say no outreach from the churches I think perhaps you are just not seeing it. While I can hardly speak for churches about which I have no knowledge I do know that the lovely church in the middle of my block has a meal programme and a clothing programme and a food pantry. The large church on Lenox and 120th has a food programme and a food pantry. My church in Chelsea has a soup kitchen that supplies 1200+ meals per day, 5 days a week. Even the small storefront church on the corner has an elderly gentleman who sits outside (weather permitting) and gives out fruit.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to take a quick inner look and ask yourself what you have done lately for your community.
Harlem is home to the needy, and many undeservedly so with the massive housing projects encouraging generational welfare. In fact you could argue much of Harlem is a welfare case. Harlem residents and tax payers have the right to say, enough already, however deserving the cases. Harlem needs tax payers and those that want to bring the neighborhood up. It is a good thing CB10 is drawing a line in the sand, unfortunately it is saying no to those through no fault of their own are “developmentally disabled” which we have seen is a touchy subject.
ReplyDeleteCB 10 is considering reversing its decision. I find the willingness of people on this thread to equate massive housing projects, methadone clinics and facilities for ex-offenders with a group home for 5 developmentally disabled (no quotes needed) young men and two caregivers baffling.
ReplyDeleteCB10 as usual, either over-reacts or does not react to what it is supposed to.
ReplyDeleteA group home consisting of 5-7 developmentally disabled men and their attendant staff does not equal a rehab center, halfway house for parolees or homeless shelter or other dreaded NIMBY neighborhood blight.
All social service outreach outlets are not the same.
I know that judging things on a case by case basis takes time and extra thought but that is what a community board is for. If the CB10 members want to be knee jerk reactionaries let them go online where at least they can't influence anything.
In this market CB10 should probably just be happy that somebody is buying into Savoy West. Half of these things look empty when I pass them.
Vic Vega
Vic—finally something you and I agree on. Who woulda thunk?
DeleteBut CB10, according to yesterday’s DNA Info (useful site, that), says that they are now considering things on a case by case situation. Perhaps hell is truly freezing over.
I just think it is difficult for people to swallow if you bought your unit, this will depress the value of the property for sure. That is unfortunate but true.
ReplyDelete^ - and all you liberals - ask yourself this and be honest - would you be happy if you spent a lot of your money (and borrowed a ton too) to buy a place and find out a group home is moving into the next unit?
ReplyDeleteoh, I’m sorry, are you saying “liberals” like it’s a bad thing?
DeleteBuying real estate as an investment is a gamble. Always has been. Always will be.
So that's it? its a gamble - you bought a condo with your life savings and they sell the last few to a group home. Ahh sorry, N to the No.
ReplyDeleteFirst I just asked a question - a legitimate question - still waiting on answers.
And Yea , I have a right to protect MY investment - so I gonna do what I can to stop what I think will hurt my property values. Harlem is in America last I checked.
well, speaking only for my evidently liberal self. . . how would I feel if I spent my life savings plus borrowed money and bought a condo and a small group home bought a unit in the same building? Frankly I don’t think I would give a rat’s one way or another. But then I would not have sunk all my money into a condo.
DeleteAnd your are right, Harlem IS America and as such we cannot and should not discriminate as to who is allowed to live where. I do believe there are laws against such things. . . you know, those pesky civil rights laws?
you’re right. Not your are. Giant pitbull and 124 cats were reminding me it was past their dinner time as I was typing. That’s my excuse and I’m stickin’ to it.
DeleteDiscrimination - not selling a condo unit to someone because they are disabled. and yes I agree that is wrong.
DeleteNOT Discrimination: Not allowing any kind of "group" home with more then 3 unrelated adults living on the premise. its actually against the zoning law.
Really? Guess that knocks out menage a tois, roomates, etc. Who knew?
DeleteSanou - I wrote 3 (three) unrelated adults.
Deleteyou can have your menage.
evan a party or two.
what you can't have is a group home in a multifamily residence.
Discriminating against the disabled in housing is alao illegal in America.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I WAS moving to 140th and Lenox the group home would be the least of my worries.