Bedford-Atlantic Armory Rally

Whatchuwant wrote: Do the organizers of this rally have any legitimate suggestions as to where the homeless intake should go? If not there, then where?

Anonymous wrote: So, whatchuwant, your questions remains unanswered. Saying "somewhere in Manhattan" is no better than saying "not in Crown Heights". Clearly, the point of this rally is about blocking something, not offering constructive alternatives.

faithful wrote: Captain Planet, you are absolutely right. Crown Heights is already oversaturated. We're not rallying to remove these places from Crown Heights, but because it doesn't make sense to move the intake center to where the homeless men population is only 16%. It should remain in Manhattan were their population is higher. It amazes me how some think that we should come up with a solution as to where the intake center should be if not Crown Heights. The answer is obvious Manhattan!! In fact, the Bedford-Atlantic Armory is currently a failure and it's not providing adequate services for men who currently utilize it. They only provide overnight shelter and during the day they are free to roam the streets. Why not train -- teach them a skill, so they can eventually get on their feet? As someone mentioned, many of these men are mentally unstable and sexual predators. If you check out www.watchdog.com and enter the armory's address at least 10 men come up who have been convicted of sexual crimes against women and children who call the armory home. If this proposal goes through those numbers will rise significantly. That would be a catastrophe for our community. If you're raising a family in Crown Heights/Bed Stuy this is a great cause for concern!!!

Whatchuwant wrote: [quote=sweet tea] i think it's inhumane for the city to act as if homeless people are just objects to be shipped from place to place, as if they don't have neighborhoods because they don't have homes. some don't, but many do.

Whatchuwant wrote: Daver- FWIW- I've driven from UES to CH in 20 minutes in the middle of the night.

Lucille wrote: But before I begin, let me say, that I have it from a very good source, i.e. someone who works in the shelter, that what will actually happen is that the number of beds will be reduced by 120 to make room for office space. As it stands now, the shelter already "warehouses" people at all hours. When it becomes an intake center, this will also be the case, but there will be fewer beds. In other words, there will be fewer people waking up there and hitting the streets in the morning than there are now.

My advice to the Crown Heights Revitalization Movement, the group sponsoring Sunday's rally, is that the group call for Bedford-Atlantic to be shut down altogether,

In FY 2007, according to the Department of Homeless Services’ “Critical Activities Reports,” each month City-contracted outreach teams placed an average of 384 homeless adults in shelters, drop-in centers, or treatment programs. In contrast, as noted above, each month this year the Bellevue intake center has had more than 2,400 walk-ins by homeless men. It is therefore impossible to see how outreach teams, with limited resources, can serve as a substitute for a centrally-located, accessible intake center.

Moreover, if the Bloomberg administration is successful in moving the homeless men’s intake center out of midtown Manhattan to the Bedford-Atlantic armory in Crown Heights, nearly nine miles away, outreach teams will be forced to waste extra time and effort transporting or assisting street homeless men from Manhattan or other boroughs. And many homeless men, particularly in Manhattan where street homelessness is concentrated, will refuse to be transported to Brooklyn and will remain on the streets.

Finally, like the “safe havens,” the City-contracted outreach teams are restricted in which homeless people they can serve. Service providers report that Department of Homeless Services contracts with outreach service providers force them primarily serve the “chronically” street homeless population – and, as noted above, City data shows that the “chronically” homeless make up less than half of the street homeless population.

The City also currently operates 11 drop-in centers for street homeless people. These centers offer social services and limited access to overnight shelter in churches and synagogues.

• Nevertheless, Mayor Bloomberg’s FY 2009 executive budget includes a cut of $16.9 million in funding for drop-in centers. The Department of Homeless Services has announced plans to close two of the 11 drop-in centers this year, one on the upper east side of Manhattan and one in downtown Brooklyn. And City officials have discussed plans eventually to close all of the drop-in centers.

• City officials have told service providers that “safe haven” shelters – which are low-demand shelters targeted to chronically street homeless adults living with mental illness – will take the place of drop-in centers. However, while drop-in centers and church and synagogues served an average of 1,316 people each night in FY 2007, the Department of Homeless Services plans to have only 500 “safe haven” beds by the end of this year, and not all street homeless people will be able to access those beds.

• All in all, the Bloomberg administration’s current plans threaten to severely diminish access to emergency shelter for homeless New Yorkers. And the Mayor’s FY 2009 budget does not include resources to significantly expand permanent supportive housing resources for street homeless adults (i.e., so-called “housing first” units) nor to expand outreach services.

Lucille wrote: Whoa. I clearly came onto this very heated thread a little late. I agree with all of the disagreeing parties on various points.
But before I begin, let me say, that I have it from a very good source, i.e. someone who works in the shelter, that what will actually happen is that the number of beds will be reduced by 120 to make room for office space. As it stands now, the shelter already "warehouses" people at all hours. When it becomes an intake center, this will also be the case, but there will be fewer beds. In other words, there will be fewer people waking up there and hitting the streets in the morning than there are now.
The fact that Crown Heights is already shouldering its fair share of social service centers is certainly cause for outcry, and I get it when I hear community members complaining about our community being expected to come up with a solution. However, some broader thinking on the issue, a la Alafairnadia and Sweet Tea, seems more productive. But maybe not more realistic.
My first thought is, do all of those homeless people (60%?) really come from Manhattan, or do they wind up there because of the shelters and the many opportunities to heartbreak tourists into sparing a dime? My second thought is along the lines of Sweet Tea's, which is that a series of intake centers all over the city makes more sense. And. of course, like Alafairnadia, jeezus, girl, that's a keyboardful, I would love to see some kind of progressive reward for people who seek shelter, maintain a job, etc. But then, I'd like to see New York City be an affordable place for janitors and school teachers.
Maybe the protesters ought to protest something other than a NIMBY issue and ask for more of everything: education, skills education, job placement, etc.
Oh, and as a far as raising a family and being concerned about the homeless shelter? I grew up in a neighborhood where it really was the little league softball coach we had to fear, not the guys looking for a free meal. Be ware of your uncle, your kid's coach, etc., before you start really thinking that your child will be molested by a homeless person. It's never the people who you have warned your children against-- the dirty, the smelly, the scary-- who will ever really get a chance to get next to them. Sorry to say, but it's usually the least likely and most trusted individual who will take advantage of a child's trust.
I dunno. I can take or leave the protest. I sort of feel like this is one of those much bigger issues that just happens to be hitting my backyard. NIMBY campaigns began as a way of stopping large corporations from compromising the lives of citizens via their bad corporate (mostly related to toxic waste) practices. Something feels funny about adopting that same vitriol and mentality when it comes to living human beings.