South of EP: The church at Rogers between Carrol and Crown is torn down. Residential on the way - Page 2 - Brooklynian

South of EP: The church at Rogers between Carrol and Crown is torn down. Residential on the way

2»

Comments

  • edited December 2016
    They had to pay some fines along the way, but that is sometimes the cost of business:   

    Now, they await their C of O, and we await ads for the apartments.
  • Scaffolding is now gone.    Interior work is roughed.

    Awaiting installation of PTACs and finish electrical.
  • If anyone knows the folks in opposition, please post contact info. I'd like to contribute to their efforts.
  • Holy eff. Why couldn't they make it all affordable for people coming out of the DHS system? It literally makes NO SENSE to have a brand new building be used for shelter and not for real apartments for real families. Fucking idiots at City Hall.
  • im guessing as they finished the bldg the developer felt they could not get the rents the sought and got a better deal from the city
  • Holy eff. Why couldn't they make it all affordable for people coming out of the DHS system? It literally makes NO SENSE to have a brand new building be used for shelter and not for real apartments for real families. Fucking idiots at City Hall.
    This building was receiving no exemptions and had no commitment to affordability with the city or state, it was also financed for market rates (right now, about the same rate if not less than what the city pays for the homeless). Big money in housing the homeless, and our neighborhood south of EP probably couldn't sustain this many high end renters, like jong said, so this is probably the developer's safest route for keeping up with the mortgage while still turning a buck. They'll probably turn back to market and boot out these families in a few years if rents and businesses south of EP ever increase to the level of the north side.


    property tax 267 rogers
  • @uglyfloorlamp
    The city pays more than market rate to house the homeless? Can you please expound -- what type of rates are we talking (ex: luxury vs not), etc.?
  • As I've stated elsewhere, the city is desperate to remain in compliance with the Right to Shelter rulings.

    ...having worked in the field, this does not surprise me a bit.

    And, this developer just scored a funding stream that is constant.   S/he will never have to seek rents from tenants or care about how much damage tenants to do to the common areas, or care whether some tenants need to be evicted because they making the building less than attractive to present and future tenants.


  • edited March 29
    BTW, those who disliked this new building out of fears that it would lead to gentrification now get to complain about the neighborhood being dumped on :)

    What was going to house 166 small families paying market rent will now house 132 (likely large) families and some space for social workers and security staff.
  • So if the developers here aren't making enough to gamble on the market and would instead get money from city, how much could developers of armory getting.  Remember they are still having to pay 2 mill a year to rent the space.  Just seems like a weird deal for this developer unless this is a really long term deal.  "A few years" of homeless tenants in a brand new condo building will no doubt have more wear and tear than the alternative or not even fully occupied.
  • edited March 29
    Um, becoming a shelter is a long term deal.   The city needs to continue to secure additional space until the population shrinks.

    Here's the growth of the shelter population since 1981, since the Right To Shelter was first established.

    ...the demand for (and funding stream to) shelter providers has been growing for 30 years.

    Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 9.54.42 PM
  • Right that's what I figured. The few years comment was mentioned above. Also what qualifies as a family?
  • DHS discusses that in terms of a few types

     Families with Children
    • Families with children younger than 18 years of age
    • Pregnant women
    • Families with a pregnant woman
    Adult Families
    • Familes that do not include children younger than 18 years of age, including adult siblings and couples
  • Well, I guess this building is going to have the big effect that @whynot's been predicting all along...though quite a different one from a whole bunch of gentrifiers with money to spend on craft beer, coffee, and tapas.
  • And hopefully whatever school is zoned for this new family shelter gets extra money from the City to help deal with the many challenges of having a large percentage of their student body coming from families that suffer from homelessness. If I was a parent at PS 161 The Crown, I'd be a little worried about the school being able to have enough support staff to support the more needy students and families.
  • The fits and starts "gentrification" of Rogers Avenue will certainly stall out from this. If I owned real estate on the avenue I'd be livid. Businesswise, Shallows Cafe couldn't last anyway. The nice folks at Marker Coffee must be losing sleep. Branch Office is doomed. Probably Food Sermon will be the only thing that survives but I'm guessing the residents won't be paying $16 for jerk chicken. 
  • Plus the landlord that just did the very nice speculative high-end renovation to the retail/food space on the corner of Montgomery and Rogers must be flipping out.
  • @jong -- Absolutely. I worry for all the new businesses on Rogers Ave. I wonder how long the City has known that it would be contracting to lease apartments from the landlord at the new building. Was it an opportunity that came up quickly, or in the works for a long time? New businesses that rightly or wrongly relied on the idea of lots of tenants with disposable dollars are screwed. 

    I say this from a stance of believing that emergency shelter is important. And that Lefferts Gardens probably needs more shelter beds, since most of the places where the homeless live in Lefferts is cluster-site housing and that is bad. I fail to see how this is not just more clustersite housing. And if the landlord is willing to house homeless families for the City, obviously the landlord is in a weak spot. And I just don't understand why the City would not exploit this weakness and drive a hard bargain requiring the landlord to, for example, have to accept Section 8 or LINC vouchers for five years or something like that for families transitioning out of DHS. 
  • We should add the upscale wine store at Rogers and Lincoln to the list of businesses that anticipated a growing customer base, but now will get a -um- different one.

    All of these businesses are going to hope the former Sea Crest sites and the former BBG building are built and filled quickly.

  • And the Bedford Union Armory
  • "And I just don't understand why the City would not exploit this weakness and drive a hard bargain requiring the landlord to, for example, have to accept Section 8 or LINC vouchers for five years or something like that for families transitioning out of DHS. "

    Rent subsidies (like those you describe) do not have court decisions which mandate they be made available.

    Shelter has such mandates.

    The city is at risk of violating them...
  • It's really tragic. And those of us who moved in the past few years, also tolerating current conditions, hoping they'd one day get better are trapped. There would be no way to sell and get out without taking a hit on your real estate investment.
  • We should be careful not to exaggerate the potential impact.

    ...many family shelters exist in NYC and you may walk by them and not even realize they are there.

    Sometimes, it takes a trained eye to see them.
  • Agree that it's a very emotional response and it may not be that obvious aesthetically but it cannot help enhance perception of the area, real estate values, investment in new businesses, for Crown Heights to be in the news daily for being "the place where they put homeless shelters."
  • Yeah, I get the impact of the Callahan decree...but isn't one of the big problems with why we have such a big homeless population: Gentrification/rising rents/stagnant wages meets lack of housing manageable for people/families/couples with minimum wage jobs? And moving people out of the shelter system quickly means that there are less people in the system? Seems like so much expense to provide temporary shelter, rather than move people into apartments they can manage to pay for. 
  • edited March 30
    jong said:
    It's really tragic. And those of us who moved in the past few years, also tolerating current conditions, hoping they'd one day get better are trapped. There would be no way to sell and get out without taking a hit on your real estate investment.
    I don't mean to invalidate you, but bemoaning being "trapped" on a real estate investment you chose and have the liberty and financial freedom to leave sounds a little insensitive compared to shelter residents likely to get shuffled around as a case number.

    If there's anyone who should complain it should be long-term stabilized renters, they stand the most risk of not only being evicted and becoming a part of this system, but they are also most likely to get "trapped" in a home as rents continue to soar and the costs of relocation within the neighborhood become increasingly unfeasible.
  • @crownheightster
    The sad part of rent vouchers for homeless people is that they cause other people to be homeless.

    The vouchers pay slightly more than the average poor person can afford, which causes landlords to give holders a preference and boot the present tenants.

    ...which end up in shelter.

    The goal is to create more housing, not play musical chairs.

    Note, getting rid of poor people seems to not be an ethical or feasible goal. Let's not try to pursue it. Migration to less expensive localities will happen slowly and "naturally"
  • @whynot...so everything is just f-ed? Everything about the whole thing seems so unfair!  I'd next recommend building more NYCHA...but I think the funding for that dried up and there is either lack of money or lack of political will to build more public housing
  • edited March 30
    It may sound cruel, but very few people can live where they want.

    We all settle for a neighborhood and "house" that is within our means.

    NYC is merely a large neighborhood and many people who want to live here (or continue to live here) won't be able to.

    Government is not going to change this reality.
  • Good point @whynot_31. I was born in Crown Heights. We lived in Park Slope for years. We really wanted to stay in Park Slope. We could not afford to buy in Park Slope. We bought in Crown Heights a few years ago.
  • Based on what I have read, I would prefer Fiji, surrounded by near naked 19 year old women.

    However, I live here, surrounded by you.

  • whynot_31 said:
    It may sound cruel, but very few people can live where they want. We all settle for a neighborhood and "house" that is within our means. NYC is merely a large neighborhood and many people who want to live here (or continue to live here) won't be able to. Government is not going to change this reality.
    Nothing about that is cruel, @whynot_31
    Those on the other end of the deal can point to the depressing realities of their plight as well. They work hard to earn and then are forced to give portions of their earnings to give others living in the country's most expensive what they themselves cannot afford. In the process, they mitigate the housing supply and make their own lives that much more expensive.  The entire cycle or process is cruel - to everyone, really.
  • I perceive myself as doing quite well in it.

    ...or perhaps despite it?
  • Protest about it tmrw at 11am in front of the building.  Let's turn this into affordable housing, not a shelter!!!!
  • Has anyone considered contacting the lawyer who got an temporary injunction to stop the Bergen street shelter? CH already has more than it's fair share of shelters and NY city law requires that shelters are fairly spreadout across neighborhoods, which was the basis for the Bergen street shelter being halted (at least temporarily).
  • Protest about it tmrw at 11am in front of the building.  Let's turn this into affordable housing, not a shelter!!!!
    Who is organizing? Mailing list?
  • I am seeing a lot of people mention the Fair Share document, but am not sure how much people understand it.

    https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/applicant-portal/fair_share_analysis_description.pdf
  • Doesn't Samaritan Village have a terrible reputation?
  • And doesn't Samaritan Village specialize in addiction treatment or rehab?
  • edited March 31
    Past financial audits have indicated some problems, but that isn't unusual for mid size nonprofits.


    A pretty weak pool of applicants responds to DHS's open ended RFP for shelter provision:
  • edited April 5
    And doesn't Samaritan Village specialize in addiction treatment or rehab?
    They operate a wide variety of programs, including shelters.




    red
  • edited April 3

    This is a human rights issue.  Where do people want these families to go? Why is the street a better place for them? People who have no address or residence have severe difficulty finding employment.  People who have no home are more likely to be victims of violence.  Turning away families who may have an opportunity to better their lives is a social and economic injustice.   

  • Talking to people on the street, there was a huge uproar when this lot was being built as market-rate housing because it would be gentrifying and puhsing long time residents out, then going to the community meeting the whole script changed and everyone was demanding that this be market rate housing because it would hurt their property values and ruin the neighborhood. 

    When push comes to shove there will be a shelter here, probably for 10+ years, but I don't see why no one can see the forest for the trees and organize to demand the supplemental community services that will serve the homeless in our over-saturated neighborhood as well as the wider community, like demanding additional after-school programs, or recreation, or health and social service centers.
  • The point isn't whether homeless people should be given housing or forced to live on the streets. I think most people agree it's better for everyone with the homeless being in shelters. The question is where those shelters should be located and it's completely unjust to have poorer neighborhoods be the only place where these shelters are being placed.

    Why aren't there shelters being put in to Brooklyn Heights/Cobble Hill etc while several are slated to go into poorer more racially diverse neighborhoods? One could say there is greater need in these neighborhoods, but that is nonsensical when homeless people by definition don't live anywhere. I assume the homeless currently living on the streets in CH would be more than happy to live in a shelter in park slope or the like. And if they object to "moving" to another neighborhood, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.
  • edited April 3
    @Rick656 You're making a presumption about where people would want to live and feel supported.  In placing homeless in shelters, the city goes by the last neighborhood of residence stated on a census.  Many of them happen to have last lived in Crown Heights.   
  • @rick656 you also assume that these people never had a home and are purely transient. It's unfortunate, but because the neighborhood here has such a low AMI and is still fairly working class, there far more people at risk of becoming homeless than on the other side or in Brooklyn Heights. 


  • doughmane said:

    @Rick656 You're making a presumption about where people would want to live and feel supported.  In placing homeless in shelters, the city goes by the last neighborhood of residence stated on a census.  Many of them happen to have last lived in Crown Heights.   

    True, but who actually gets to live where they want to live in NY? I would like to live in a penthouse overlooking Central Park (or Prospect Park), but I can't afford it so I live in CH, which for the record I love too. Shouldn't those getting free or heavily subsidized housing be asked to make the same sacrifice and perhaps not get to live in their number 1 choice neighborhood?
  • Rick656 said:
    @Rick656 You're making a presumption about where people would want to live and feel supported.  In placing homeless in shelters, the city goes by the last neighborhood of residence stated on a census.  Many of them happen to have last lived in Crown Heights.   
    True, but who actually gets to live where they want to live in NY? I would like to live in a penthouse overlooking Central Park (or Prospect Park), but I can't afford it so I live in CH.
    By this logic, you're actually advocating for further concentration of these services in lower-income neighborhoods, but instead of CH, you're talking Brownsville and East New York
  • I don't think that most of the protesters are coming from the point of view "we hate homeless people and their shelters." I think they are looking at the whole system and seeing that:
    • The neighborhood is gentrifying
    • Gentrification happens when landlords "renovate" units in old buildings and put new, richer people in the apartments
    • Gentrification also happens when developers build large, new apartment complexes on formerly underused land, new, market-rate paying people move in, and retail starts to match their preferences, making it harder for poorer people to depend on their neighborhood to provide for their needs
    • Poorer people can't stay in their apartments because they are either pushed out by the landlord or because they don't earn enough money to pay rising rent
    • Poor people get evicted and go into the shelter system because they can't afford an apartment in their neighborhood
    • Poor people get put in a shelter in their neighborhood
    • That shelter happens to be a big development building that was supposed to house market rate tenants but now houses people priced out of the neighborhood in large result of the forces that caused the new building to come into being
    I think people are understandably pissed about the optics and reality of the fact that the only people who can live in these rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods are: homeowners fro the days gone by; new, rich homeowners; new rich renters paying market prices; rent-stabilized tenants with decent landlords; and recent evictees from the neighborhood who then end up in a shelter.

  • Rick656 said:

    doughmane said:

    @Rick656 You're making a presumption about where people would want to live and feel supported.  In placing homeless in shelters, the city goes by the last neighborhood of residence stated on a census.  Many of them happen to have last lived in Crown Heights.   

    True, but who actually gets to live where they want to live in NY? I would like to live in a penthouse overlooking Central Park (or Prospect Park), but I can't afford it so I live in CH.

    By this logic, you're actually advocating for further concentration of these services in lower-income neighborhoods, but instead of CH, you're talking Brownsville and East New York

    No. My whole point is that shelters should be evenly and fairly distributed in all neighborhoods. The response to that point was that we can't do that because homeless people want to live near there last known address, which is more likely to have been in CH (not BH). My most recent comment was that, like everyone else, homeless don't get their top choice location and may have to live in what they may consider to be a less desirable location like Brooklyn Heights so that there is equitable distribution of shelters in all neighborhoods, not only in neighborhoods like CH, Brownsville, East NewYork.

  • @crownheightser - all reasonable points, but why are the people getting evicted or who can't afford increased costs in gentrifying neighborhoods ending up in shelters? Why don't they move to a neighborhood they can afford, e.g Brownsville instead of CH? When market rents went up too much in BH I moved to CH. Same thing.
  • @Rick656 -- my sense of the reason why people are moving into shelters rather than moving to cheaper neighborhoods are that rents in even cheaper neighborhoods like ENY and Brownsville and the Bronx are beyond their ability to pay. Rents in the cheaper neighborhoods have gone up a lot, too, compared to the wages of people living their or wishing to relocate there. From what I hear from people who have been evicted or are leaving voluntarily in search of cheaper rents, the rent in ENY or other neighborhoods is about the same or even higher for what they had in CH before the landlord stopped accepting Section 8 or raised the rent or de-regulated the apartment. Lower middle class people who can move to a new apartment on their own are doing it. It is the people working minimum wage jobs, or are suffering unemployment, who end up in shelter after they lose their apartment, and who don't have $2,000 or $3,000 saved up to pay for a first month/last month deposit on a new place. It's expensive to move, and requires savings. 

    I think the problem is all about a mismatch of wages, housing costs, and urban development. All the developers have a rent price in mind that is out of touch with the ability of people able to pay. If that building on Rogers was gonna be charging around $2,000/month for a 2-bedroom, you've got a building that many more people from the neighborhood can afford to live in as regular old tenants; even if it is a stretch that goes a bit beyond the recommend 30% of your income per month to spend on housing. Other developers and landlords see the projected rents on a building like that, build more too suit or start redeveloping their old buildings, and you start start outpacing what peeps can afford to pay. Then you have this vicious cycle of the new building becoming a shelter for the people evicted in the neighborhood, who were evicted partially based on the dream of high rent rolls started by that very building's presence.
  • One could argue that by opening this shelter in a residential building without community "approval" , it is doing a better job than when it puts homeless in kitchen-less and bedroom less hotel rooms.

    30 hotels are presently being used for this purpose.

    http://nypost.com/2017/04/02/these-are-the-30-posh-hotels-where-nyc-places-its-homeless/

    (Not responsible for The Post's slant)
  • DHS reportedly began notifying elected officials on Feb 15th that a shelter would be opened at this location



  • I might be able to stop by the meeting tonight to witness people scream at each other.

    I haven't appeared at one of these in a while, and my teachers told me I had an obligation to be civicly engaged.
  • The Patch author Marc Torrence has a flair for the dramatic. 

    "...they demanded to know why they hadn't been told about a project that could completely transform their neighborhood."  

  • I predict the Associated Supermarket on Nostrand will be one of the few local businesses that will benefit from this change.

    Their price point is pretty low, making the store a good fit for low income families who may be psych'd to have a kitchen in their apartment.

    A big change from where they may have last lived.

    Some of the fast food places on Empire might get a bump as well.
  • Am I interpreting the below quoted statement correctly?  The number of shelters in the CH area will be reduced by 15.

    "Slated to open in May, the city has said 267 Rogers Ave. will be one of four shelter sites operating in the area by year’s end, down from a total of 19 sites open in the beginning of 2017."

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170407/crown-heights/267-rogers-ave-public-meeting-housing-homeless-shelter


  • If the statement is correct, I assume it involves closing scatter site apartments that shelter families.

    It seems silly to focus on the number of such locations. ...focusing on the number of people/families in a given area seems a better metric.
  • @doughmane you are correct, at the initial meeting on Crown St, the city is planning on shutting down shelter sites that are essentially beyond repair and replacing them with separate facilities like this. So, sites in the area like 60 Clarkson (noted hellhole, incredibly corrupt) will be shut down and replaced with fewer but ideally higher quality shelters.
  • I am not sure if this system still exists, but there used to be 2 tiers that families would go through: Tier 1 and Tier 2.

    Tier 1 was places without kitchens (such as hotels) and congregate facilities that had an onsite institutional kitchen.

    Families then graduated from there to facilities with a private kitchen, Tier 2.

    Once a family made it to Tier 2, they usually behaved in ways that prevented them from being sent back to Tier 1.

    I wonder if that system is still in place; These apartments would clearly meet the definition of Tier 2.

    ...brand new and originally intended for market rate tenants.
  • Has there been talk of litigation like the litigation going on for the Bedford Ave site?
  • South Crown Heights does not seem to have a large home owning middle class, like those that characterize the Crown Heights North Preservation Association.

    ...as a result, it lacks the funds and skills to delay the opening.
  • They've started to furnish the third floor of the building, the apartments facing crown street. Some of the rooms have two single beds, others have bunk beds. The beds also have pillows and blankets on them. Looks like they are getting reading for a demo of what it will look like.
  • 132 homeless families living in a quickly constructed drywall building.

    When one includes the kids and the overnight staff, the site might have 425 people in it on a typical night.

    I hope their facilities staff is ready.

    I hope ear plugs are handy because this seems like a combination that would make it hard for me to sleep if I were a resident.
  • I hope they put curtains or blinds up for the homeless families. I would not expect them to be bringing big curtains with them.
  • Sheets are often used as a result.

    Discount stores in the area might get a bump. Shampoo, toilet paper, coloring books, and laundry detergent come to mind.

  • These are families that are transitioning to more permanent housing?  So in other words, they have an income and are ready to be more independent after the stint at this place is done?
  • edited May 9
    Um, these are families who are likely to have an income of some kind (service level employment, SSI or disability).

    However, they are unlikely to be able to leave the shelter system without Linc or CityFEPS.


    They are unlikely to posses the skills required to get a job that provides an income sufficient to pay post-2010 NYC rents. 
  • News crew was there last night to do a view of the place. I don't know the station, but talked briefly to the anchor man.
  • Ch11 did a story on a local block association that is trying to get an injunction against it opening.

    http://pix11.com/2017/05/09/block-association-members-in-crown-heights-fight-against-homeless-shelter-opening/
  • Saw some blinds going up today. Yay. Does anyone know what is happening to the 20% of tenants who will be leaseholders via the affordable housing lottery process? When do they move in?
  • They hope to have the building fully occupied within weeks. ...that is in sharp contrast to the months it takes to fully lease up a market rate building. Not a bad revenue stream if you ask me.
  • whynot_31 said:
    They hope to have the building fully occupied within weeks. ...that is in sharp contrast to the months it takes to fully lease up a market rate building. Not a bad revenue stream if you ask me.
    Plus, the government is a reliable renter that isnt incentivized to negotiate or pick up and leave any time soon like a market rate renter is. A government contract like this is a great gift to pass down to the kids. It's consistent and stable gift that keeps on giving without much proactivity from the owner.
  • It sounds as if the 10 families that have already moved in will have the opportunity for some restful sleep for a while. ...until the court allows the rest of the units to fill.
  • There are for sure tenants now. The blinds show obvious signs of being pulled up and down. Mostly down. Very quiet.
  • I can't say I care which borough they are from. People move here from all over the world. Some by choice, others by not much choice...
  • edited May 17
    Because part of the city's justification for the disproportionate number of beds in CH is that they are trying to keep the homeless in the areas they are from...
  • http://pix11.com/2017/05/16/crown-heights-homeless-shelter-opens-amidst-controversy/ So...one of the first new residents is now even from Brooklyn...
    To be honest, I have a hard time reading the quotes because of the new residents' anger at not being given everything to their liking. I understand they're human and have both emotional needs and reactions, but I resent the ungrateful attitude that's apparent in that article. I give a lot in taxes so they can have a bed to sleep in. I work hard so I can live in NYC, forget in my number 1, number 2 or even number 10 neighborhood. I truly have a hard time wrapping my head around the entitlement portrayed in the article by people who are being given housing (in a fairly expensive neighborhood) for free. Thoughts?
  • edited May 17
    I have a hard time thinking of this housing as being given away. ...that makes it sound as if the city is acting out of altruism, when in reality they are trying to stay in compliance with court orders that mandate sufficient numbers of shelter beds be available. BTW, the NYT published a pretty good overview of the situation today: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/nyregion/homeless-shelters-new-york-mayor.html?smid=tw-share
  • It infuriates me that the City's lipservice to housing people from the community, in the community, does not pan out to at least 1 out of 10 recently sheltered families. Also, I did not see the quotes as being ungrateful; I thought people sounded confused, "why am I being sent to Brooklyn?" and disgusted with the shelter system. And if services are supposed to be provided -- and we are ALL paying for those services -- I'm upset that they are not there for the families!
  • The "quality of services" you describe are not available in a system as overwhelmed as DHS's. In February, I read that the system had less than 300 beds available on many nights. ....out of 60,000. As a result, they are not able to house people in the same neighborhood they started in. They are barely able to remain in compliance with the Right To Shelter consent decrees: Callahan. McCain.
  • edited May 18
    The 10 families get the whole building to themselves until at least June 2nd. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170518/crown-heights/judge-order-homeless-shelter-rogers-avenue
  • I think of the children in these families and the kind of impact homelessness has on their lives and their performance in school. When basic needs go unmet, the importance of something like homework or studying for a test wanes. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/nyregion/homeless-students-in-new-york-city.html
  • de Blasio carried Crown Heights pretty solidly in the last election. He's up again soon, wonder how his housing strategy will effect the results. Also, what happens to his plan if he's a one-term Mayor? Seems plausible to me that the idea of opening new shelters across the whole city will never be realized.
  • Perhaps we'll get a Republican mayor, who will deport all of the homeless to internment camps in Idaho (build a wall!)
  • edited May 21
    Let's not forget the value of theater. If DeBlasio can show the court that the city is making every effort to remain in compliance with the consent degrees, the Coalition For the Homeless may have a tougher time arguing that the city is in violation. ...and the press may have a harder time depicting him as a Mayor who gets very little done. I perceive those as being the primary motivators because I agree with this article in that his job is not at risk: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20170521/BLOGS01/170519860
Sign In or Register to comment.